Recent Policy Letters

May 13, 2026 The Honorable Jason SmithChairmanHouse Committee on Ways and MeansWashington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Richard NealRanking MemberHouse Committee on Ways and MeansWashington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of the undersigned sportsmen’s organizations, professional societies, and conservation groups representing millions of anglers, hunters, outdoor recreationists, and businesses across the United States, we respectfully urge the Committee to take up and advance H.R. 1494, the Sporting Goods Excise Tax Modernization Act. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program is arguably the most successful conservation funding system in the country. Supported primarily through the federal excise tax on sportfishing, archery, and firearms equipment, the program provides critical, dedicated funding to state fish and wildlife agencies for species conservation, habitat restoration, research, and public access. These funds are the backbone of state-led conservation efforts and support the long-term sustainability of fish and wildlife resources nationwide. Today, this system is being undermined by a gap in how the excise tax is applied in a rapidly evolving global marketplace. Under current law, the excise tax is collected at the first point of sale, which historically occurs at the manufacturer or importer level. In transactions involving foreign manufacturers selling directly to U.S. consumers through online marketplace facilitators, that first point of sale effectively becomes the individual consumer. These consumers are unaware of the tax and have no practical mechanism to calculate, report, or remit it. The system was not designed for this type of transaction, and as a result, the tax goes uncollected. This creates a competitive disadvantage for domestic manufacturers and compliant importers that meet their obligations, while reducing funding available for conservation. Estimates indicate that more than $17 million in annual revenue is currently going uncollected, with losses expected to increase as these sales continue to grow. The Sporting Goods Excise Tax Modernization Act, led by Reps. Jimmy Panetta and Blake Moore, provides a practical and targeted solution by requiring online marketplace facilitators to collect and remit the excise tax on applicable sales. This approach ensures consistent treatment across sellers and restores the integrity of the funding system. It also aligns with the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation in its report, “Action Needed to Improve Compliance for Sport Fishing and Archery Imports” (GAO-24-106569), which identified the need for improved collection mechanisms in this area. Addressing this issue will protect a proven conservation funding model, ensure fair competition, and provide certainty for industry, while supporting American jobs and upholding the deeply rooted hunting and fishing traditions that define our nation’s outdoor heritage. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Archery Trade Association Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Boone & Crockett Club Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

April 27, 2026  Representative Hal RogersChairSubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515  Representative Grace MengRanking MemberSubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesCommittee on Appropriations United States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515   Dear Chair Rogers and Ranking Member Meng,  AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best available science in policy-making. We respectfully submit the following testimony for the Fiscal Year 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.   NOAA Fisheries   We urge you to maintain appropriate funding and staffing to ensure that NOAA’s Fisheries is able to sustainably manage our nation’s fisheries. The very foundation of natural-resources conservation in this country rests on science to inform decisions and is supported by a strong workforce of professionals to ensure sustainable use and enjoyment for all citizens. Our continued system of federal investment in natural resource conservation returns enormous dividends for the country and the world and is an economic engine for our national, state and local economies. The threatened 40% budget cut and attempts to reduce the workforce will cripple the agency and erode the knowledge, skills and experience needed to manage our nation’s fisheries.  The U.S. system ranks among the most successful in the world at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. Our precautionary management system must take into account changes in the ocean environment, including warming and acidification, that are altering ecosystems, changing stock productivities, and causing widespread shifts in the distribution of many exploited species. We must continue to research changing ocean conditions and shifting species distributions and population dynamics in the face of these changes. We must also continue to support healthy habitats and associated ecosystems.  Failure to do so will put future fish stocks at risk, threaten the livelihoods of the next generation of fishermen and women, and put our coastal economies at great risk.  AFS supports robust funding for NOAA Fisheries and we recommend the following funding levels for a number of programs within the service.  Fisheries Science and Management  Conducting stock assessments, development of annual catch limits, monitoring fisheries abundance and catch are all essential components of sustainable fisheries.  Management is data driven. Federal fisheries-independent surveys deployed throughout the year across territorial waters, biological sampling, and environmental monitoring provide the data necessary to assess population trends and establish sustainable fishing quotas. A lack of funding to maintain NOAA vessels, sampling gear, and staff has caused survey cancellations and a loss of coverage in recent years. Missing data means that old data must be used to inform new catch limits. This does not serve the best interests of industry and instead works against them. To maximize quotas, current and comprehensive data collection must occur. Further, population models built by stock assessors provide the science on which independent Fisheries Councils rely to make management decisions for their stakeholders. Federal worker capacity and funding for stock assessment have been stretched too thin for decades, meaning core functions at NMFS cannot occur or have been severely hampered. Deadlines to open fisheries have been missed, opportunities for industry input have been cancelled, and models have not been updated with new knowledge because the Divisions involved in stock assessment and monitoring are staff and funding deficient. Sufficient funding for fisheries science and management are essential to sustainable fisheries management.    AFS recommends no less than FY26 funding levels for Fisheries Science and Management.  Habitat Conservation and Restoration  Healthy and sustainable fisheries require healthy habitats and associated ecosystems. Yet, some of our most productive estuaries and coasts are compromised by threats such as contamination, habitat loss and alteration including loss of aquatic connectivity, and invasive species. The Habitat Conservation and Restoration program provides non-regulatory, on-the-ground restoration projects that are vitally important for the survival and recovery of fish and wildlife. AFS supports $60 million in FY27 for Habitat Conservation and Restoration.   Aquaculture   AFS supports responsible and sustainable development of open ocean aquaculture in U.S. federal waters as a mechanism to reduce pressure on wild capture fisheries and as a climate-friendly form of protein production to meet the projected increases in demand for protein world-wide.   The Aquaculture Program coordinates across agencies towards a comprehensive regulatory foundation for open ocean aquaculture. We support the important siting analysis for future Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in federal waters, interagency coordination on National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), development of science-based tools and modeling, and associated economic development programs to support expansion of aquaculture into the Exclusive Economic Zone.  AFS supports $20 million for the Office of Aquaculture for Fiscal Year 2027. In addition, AFS supports $5 million for the Cooperative Institute Fostering Aquaculture Research and Marketing (CIFARM) in FY27.  Finally, AFS fully supports the work of the National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science for its role in the development of the AOAs and the coastal planning tools it offers to assist managers, planners, and industry with sustainable aquaculture development and request sufficient funding for this work to continue.   National Sea Grant College Program and Sea Grant Aquaculture Program  The Sea Grant program is a federally funded network of 34 state- or territory-​based programs that fund research and perform education and outreach work on coastal environmental and natural resource issues. Individual Sea Grant programs set research priorities based on local needs, often focusing on actionable science.   AFS supports this program due to its importance in addressing aquatic invasive species, aquaculture, and fisheries. The Sea Grant program has proven to be a cost-effective vehicle for leveraging local expertise and federal funds to address both theoretical and applied research in service of the public good.  AFS supports level funding of $80,000,000 for the National Sea Grant program and $18,000,000, for Sea Grant Aquaculture program, an increase to support developing sustainable marine aquaculture. We believe this program makes critical progress in advancing open ocean aquaculture in the U.S.   The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund provides funding to the states and tribes of the Pacific Coast region to implement projects that restore and protect salmon and steelhead populations and their habitats. AFS categorically rejects the elimination of funding for the program and supports $65 million in

April 24, 2026  The Honorable Mike SimpsonChairSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515   The Honorable Chellie PingreeRanking MemberSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515  Dear Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree:  Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2027 for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Founded in 1870, The American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals.  AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation, management, and restoration of our country’s important fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Fish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners, and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within this program, the National Fish Hatchery System serves an important role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation aquaculture. Any funding cuts to this program will result in additional deferred maintenance at federal hatcheries and puts them at risk of catastrophic failure. Likewise, the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership conducts essential research on new fish medications that are seeking FDA approval. This program allows fisheries professionals to more effectively and efficiently rear and manage a variety of fish species to meet production goals, stock healthy fish, and maintain a healthy environment.  FAC also conducts important work to control and prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. Through on-the-ground control projects, early detection surveillance and monitoring, and technical support, FAC works to effectively address a primary threat to freshwater fish. Finally, the Fish Passage Program works to address the millions of aging, obsolete, or poorly designed dams, roads, and levees that block fish from accessing food, shelter, and habitat to spawn. These projects address one of the primary drivers of declining fish populations while improving water quality and reducing flood risk for communities. FAC has played an essential coordination role in ensuring effective implementation of the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding for fish passage across the federal family. AFS requests $259.8 million for FAC for FY27.  The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the nation’s only program that encourages development and implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans and provides funding for state-led science-based, on-the-ground conservation of imperiled species. Today, at least 12,000 species of fish, wildlife and plants have been identified as at-risk of needing protections of the Endangered Species Act. STWG funds support strong partnerships among federal, state, tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to work together to keep common species healthy and prevent imperiled species from sliding towards extinction. The program was funded at $90 million in FY2010, the highest level to date. This figure is far below the identified need of $1.2 billion needed annually to address the full scope of the problem.  AFS recommends the highest funding possible for the STWG Program in FY27, and no less than $73.812 million.  The National Fish Habitat Partnership is a science-based, state-led initiative to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic ecosystems across the United States. It was founded in 2006 and promotes and unites a network of 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across federal and state agencies and conservation groups.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides both funding and technical assistance to the 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across the country to aid in implementing aquatic conservation projects nationwide. These partnerships leverage federal, state, tribal, and private resources to achieve the greatest impacts for conservation. AFS supports $7.6 million for the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) program in FY27, which includes funding for 20 fish habitat partnerships.  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Ecosystems Mission Area  The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving challenges posed by climate change to regional fish and wildlife, ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program’s ability to swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement of tribal communities in project design and resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY27, AFS recommends no less than $69.3 million.  The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program plays a significant role in advancing applied scientific understanding and conservation efforts for addressing current real-world fish and wildlife management challenges across the United States. CRUs are dynamic hubs for collaborative research that prioritize the needs of state fish and wildlife agencies and play a central role in training the next generation of conservation professionals. State fish and wildlife agencies rely on the CRU program to conduct critical research that is used to support state fish and wildlife agency decision making and is relevant across jurisdictions (e.g. research on chronic wasting disease, monarchs, and wildlife corridors). The program’s value is clear, as evidenced by its continuous growth from its inception in 1935 to its statutory recognition by Congress in 1960, to the present day where 43 units are located across 41 states. Further budgetary or staffing impacts to the CRU program will directly diminish the research capacity of state fish and wildlife agency and university partners while reducing educational opportunities for students across the nation. AFS recommends a minimum of $28.296M for FY 2027. This level of funding would allow the CRU program to maintain its current functions but would not allow for additional staff or research capacity.   U.S. Forest Service (USFS)  The Forest Service manages a vast network of streams, rivers, ponds and lakes that supply drinking water for millions of Americans and support vital habitat for native fish and other aquatic organisms, including habitat for more than 140 threatened and endangered aquatic and amphibian species. A large transportation and trails infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types of stream crossing features crosses these waters. The Legacy Roads and Trails program is specifically designed to identify, target, and fix or decommission road and trail problems before they get exponentially worse. By replacing and

A similar letter was sent to Lisa Murkowski, Chair, and Jeff Merkley, Ranking Member, of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. March 20, 2026 The Honorable Michael Simpson ChairAppropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies2007 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Chellie Pingree Ranking MemberAppropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies1036 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree, On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations respectfully ask that you consider providing robust funding for programs that invest in America’s waters and wildlife in the Fiscal Year 2027 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations. We thank the Subcommittee for your long standing support for critical conservation programs. We urge you to build on these investments once again by prioritizing funding for federal clean water programs that are critical to help states, Tribes, and communities meet local water quality needs, restore and protect wetlands habitat vital to fish and wildlife across the country, and ensure continued access to outdoor traditions. Wetlands offer numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation, ranging from hunting and fishing to observing wildlife. Wetlands also provide broad public benefits, including erosion control, flood control, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement, and minimization of certain wildfire impacts. They absorb vast quantities of water during heavy rains or storms – one acre of wetlands can store up to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater which can reduce downstream impacts to critical infrastructure and promote resilience to drought. Wetlands conservation supports economic development via hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation opportunities and significantly reduces socio-economic burdens on taxpayers and communities associated with natural disasters. As such, our organizations respectfully request that the subcommittee support increases to several essential programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency that provide important support for states, Tribes, and localities to protect our nation’s waters, including: Wetland Program Development Grants Program. We recommend that Congress provide at least $20 million for the EPA’s Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) Program. This program provides critical funding to state, Tribal, local, and interstate agencies to develop and refine comprehensive wetland programs, including voluntary wetland conservation and restoration efforts. WPDGs provide critical resources to enhance the capacity of states, Tribes, and local governments to manage wetlands and streams within in their jurisdiction, while also providing financial support for activities such as wetland mapping and monitoring, which can aid in guiding the siting and development of critical infrastructure and other construction projects to avoid costs associated with natural disasters such as flooding. The program provides a necessary complement to other federal wetland conservation and restoration grants, such as the North America Wetland Conservation Act, which invests in wetland protection and restoration for species habitat. WPDGs work in tandem with these programs by offering funding to develop comprehensive wetland management programs for a broad suite of wetland types and benefits, not just for those that focus on species and habitat protection. EPA Section 319 Grants. We recommend that Congress provide $200 million for EPA’s Section 319 grant program. The Section 319 program is the primary federal program with a nationwide reach and a mission of cleaning up water supplies impaired by nonpoint source pollution. Through the program, the EPA provides financial and technical resources to state and local agencies, which in turn direct these resources to improve water bodies listed as impaired through a suite of voluntary practices. The nonpoint source program has successfully restored thousands of miles of formerly impaired streams and over a hundred thousand acres of formerly impaired lakes. EPA Section 106 Grants Program. We also urge Congress to increase funding for state water quality management programs by increasing funding to $500 million for EPA’s Section 106 program. Strong funding for this program will help ensure that states can develop and operate their water quality standards, conduct water quality monitoring, implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting and enforcement, and protect source water and groundwater, thereby safeguarding the health of our nation’s waters. Given that recent federal policy changes have placed a greater responsibility for wetland and aquatic resource protection on states and Tribes, we anticipate a significant increase in need for federal funding for programs that support state and Tribal wetlands and water quality programs. Your support for these programs is critical for safeguarding our nation’s wetlands and quality outdoor recreation opportunities for future generations of hunters, anglers, and conservationists, all while supporting thousands of federally-funded jobs in state agencies that enforce the Clean Water Act. Thank you for considering the above recommendations and we look forward to working with you as the appropriations process moves forward. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Izaak Walton League of America National Wildlife Federation  

March 16, 2026 The Honorable Lisa MurkowskiChairSenate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies SubcommitteeS-125, The CapitolWashington, DC 20510 The Honorable Mike SimpsonChairHouse Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee2007 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 The Honorable Jeff MerkleyRanking MemberSenate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies SubcommitteeS-125, The CapitolWashington, DC 20510 The Honorable Chellie PingreeRanking MemberHouse Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee1036 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member Pingree, On behalf of the undersigned sportfishing and conservation organizations, representing millions of anglers, boaters and recreational fishing and boating businesses across the Great Lakes region and nationwide, we write to express our strong support for a $500 million appropriation in Fiscal Year 2027 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Since 2010, GLRI has been the cornerstone federal program restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. GLRI has funded thousands of projects improving fisheries, restoring fish habitat and enhancing water quality across the region, supporting the Great Lakes’ $5.1 billion recreational fishery and tens of thousands of jobs. Robust appropriations are needed to sustain GLRI’s essential restoration work, and to continue mitigating the impacts of aquatic invasive species, harmful algal blooms and habitat degradation. From sea lamprey to quagga mussels, aquatic invasive species (AIS) have severely impacted fisheries across the Great Lakes, in turn affecting the region’s recreational fishing economy. GLRI-funded projects have facilitated the recovery of key gamefish stocks, including lake trout, walleye and steelhead. For example, the highly successful Great Lakes Sea Lamprey Control Program has reduced populations of these invasive species by 90-95% from their peak. Habitat loss and fragmentation have also degraded many Great Lakes fisheries, limiting spawning and nursery habitat for key gamefish. Through partnerships with states, tribes, and local conservation organizations, GLRI-funded habitat restoration projects have restored wetlands, rehabilitated coastal habitats, and reconnected rivers by removing obsolete dams and improving fish passage. These efforts have reopened almost 9,000 miles of tributaries and improved critical spawning habitat for species such as salmon, steelhead, walleye, and smallmouth bass. Continued support for GLRI habitat restoration will help rebuild resilient fisheries, expand angling opportunities, and sustain the recreational fishing economy that depends on healthy aquatic ecosystems. For over 15 years, investments made through the GLRI have restored fish habitat, managed invasive species and created new angling opportunities across the region. A $500 million appropriation in FY27 will ensure these waters – and the fisheries and small businesses that depend on them – remain productive for generations to come. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation National Marine Manufacturers Association Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership  

March 16, 2026   The Honorable Lisa MurkowskiChairSenate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies SubcommitteeS-125, The CapitolWashington, DC 20510 The Honorable Mike SimpsonChairHouse Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee2007 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515   The Honorable Jeff MerkleyRanking MemberSenate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies SubcommitteeS-125, The CapitolWashington, DC 20510 The Honorable Chellie PingreeRanking MemberHouse Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee1036 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515   Dear Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member Pingree, On behalf of the undersigned recreational fishing and boating organizations, representing millions of anglers, boaters, and businesses across the Chesapeake Bay watershed and nationwide, we write to express our strong support for a $96 million appropriation in Fiscal Year 2027 for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program. Healthy fisheries and clean water are vital to the Chesapeake Bay’s recreational fishing and boating economy. The Bay and its tributaries support world-class fisheries for species such as striped bass, bluefish, red drum, and largemouth bass, drawing anglers from across the region and supporting guides, marinas, tackle retailers, boat manufacturers, and many other small businesses. Continued investment in the Chesapeake Bay Program will help restore critical habitats, improve water quality, and ensure that these fisheries remain productive for future generations. Established under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, the Chesapeake Bay Program serves as the cornerstone federal partnership supporting restoration of the nation’s largest estuary. Through the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, the program coordinates science, monitoring, and restoration efforts across the watershed while providing technical assistance and grants to states, local governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations working to improve water quality and living resources in the Bay ecosystem. Sustained federal investment is essential to maintaining this partnership and ensuring continued progress toward restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Funding through the Chesapeake Bay Program supports the science, modeling, monitoring, and data collection needed to guide restoration efforts across the watershed. This coordinated scientific framework allows states to plan, track, and adapt their strategies to reduce pollution and restore habitats throughout the Bay system. More than 60 percent of program funds flow directly to the states through grant programs that support on-the-ground restoration projects and leverage additional public and private investment in Bay restoration. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated strong bipartisan support for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The program was reauthorized in the America’s Conservation Enhancement (ACE) Act in 2020 and again in 2025 through the ACE Reauthorization Act, extending authorization through Fiscal Year 2030. Providing $96 million in FY27 will allow the program to continue coordinating restoration activities across the watershed, support improved monitoring and scientific capacity, and help states implement the strategies needed to meet the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Thank you for your leadership and consideration of this request to support the Chesapeake Bay Program and the fisheries, communities, and businesses that depend on a healthy Chesapeake Bay. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation National Marine Manufacturers Association Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership  

March 11, 2026 The Honorable Ted CruzChairCommittee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510 The Honorable Maria CantwellRanking MemberCommittee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510   The Honorable Bruce WestermanChairCommittee on Natural ResourcesUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 The Honorable Jared HuffmanRanking MemberCommittee on Natural ResourcesUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Re: Marine Aquaculture Research for America Act (S. 2586/H.R. 5746) Dear Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, Chairman Westerman, and Ranking Member Huffman: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society, I’m writing in support of the Marine Aquaculture Research for America Act of 2025 (S.2586/H.R. 5746) and urge you to advance this important legislation that would provide for the responsible expansion of open ocean aquaculture in U.S. federal waters. Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries and aquatic biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. At its core, AFS is a science organization.  The society hosts scientific conferences and publishes five peer-reviewed journals, along with a monthly magazine and a robust books program. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of the best-available science in policymaking. The demand for fish is expected to grow significantly in the next decade.  However, it is unlikely that wild capture fisheries can sustainably accommodate increased harvest pressure to meet this demand. Expanding domestic seafood supplies through aquaculture in the open ocean can address America’s ongoing dependence on imported seafood, improve seafood security, relieve local pressures on wild stocks, and boost investments in waterfront communities. As one of the most climate-friendly forms of protein production, aquaculture can also reduce the carbon footprint of our food systems as protein demand increases. In 2020, AFS adopted a position in support of the expansion of U.S. aquaculture. In that statement, AFS called for “a clear, predictable, regulatory framework that will enable industry growth in a conscientious, environmentally sustainable manner.” AFS further called for “continued, consistent investments in research to understand effects of aquaculture development on fisheries and aquatic resources, and innovation to minimize negative environmental and social impacts of fish cultivation.” The statement further provided, “By establishing a clear and predictable legal and regulatory structure for marine aquaculture in the U.S., we can reduce the overreliance on seafood imports and improve seafood security with wholesome, domestically farmed seafood that minimizes the environmental and social footprint of the industry on our marine habitat and resources.”  For many years, AFS has worked to dispel false and outdated scientific information around the environmental impacts of open ocean aquaculture.  With the significant advances in fish farming technology and use of best management practices, the environmental footprint of fish farming has been significantly reduced.  We urge you to consider the latest science, including the use of sophisticated modeling tools to site farms where there are minimal environmental impacts and user conflicts, advances in feed formulation to reduce wild fish inputs, vaccines and probiotics to support fish health, and cameras and sensors to closely monitor feeding to reduce water quality impacts. The assessment program provided for in the MARA Act will allow NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture to study the environmental impacts of commercial-scale aquaculture farms in U.S. federal waters. The data from these farms will allow for the evaluation of environmental impacts, if any, and will provide robust data for NOAA to then develop a set of regulatory standards to guide the future expansion of open ocean aquaculture in the U.S.  Importantly, the bill maintains existing environmental safeguards and incorporates best practices that AFS has long supported as a means to achieve responsible aquaculture expansion. The MARA Act fully aligns with AFS’ goals for the expansion of U.S. aquaculture. We urge you to advance this important legislation. Sincerely, Jeff KopaskaExecutive Director

February 3, 2026 The Honorable Susan Collins                                                   The Honorable Patty MurrayChair                                                                                         Ranking MemberSenate Appropriations Committee                                           Senate Appropriations CommitteeWashington, DC 20510                                                             Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Tom Cole                                                          The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauroChair                                                                                          Ranking Member        House Appropriations Committee                                             House Appropriations CommitteeWashington, DC 20515                                                              Washington, DC 20515   Dear Chair Collins, Ranking Member Murray, Chair Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro, We, the undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters, anglers, fish and wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write to share our appreciation for your continued bipartisan and bicameral Congressional support for the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program as exhibited through the generous allocations of financial support by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for FY26. Providing funding at or even above FY24/25 enacted levels ensures the important applied research conducted in collaboration with state fish and wildlife agencies can continue. Our organizations and members strongly support the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area and the many CRUs administered by the agency that advance our understanding of conservation science and natural resource management. The USGS CRUs are a partnership between the USGS, a university, State agencies, Wildlife Management Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Established in 1935 and codified by Congress in 1960, CRUs provide added capacity to state wildlife agencies to conduct research and advance state-of-the art conservation science and technical assistance for game and nongame wildlife species. Currently there are 43 CRUs across 41 states at 44 universities. CRUs are a win-win, providing additional support for State agencies, advancing our understanding of the natural world, delivering science-based solutions for balancing human impacts and managing wildlife populations and their habitats, and fostering careers for aspiring scientists and natural resource managers.   CRUs support jobs in every region of the United States. The unique partnership structure leverages taxpayer dollars alongside university resources, supporting over 1000 jobs in rural and urban communities. Additionally, CRUs support career development and provide critical hands-on training for the next generation of conservation science leaders. Alumni of the CRU program go on to work at state and federal resource management agencies among other professions. Indeed, real economic benefits and career opportunities for local communities in rural and urban areas across the United States arise from the CRU program. CRUs advance science that addresses our greatest challenges. Research conducted by CRUs supports addressing invasive species in waterways like the Chesapeake Bay, sustainably managing fish and wildlife populations, combating wildlife disease, and increasing our understanding of when wildlife populations warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. CRU science also supports a greater understanding of ecosystem management for resilient coastal and rural communities. Projects funded and facilitated by CRUs inform better resource management decisions and ensure wildlife and local communities thrive, all of which contributes to an outdoor recreation and conservation economy that provides millions of jobs and tax revenues nationwide. Given the key role that CRUs play in supporting healthy wildlife populations, providing career development opportunities, and enriching local economies, we are concerned by delays in releasing funds appropriated for these purposes. These delays have left CRU stakeholders unpaid for completed work and threaten the jobs and scientific capacity that CRUs support across the country. We appreciate your support as appropriators for USGS CRUs, and request your assistance in making inquiries to USGS, the Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget as to what is causing delays in allocating appropriated funds and how they can be resolved. Additionally, we are concerned that ongoing hiring freezes jeopardize the already minimal staffing at the units that could leave certain units without staff given the increased vacancies due to Reductions in Force efforts, retirements and departures, even if the funding issue is resolved. Thank you again for your support, and for your assistance with this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact us.   Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies National Wildlife Federation Society for Conservation Biology North America The Wildlife Society, Inc.

January 20, 2026 Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned hunting and fishing conservation organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members and supporters, we write to share our concern regarding H.J. Res. 140, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution which would revoke critical protections for the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a world-class fishing and hunting destination averaging over 150,000 visitors annually, and overturn existing precedent for the management of our nation’s public lands. The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917, the 20-year mineral withdrawal placed in 2023, banning sulfide-ore copper mining on over 225,000 acres of federal public lands in the Rainy River Watershed of Northeast Minnesota. This mineral withdrawal was based on the U.S. Forest Service’s comprehensive Environmental Assessment, which concluded that sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters would cause irreversible harm to this sensitive ecosystem. The Forest Service’s 2022 analysis included 675,000 public comments, over 95% of which favored protecting the withdrawal area from non-ferrous mining. At nearly 1.1 million acres, the Boundary Waters spreads across the northeastern tip of Minnesota, containing over 1,100 lakes, 2,000 designated campsites, hundreds of miles of rivers and streams, and the largest contiguous areas of uncut forest remaining in the eastern United States. The three-million-acre Superior National Forest, which includes the Boundary Waters, contains 20 percent of all the fresh water in the entire National Forest System. The Boundary Waters offers unparalleled opportunities for fishing, hunting, camping, and paddling. It’s a haven for hunters and anglers who come to the region to pursue walleye, smallmouth bass, northern pike, whitetail deer, grouse, black bear, and one of the largest self-sustaining populations of native lake trout in America. The potential loss of these unique recreational opportunities is a stark reminder of the stakes involved in protecting this irreplaceable natural resource. H.J. Res. 140 would overturn the 20-year mineral withdrawal, which complied fully with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), including extensive public review and comment. Mineral withdrawals have never been considered “rules” eligible to be overturned by the CRA, which is why Public Land Orders such as this have never been submitted to Congress. This CRA resolution is an entirely unprecedented maneuver that ignores the foundation of our public lands management system and threatens not only the future of the Boundary Waters, but how all federal public lands are managed going forward. Attempting to revoke this mineralwithdrawal through this unprecedented manner completely sidelines the environmental analysis and public process required under FLPMA to amend or rescind mineral withdrawals. Further, the CRA is a blunt legislative tool that has historically been used only in rare instances. In the first twenty years after enactment, the CRA was used to overturn a federal rulemaking only once. Again, public land orders have historically not been submitted to Congress under the CRA – setting this precedent could open the door for overturning any public land order since 1996. Further, this would open the door for Twin Metals MN, a subsidiary of the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, to permit the Twin Metals MN copper-nickel mine less than a mile upstream from the Boundary Waters. More importantly, Antofagasta plans to ship its metal concentrates from the Twin Metals project to China for processing and sale, and already has contracts in place with Chinese smelters. This mine will not directly supply critical minerals domestically, as the minerals will be funneled to a strategic adversary of the United States.Notably, the Boundary Waters withdrawal area includes only four out of eighteen known mineral deposits in the Duluth Complex, the mineral rich formation found in northern Minnesota. Neither does the withdrawal affect other mineral deposits in the region, such as the Tamarack Intrusion, where the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla committed to purchasing 75,000 metric tonnes of nickel from Talon Metals’s Tamarack Nickel Project. Furthermore, recent research from the Colorado School of Mines, By-product recovery from US metal mines could reduce import reliance for critical minerals, concluded that 90% recovery of these minerals/metals as by-products at active U.S. mines now could meet nearly all our critical mineral needs as a nation. In other words, we don’t need to put the Boundary Waters at risk to meet domestic critical mineral demands. Overturning the Boundary Waters watershed mineral withdrawal jeopardizes not only the environment but also the regional economy. The outdoor recreation economy in northeastern Minnesota supports over 17,000 jobs and contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Studies consistently show that protecting the Boundary Waters yields stronger, more sustainable economic benefits than short-term, toxic sulfide-ore copper mining. As hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts who rely on places like the Boundary Waters, we find this legislation troubling. Removing existing safeguards by passing H.J. Res. 140 would ignore the voices of the overwhelming majority of the American sporting community, prioritize the profits of a foreign mining company, and set a dangerous precedent for similar protections across the country. We respectfully request that you uphold protections for the Boundary Waters that ensure generations of incredible hunting, fishing, and paddling opportunities. Our sporting heritage and the outdoor economy of Northeast Minnesota rely on an intact and water-rich backcountry habitat that millions of Americans have visited. Please oppose H.J. Res 140 and any similar actions taken in the Senate. Sincerely, American Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationAngler Action FoundationBackcountry Hunters & AnglersBass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.)Fly Fishers InternationalIzaak Walton League of AmericaMinnesota Trout UnlimitedMinnesota Wildlife FederationNational Deer AssociationNational Wildlife FederationNorth American Falconers AssociationNorth American Grouse PartnershipPheasants ForeverQuail ForeverSportsmen for the Boundary WatersTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipTrout UnlimitedWhitetails UnlimitedWildlife Management Institute

December 22, 2025 Public Comments ProcessingU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W5275 Leesburg PikeFalls Church, VA 22041-3803 Via Regulations.gov Re: Docket Numbers: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and Threatened Species; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, and Designating Critical Habitat; Docket Numbers:, FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039; NMFS-251105-0168; FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044; NMFS-251105-0167; FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029; and FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048 Dear Sir or Madam: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the proposed rule, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and Threatened Species; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, and Designating Critical Habitat; Docket Numbers: FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039; NMFS-251105-0168;FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044; NMFS-251105-0167; FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029; and FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048 published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2025. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best available science in policy-making efforts. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above referenced Endangered Species Act (ESA) rulemakings. We write today to share our perspective on the value of the Endangered Species Act and its importance to our nation’s fish and fisheries. For more than 50 years, the ESA has served as a science-based tool to prevent species from extinction. As one of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, it is the last backstop for a species in decline. When a species is designated as threatened or endangered – or “listed” under the ESA – it is in dire need of help. It is far more costly and difficult to recover a species once it is in need of the “emergency room” protections of the ESA. AFS is concerned that the proposed revisions may introduce considerations that are inappropriate for science-based decision making related to species conservation and may ultimately undermine the ESA as a science-based statute aimed at recovery populations of species at-risk of extinction. Congress recognized in explaining the purpose of passing the ESA, that listed species depend upon ecosystems. Indeed, many ESA petitions and listings have identified the loss of usable habitat or access to habitat in ecosystems as the reasons for the decline in species. Increases in water temperature, lack of water in streams and rivers, poor water quality, invasive species, and habitat degradation have imperiled forty percent of all freshwater species. A broader definition of habitat allows for more tools in the conservation ‘tool box’ and flexibility is particularly important in the face of climate change. Critical Habitat Designations The definition of critical habitat is of particular importance for fisheries management because successful conservation efforts for species protection and recovery require holistic watershed approaches (e.g., Native Fish Conservation Areas like the Little Tennessee River and Willamette River for Oregon Chub). Several fish species have been recovered and delisted over the last ten years, including the Oregon Chub, Modoc Sucker, Okaloosa Darter, and other species, through this approach. Based on the knowledge of imperiled species experts within our membership, we believe that any designation of critical habitat within the ESA regulations needs to be broad and flexible enough to account for a wide variety of situations to ensure that the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend are conserved. Such situations may include a species expansion into habitats not currently utilized, through processes such as, but not limited to, colonization from source populations, response to climate change, habitat restoration, and species reintroductions. A dual approach of both protecting existing quality habitat and increasing occupiable habitat is necessary to sustain species into the future, prevent listings, and achieve delistings. AFS recommends that the designation of critical habitat take into account areas that may not be currently occupied by the species but are important for flow of energy and resources, or could replace areas that are no longer suitable due to other pressures such as climatic variation, presence of invasive species, or resource development. Any definition of “habitat” applicable to designating critical habitat that excludes currently unoccupied habitat would be counterproductive to delisting and would limit funding and opportunities to expand populations into those unoccupied areas and work towards recovery. The proposed revisions to 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) are problematic because they require that unoccupied areas suitable for conservation of the species may only be considered if the occupied habitat is inadequate to ensure conservation of the species. This would mean that pursuing recolonization of unoccupied habitat could not be part of a recovery plan unless the current available historic habitat was found to be limiting to the species. Many species are listed because the necessary attributes to support the species do not exist in habitat that was suitable in the past and part of their historic distribution, or may have reduced carrying capacity due to changes in flow regime or seasonal habitat conditions. The examples below highlight the importance of broad coverage and flexibility for critical habitat designation. For example, the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is an endangered species whose historic range includes the Rio Grande and Pecos rivers in New Mexico and Texas, down to the Gulf of Mexico. It currently occupies about 7% of its historic range, and today, is now only found in the middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam, downstream to the in-stream flow of Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico. This reach is the only part of its range designated as critical habitat. This species is now considered extirpated from the entire Pecos River and the Big Bend National Park reach of the Rio Grande in Texas. Delisting conditions in the recovery plan require reproducing populations in these areas. Yet, the habitat condition has continued to decline. The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow serves as an example where failure to designate critical habitat throughout its current but unoccupied historical range has resulted in prolonged and costly recovery efforts. Because the reaches are currently unoccupied, they would not be designated as critical habitat for this species under the proposed rule. Failure to protect

November 21, 2025 Stacey Jensen Oceans, Wetlands and Communities Division Office of Water (4504-T) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 CWAwotus@epa.gov Milton Boyd Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Department of the Army 108 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310–0104 usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-cw.mbx.asa-cwreporting@army.mil Submitted via email and to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025- 0322 via regulations.gov and OW-Docket@epa.gov To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned organizations request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) extend the comment period for the proposed rule published November 20 in the Federal Register titled “Updated Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” 90 Fed. Reg. 52,498 (Nov. 20, 2025). If not extended, the comment period will end on January 5, 2026, and will encompass several holidays during which most members of the public, technical experts, and other key stakeholders will not have sufficient time to review or participate meaningfully. A comment period of at least 60 days is required in these circumstances. For one, Executive Order 12,866 specifies that “each agency should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days.” 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). Additionally, for Clean Water Act rulemakings like this one, section 101(e) of the Act specifies: “Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator or any State under this Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(e). In keeping with those directives, when the agencies most recently sought comment on changes to these regulations, the public comment period was 62 days. 86 Fed. Reg. 69372 (Dec. 7, 2021) (proposing revisions and setting comment period to close February 7, 2022). Notably, that comment period also spanned several holidays. Similarly, during the rulemaking process that led to the Trump administration’s “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” commenters also had 60 days to participate. See 84 Fed. Reg. 4,154 (Feb. 14, 2019) (comment period ending April 15, 2019). A reasonable comment period is also necessary considering the substance of the proposed rule. The agencies have proposed to dramatically reduce the number and extent of streams, wetlands, and other waters subject to the pollution prevention, control, and cleanup requirements of the Clean Water Act – a matter of major public concern. Additionally, the agencies’ proposal relies on new legal interpretations and technical concepts that the public should have an adequate opportunity to evaluate and weigh in on. We respectfully request a prompt response to this request. Sincerely, A House UnbuiltAlabama Rivers AllianceAllegheny CleanWaysAlliance for the Great LakesAlliance of Nurses for Healthy EnvironmentsAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Sustainable Business NetworkAmigos BravosAnacostia RiverkeeperAppalachian Citizens’ Law CenterBackcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA)Bayou City WaterkeeperBetween the WatersBlack Warrior RiverkeeperBlack-Sampit RiverkeeperBuffalo Niagara WaterkeeperCcoalCenter for Water Security and CooperationChesapeake Bay FoundationChildren’s Environmental Health NetworkClean Water ActionClean WisconsinClinton River Watershed CouncilCommittee on the Middle Fork Vermilion RiverConservation Law Foundation, Inc.Conservation Voters of PennsylvaniaDarnell School Farm LLCEcoCredit MarketingElevateEmpower Her Environmental Wellness, IncEnvironmental Integrity ProjectEnvironmental Law & Policy CenterEnvironmental Protection NetworkFlow Water AdvocatesFood & Water WatchFreshwater FutureFriends of Illinois Nature PreservesFriends of the Crooked RiverFriends of the Fox RiverFriends of the Mississippi RiverGreat Lakes Odyssey Radio HourGreen Lake AssociationGreenbrier River Watershed Association, Inc.GreenLatinosHealthy GulfHispanic Access FoundationHoly Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIHoosier Environmental CouncilIllinois Division of the Izaak Walton LeagueIllinois Environmental CouncilIndiana Conservation VotersIndiana Sportsman’s RoundtableIndiana Wildlife FederationInternational Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR)Izaak Walton League of AmericaKentucky Ecological Restoration AssociationKentucky Resources CouncilKentucky Resources CouncilKentucky Waterways AllianceKnickpoint Engineering, PLLCLatino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc.Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper AssociationLumber RiverkeeperMassachusetts Rivers AllianceMichigan Environmental CouncilMilwaukee RiverkeeperMinnesota Division Izaak Walton League of AmericaMotel Bear LakeNational Parks Conservation AssociationNational Wildlife FederationNatural Resources Defense CouncilNC Conservation NetworkNew Jersey League of Conservation VotersNew York League of Conservation VotersOhio Ecological Restoration AssociationOhio Environmental CouncilOhio River FoundationOne MississippiOnondaga AudubonPeconic BaykeeperPennFuturePrairie State Conservation CoalitionPuget Soundkeeper AllianceReligious Coalition for the Great LakesRiver Alliance of WisconsinRiver Fields, Louisville, KYRiver Heritage ConservancyRiverkeeper, Inc.Rosscapes, Inc.Save Lake Superior AssociationSave Our Sky Blue WatersShare the RiverSierra ClubSocially Responsible Agriculture ProjectSouthern Environmental Law CenterSurfrider FoundationTennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning (Tcwp)The Wetlands InitiativeThree Rivers WaterkeeperWaccamaw RiverkeeperWaterkeeper AllianceWaterkeepers ChesapeakeWest Virginia Rivers CoalitionWilliams ForestryWinyah Rivers AllianceWisconsin Council of Trout UnlimitedWisconsin Division – Izaak Walton League of America

October 10, 2025 Ms. Kelly DenitDirector, Office of Sustainable FisheriesNOAA National Marine Fisheries ServiceTransmitted via email: nmfs.seafoodstrategy@noaa.gov Re: Executive Order 14276, Restoring America’s Seafood Competitiveness Dear Ms. Denit: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Executive Order 14276, Restoring America’s Seafood Competitiveness. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of scientists, industry, and natural resource managers working in the fields of fisheries and aquatic sciences. The society works to enhance knowledge and promote the sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by fostering scientific progress, supporting the development of fisheries professionals, and advancing the use of the best available science in policy making. A specific role that AFS plays is to connect scientists and fishers, facilitating and expanding the use of cooperative research. Natural resource management in this country fundamentally relies on science and guided decisions that promote the sustainable use and enjoyment of public resources for all citizens and future generations. This effort is supported by a dedicated and highly skilled professional workforce. As a result, the U.S. is one of the highest-yielding capture fisheries producers worldwide.1 Yet despite having achieved a high level of sustainable domestic seafood supply, the U.S. is also the largest importer of seafood.1 Risking seafood supply by disregarding scientific advice means that potentially filling domestic demand for seafood would fall on increasing imports. Instead, we urge you to maintain appropriate regulations and restore funding and staffing to ensure that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service can sustainably manage our nation’s marine fisheries. Furthermore, the long-term risk to the fishing industry resulting from funding reductions for the science that supports the development of catch limits and other management decisions is likely to be catastrophic to this important economic sector. Best Scientific Information Available to Guide Fisheries Management The U.S. system is among the most successful in the world in preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks, ensuring that fishing opportunities can be sustained for years to come. Sustainable fisheries depend on functioning management systems2, with science serving as the cornerstone. Continuous monitoring of fish abundance and catch, rigorous stock assessments, the development of annual catch limits, and research on changing ecosystems, including climate impacts, are all essential components of functioning fisheries management. We urge the Administration to ensure that U.S. fisheries management continues to rely on the Best Scientific Information Available—a principle that has long served fishers, managers, and the nation well. But federal budget cuts, layoffs, and other attempts to reduce the workforce obstruct public services and erode the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to sustainably manage our nation’s fisheries. We have been down this path before. New England fisheries were some of the most diversified and productive, sustaining the settlement of this nation and supporting coastal communities for generations. But underregulated fishing and a poor understanding of stock abundances led to the widespread depletion of resources and the demise of many businesses. In response, Congress developed regulations and programs, including scientific efforts, to help the failing fishing communities. Since the Magnuson–Stevens Act of 1976, bipartisan efforts among scientists, industry, and policymakers have built effective regulatory frameworks and scientific capacity that work. As of June in this year, 22 of 25 stocks in the heavily overfished Northeast region were recovered to fishable levels.3 The keys to these successes have included: Data collection: Management is data driven. Federal fisheries-independent surveys deployed throughout the year across territorial waters, biological sampling of the catch (via observer coverage, port sampling, and the Marine Recreational Information Program [MRIP]), and environmental monitoring provide the data necessary to assess population trends and establish sustainable fishing quotas. A lack of funding to maintain NOAA vessels, sampling gear, and staff has caused survey cancellations and a loss of coverage in recent years. This is notable in many areas across the nation, but in Alaska where the unprecedented closure of the snow crab fishery in 2022 caused enormous losses for industry, a loss of survey coverage makes management even more tenuous. Missing data means that old data must be used to inform new catch limits. This does not serve the best interests of industry and instead works against them. To maximize quotas, current and comprehensive data collection must occur. Stock assessment: Population models built by stock assessors provide the science on which independent Fisheries Councils rely to make management decisions for their stakeholders. Federal worker capacity and funding for stock assessment have been stretched too thin for decades, meaning core functions at NMFS cannot occur or have been severely hampered. Deadlines to open fisheries have been missed, opportunities for industry input have been cancelled, and models have not been updated with new knowledge because the Divisions involved in stock assessment and monitoring are staff and funding deficient. This problem has been exacerbated in 2025 with early retirements, the hiring freeze, and budget reductions, which also freezes a merit-based employment pathway for new recruits under a program launched in 1999 to alleviate the skilled worker shortage (NMFS-Sea Grant Population and Ecosystem Dynamics Fellowship). To meet the needs of industry, stock assessment hiring must be reopened along with appropriate funding levels. We urge the Administration to prioritize the revitalization of the monitoring and assessment functions of the National Marine Fisheries Service by exempting them from future reductions in force and allowing hiring to repopulate the core functions of fisheries management so that accurate, timely fisheries catch quotas can be achieved. Flexibility and Cooperative Research Flexibility is needed now more than ever as renewed interest in domestic fisheries coincides with supply chain disruptions, shifts in consumer demand for domestic seafood,1 and rapidly changing ecosystems that increase uncertainty in yield projections. Flexibility, however, is not at odds with science-based management. With adequate funding, innovation and collaboration with industry can advance new data collection methods, analyses, and management approaches. In the Western Pacific, the greatest challenge is the lack of reliable data across 1.5 million square miles of ocean; similarly, the Southeast region covers three large marine ecosystems: the Gulf of America, South Atlantic, and Caribbean. Unlike

September 19, 2025 Brad KinderActing DirectorEcosystem Management CoordinationU.S. Department of Agriculture201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108Washington, DC 20250-1124 Re: Notice of Intent to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule; FR Doc # 2025-16581 Dear Mr. Kinder: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244, 36 CFR Subpart B (2001)). We respectfully urge the Forest Service to maintain meaningful and durable conservation safeguards for the nation’s 45 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas while also addressing the need for effective management to reduce wildfire risk and restore ecosystem health. We request a collaborative, transparent process to identify potential changes to the 2001 Rule to achieve these goals. We object to a full rescission of the rule. Further, we request a 30-day extension to the original 21-day comment period to enable meaningful, constructive input on this important rulemaking. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best available science in policy-making. Roadless areas in our national forests—often referred to as backcountry—supply clean drinking water to Americans, protect downstream communities from flooding, maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations, serve as habitat for threatened and endangered species, and provide unparalleled outdoor recreation. Roughly 70 percent of roadless areas contain habitat for native fish, underscoring their irreplaceable value. In the face of more intense fires, earlier flooding, prolonged drought, and increased vulnerability to invasive species, it is critical that we take a landscape-scale approach to conservation. It is imperative to maintain biological diversity and increase habitat to make ecosystems more resilient. A full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule would undermine these important tools for fish and wildlife management when we should actively and aggressively work to protect and restore resiliency for the full range of fish and wildlife habitats and also ensure their connectivity to adjacent or downstream habitats on public and private lands. Roadless areas sustain coldwater fisheries, particularly native trout and salmon populations that are prized by anglers. Timber roads and clearcutting can increase sedimentation, degrade water quality, fragment habitat, and increase high temperature regimes. Sedimentation alone has caused salmon productivity to decline in numerous studied watersheds.A full rescission of the rule threatens fish, wildlife, and the outdoor recreation of millions of Americans who rely on these lands for hunting, fishing, and other activities. We urge you to conduct a full analysis of the potential social, economic, and environmental programmatic effects resulting from a rescission of the rule, as well as analysis of an additional alternative that would allow for reasonable flexibility for responsible active management to effectively reduce wildfire risk, restore healthy ecosystems, protect communities, and maintain consistent and durable safeguards for intact habitat and backcountry values. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jeff KopaskaExecutive Director

July 21, 2025 Dear Representative, On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation groups urge you to oppose H.R. 3898, the “Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act,” (PERMIT Act). This package contains provisions that would weaken commonsense Clean Water Act safeguards and threaten the rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes that fish, wildlife and our members rely on to hunt, fish and recreate. These waters are not only essential to fish and wildlife, they are also essential for healthy communities more broadly – these waters supply our drinking water, provide water for farms and ranches, save taxpayer dollars on water treatment costs, and keep communities safer in the face of flooding, wildfire, and drought. Congress passed the bipartisan Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” with a goal to make all waters in the United States “swimmable and fishable” by 1983. While this goal has yet to be achieved, the law’s safeguards and cooperative federal-state approach to protecting our waters has improved the health of many waters nationwide and prevented deterioration or destruction in many more. This legislation abandons those safeguards and undermines key Clean Water Act tools to protect our waters – an ability that is already weakened in light of a 2023 Supreme Court decision. Our groups are particularly concerned about a number of provisions in the bill, including: Section 3: Slows down EPA’s process for updating water quality criteria, which are pollutant-specific criteria used to determine whether surface water quality is healthy for people, fish, wildlife, and recreational uses. Section 5: Undermines the longstanding authority of states and Tribes to protect local waters under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which provides a regulatory framework for states and tribes to work cooperatively with the federal government to ensure that their aquatic resources are protected from potential impacts related to federally issued permits and licenses. This authority allows states and Tribes to protect the water quality of waterbodies that communities and wildlife rely on for drinking water, recreation, cultural practices, and habitat. Section 8: Makes it easier for industrial operations to dump “forever chemicals” like PFAS and other contaminants into our waters without accountability by shielding dischargers from Clean Water Act liability. The concentration of PFAS chemicals in some areas has gotten so high that Do Not Eat advisories have been applied to game and fish species, limiting hunting and fishing opportunities. Section 11: Eliminates protections for people and wildlife from harmful pesticide discharges into our waters, upending the existing system in place to allow pesticide use while minimizing harm caused by pesticides entering our surface waters. Section 12: Drastically restricts the EPA’s authority to stop highly damaging projects like Pebble Mine from destroying fisheries and wetlands. During the entire history of the Clean Water Act, EPA has only used Section 404(c) 14 times as a last resort to protect aquatic resources, wildlife, and communities, with the vast majority issued by Republican administrations. Section 13: Weakens the Army Corps of Engineers’ nationwide permitting program, including by restricting the Corps from considering harms caused by activities as a whole, and forces them to look only at narrow footprint where fill activity takes place, as well as exempting the permit program from the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Section 15: This section would prevent effective judicial review of projects that fill in and destroy wetlands and other waters. Section 18: Reduces the scope of waters federally protected by the Clean Water Act by granting authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to create new exclusions for any kind of waterbody from being afforded Clean Water Act protections. This is only a snapshot of the harmful provisions in H.R. 3898. Clean Water Act protections safeguard the health and safety of all Americans and ensure that fish and wildlife – and the economies and outdoor passions that rely on them – have the water resources needed to thrive. The public overwhelmingly wants the clean, fishable, and swimmable waters promised by the bipartisan Clean Water Act. At a time when agency budget and staffing cuts, along with aging water infrastructure and changing precipitation patterns, threaten to worsen water quality challenges, Congress should support protections for our public lands and waters and reject proposals that would weaken safeguards in place to protect them. We strongly urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3898. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, American Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationBackcountry Hunters & AnglersNational Wildlife FederationTrout Unlimited

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETYAMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATIONBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEECALIFORNIA TROUTENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTERIZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICANMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITEDTHEODORE ROOSELVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPTROUT UNLIMITEDWILD SALMON CENTER July 17, 2025 Ms. Katherine McCaffertyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersAttn: CECW-CO-R441 G Street, NWWashington, DC 20314-1000 Submitted electronically: Docket # COE-2025-0002, 2026nationwidepermits@usace.army.milRe: Comments in Support of Proposed ‘NWP A’ Rule for Fish Passage Dear Ms. McCafferty: Write in support of proposed, new ‘NWP A’ for fish passage. The under-signed restoration professionals and conservation organizations support the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE’s or Corps’) proposed rule regarding Nationwide Permit A (NWP A), Activities to Improve Passage of Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms. The ACOE published its proposed rule, Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits, 90 Fed. Reg. 26100-26167 (June 18, 2025), under its Section 404 Clean Water Act authority to issue rules for categories of activities that are “similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the environment.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(1). The nationwide permits expire after five years. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(2). The current nationwide permits are set to expire on March 14, 2026. See, 90 Fed. Reg. at 26102. ‘NWP A’ complements the changes proposed to NWP27. Among the Corps’ 59 existing nationwide permits, NWP27 is unique in that it is tailored to voluntary, aquatic restoration activities. As an eligibility threshold, voluntary aquatic ecosystem restoration activities are eligible under NWP27 if they are anticipated “to produce net increases in aquatic ecosystem functions and services.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 26114. To provide guidance for some of these voluntary aquatic ecosystem restoration project types incorporating manufactured elements such as irrigation headgates and fish screens, the Corps is proposing a new, additional nationwide permit specific to fish passage, ‘NWP A,’ discussed at 90 Fed. Reg. 26123-125. We believe that the approach the Corps has taken to cover projects based on their improvement of fish passage under ‘NWP A’ appropriately groups projects that are “similar in nature.” We support the Corps’ proposal of “NWP A” for fish passage as a positive complement to the Corps’ work to improve NWP27. ‘NWP A’ complements NWP14 for Culvert Replacements. We also support the Corps reissuing NWP14 in addition to proposing ‘NWP A’ for fish passage enhancement. NWP14, Linear Transportation Projects, authorizes transportation activities, such as roads and railways, crossing streams and other waters of the United States. See, 90 Fed. Reg. at 26143. NWP14 is often used for road culvert replacements. NWP 14 is reissued without change from its 2021 reauthorization. Compare, 86 Fed. Reg. 73522 at 73574-575 (Dec. 27, 2021). NWP14 authorizes a narrower range of activities than proposed ‘NWP A’ because NWP14 activities must be related to transportation infrastructure, whereas proposed ‘NWP A’ covers upgrades to irrigation infrastructure with a conservation benefit, for example. We support both NWP14 and ‘NWP A’ for covering different types of activities, even if they have a similar conservation outcome of enhancing fish passage. DETAILED COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ‘NWP A’ RULE TEXT CONCLUSION We appreciate the Army Corps acting proactively to address some of the changes to its permitting process under NWP27 and propose ‘NWP A’ for aquatic restoration in highly human-altered contexts. For the reasons outlined above, we support the proposed “NWP A” to facilitate review and permitting of activities undertaken to enhance fish passage. Particularly in the context of irrigation dams and diversions, proposed ‘NWP A’ will no doubt meaningfully facilitate restoration activities to reconnect and restore aquatic habitats and ecosystems. Yours sincerely, AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETYAMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATIONBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEECALIFORNIA TROUTENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION CENTERIZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICANMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITEDTHEODORE ROOSELVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPTROUT UNLIMITEDWILD SALMON CENTER

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETYAMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATIONBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEECALIFORNIA TROUTIZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICANMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITEDNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONTHEODORE ROOSELVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPTROUT UNLIMITEDWILD SALMON CENTER July 17, 2025 Ms. Katherine McCaffertyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersAttn: CECW-CO-R441 G Street, NWWashington, DC 20314-1000 Submitted electronically: Docket # COE-2025-0002, 2026nationwidepermits@usace.army.milRe: Comments in Support of Proposed NWP27 Rule for Voluntary Aquatic Restoration Dear Ms. McCafferty:The undersigned restoration professionals and conservation organizations support the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE’s or Corps’) proposed rule regarding Nationwide Permit 27 (NWP27), Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities. Below we outline the proposed changes to NWP27 and the reasons for our support. INTRODUCTIONThe ACOE published its proposed rule, Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits, 90 Fed. Reg. 26100-26167 (June 18, 2025), under its Section 404 Clean Water Act authority to issue rules for categories of activities that are “similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the environment.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(1). Nationwide permits expire after five years. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(2). The current nationwide permits are set to expire on March 14, 2026. See, 90 Fed. Reg. at 26102. NWP27 is unique among nationwide permits. Among the Corps’ 59 existing nationwide permits, NWP27 is unique in that it is tailored to voluntary, aquatic restoration activities as the allowable category of activities that are “similar in nature.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)(1). As an eligibility threshold, voluntary aquatic ecosystem restoration activities are eligible under NWP27 if they are anticipated “to produce net increases in aquatic ecosystem functions and services.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 26114. NWP27’s review of voluntary aquatic restoration activities requires a different analysis. NWP27 covers a fundamentally different project type than nearly all other nationwide permits. Rather than the Corps analyzing a proposed project for the scope of its impacts to wetlands or streams at the time of construction, as is typical under a nationwide permit, under NWP27, the Corps makes a different determination: is this voluntary project likely to produce a net increase in aquatic ecosystem functions and services over time? In other words, does the proposed project move the project area from a degraded state to a more restored state? The changes proposed to NWP27 focus the Corps’ analysis on this key element while also streamlining the review process and lowering the barriers to voluntary restoration activities. We support the proposed NWP27 rule modifications. They accomplish three important objectives: Improve the Corps’ NWP27 Permit Review Process—Preconstruction notices (PCNs) and permit applications are no longer typically required. Instead, project proponents will provide notice to the Corps through a summary report and project description, demonstrating project eligibility for NWP27, with a 30-day review period by the Corps. A PCN and permit application review is only triggered when a General Condition circumstance is present, or if the Division Engineer has issued an applicable regional condition. Typical General Condition circumstances might include if the activity might affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) or designated (or proposed for designation) critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (General Condition 18), or if there is a historic structure or Tribal cultural artifact that may be affected (General Conditions 20-21). Recognize that the Purpose of NWP27 Projects is to move the Project Area from a Degraded State to a More Restored State. The wide range of activities authorized under NWP27 must resemble an ecological reference, without engineered construction or manufactured elements (such as pumps, concrete, etc.). The proposed rule simplifies and shortens the list of prohibited activities, recognizing that changes in the location and extent of aquatic habitat types are anticipated when moving the project area from a degraded to a more restored state. The proposed rule also clarifies that NWP27 activities are exempt from the requirements of compensatory mitigation, which is needed for projects that degrade aquatic resources, in order to replace lost functions. Below, in our detailed comments, we make two recommendations to add illustrative text to support implementation. First, we recommend retaining the existing sentence in the NWP27 text that explains that changes in wetland species and distribution is to be anticipated when wetland hydrology is restored. Second, we recommend citing the Corps’ regulatory definition of restoration. Reduce Compliance Costs—No wetland delineation is required for proposed NWP27 projects. This is true whether the project requires a PCN and permit application or a simple notice and project description submitted to the ACOE. The removal of the wetland delineation requirement enables project proponents to dedicate more resources to voluntary aquatic restoration projects. In its place, the new, required report elements are closely aligned with typical project planning and design work and do not substantially increase project costs. The new reporting requirements also provide the Corps with more useful information in determining the project’s anticipated “net increases in aquatic ecosystem functions and services,” the minimum threshold for NWP27 project eligibility. See, 90 Fed. Reg. at 26114. No requested changes to the proposed text of NWP27. The proposed rule for NWP27 is well grounded in the Corps’ review of restoration practices, approaches, and supporting science. See, 90 Fed. Reg. at 26114-26121. We make no requested changes to the proposed text of the new NWP27 proposed rule found at 90 Fed. Reg. at 26145-26146. Rather, as we describe in more detail in Section 2 below, we propose two suggested additions to the NWP27 text, and clarification within the NWP27 preamble, to help illustrate eligible and allowable projects and assist in NWP27 implementation. DETAILED COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED NWP27 RULE CONCLUSION We support the proposed changes to NWP27 because they streamline the Corps’ permit review process, focus the Corps’ review on whether the proposed project advances the condition of the project area from a degraded state to a more restored state, and remove barriers to voluntary aquatic restoration. We commend the Corps for its thoughtful work in proposing its revisions to NWP27. Sincerely,AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETYAMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATIONBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEECALIFORNIA TROUTIZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICANMONTANA TROUT UNLIMITEDNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONTHEODORE ROOSELVELT

June 11, 2025 Senator Lisa MurkowskiChairSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510                            Senator Jeff MerkleyRanking MemberSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States SenateWashington, DC 20510 Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Merkley: Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026 for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Founded in 1870, The American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation and restoration of our country’s important fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners, and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within this program, the National Fish Hatchery System serves an important role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation aquaculture. Any funding cuts to this program will result in additional deferred maintenance at federal hatcheries and puts them at risk of catastrophic failure. Likewise, the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership conducts essential research on new fish medications that are seeking FDA approval. This program allows fisheries professionals to more effectively and efficiently rear and manage a variety of fish species to meet production goals, stock healthy fish, and maintain a healthy environment.  FAC also conducts important work to control and prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. Through on-the-ground control projects, early detection surveillance and monitoring, and technical support, FAC works to effectively address a primary threat to freshwater fish. Finally, the Fish Passage Program works to address the millions of aging, obsolete, or poorly designed dams, roads, and levees that block fish from accessing food, shelter, and habitat to spawn. These projects address one of the primary drivers of declining fish populations while improving water quality and reducing flood risk for communities. FAC has played an essential coordination role in ensuring effective implementation of the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding for fish passage across the federal family. AFS requests $259.8 million for FAC for FY26. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the nation’s only program that encourages development and implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans and provides funding for state-led science-based, on-the-ground conservation of imperiled species. Today, at least 12,000 species of fish, wildlife and plants have been identified as at-risk of needing protections of the Endangered Species Act. STWG funds support strong partnerships among federal, state, tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to work together to keep common species healthy and prevent imperiled species from sliding towards extinction. The program was funded at $90 million in FY2010, the highest level to date. This figure is far below the identified need of $1.2 billion needed annually to address the full scope of the problem.  AFS recommends the highest funding possible for the STWG Program in FY26, and no less than (NLT) the FY24 enacted level of $72.4 million. The National Fish Habitat Partnership is a science-based, state-led initiative to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic ecosystems across the United States. It was founded in 2006 and promotes and unites a network of 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across federal and state agencies and conservation groups.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides both funding and technical assistance to the 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across the country to aid in implementing aquatic conservation projects nationwide. These partnerships leverage federal, state, tribal, and private resources to achieve the greatest impacts for conservation. AFS supports $7.6 million for the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) program in FY26, which includes funding for 20 fish habitat partnerships. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Ecosystems Mission Area The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving challenges posed by climate change to regional fish and wildlife, ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program’s ability to swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement of tribal communities in project design and resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY26, AFS recommends no less than $69.3 million. The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program plays a significant role in advancing applied scientific understanding and conservation efforts for addressing current real-world fish and wildlife management challenges across the United States. CRUs are dynamic hubs for collaborative research that prioritize the needs of state fish and wildlife agencies and play a central role in training the next generation of conservation professionals. State fish and wildlife agencies rely on the CRU program to conduct critical research that is used to support state fish and wildlife agency decision making and is relevant across jurisdictions (e.g. research on chronic wasting disease, monarchs, and wildlife corridors). The program’s value is clear, as evidenced by its continuous growth from its inception in 1935 to its statutory recognition by Congress in 1960, to the present day where 43 units are located across 41 states. Further budgetary or staffing impacts to the CRU program will directly diminish the research capacity of state fish and wildlife agency and university partners while reducing educational opportunities for students across the nation. AFS recommends a minimum of $28.206M for FY 2026. This level of funding would allow the CRU program to maintain its current function, but would not allow for additional staff or research capacity. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) The Forest Service administers a large transportation and trails infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types

American Fisheries Society ● American Fly Fishing Trade Association ● Angler Action Foundation ● Archery Trade Association ● Backcountry Hunters & Anglers ● Bonefish & Tarpon Trust ● California Waterfowl ● Captains for Clean Water ● The Conservation Fund ● Fly Fishers International ● Izaak Walton League of America ● National Deer Association ● National Wildlife Federation ● National Wild Turkey Federation ● The Nature Conservancy ● New York State Conservation Council ● North American Falconers Association ● North American Grouse Partnership ● Outdoor Industry Association ● Pheasants Forever ● Public Lands Foundation ● Quail Forever ● Tall Timbers ● The Wildlife Society ● Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership ● Trout Unlimited ● Wildlife Management Institute Statement on Federal Public Lands Transfer, Sale, and Exchange The large-scale transfer or sale of public lands would directly undermine the future of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation in America and is not acceptable. Our public lands and outdoor traditions are not only entwined they are also core to driving the $1.2 trillion annual outdoor recreation economy and supporting 5 million jobs. There may be instances, however, in which targeted exchanges or sale-purchase models may be in the public’s interest by helping to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and improve the management of public lands. For example, consolidating “public-private checkerboard” lands can improve public access to public lands, protect high priority conservation lands — including migration routes and crucial habitats — and benefit local communities and the recreation economy. To aid the hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation business, and conservation community in the consideration and development of proposals that address the sale or transfer of public lands, the above named organizations endorse the positions below. This position statement is intended to proactively address and overcome challenges with public land transfer or sale, educate lawmakers, engage stakeholders, and put a stop to proposals that threaten our public lands hunting and fishing heritage. BackgroundFor the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes the sale or exchange of BLM federal land. Under FLPMA, lands must be “identified for disposal” through a public process (BLM’s Land Use Planning process, Section 202) and, at a minimum, meet one of the following criteria as outlined in Section 203: They are difficult and uneconomical to manage and are not suitable for management by another federal department or agency. Disposal would serve important public objectives, including, but not limited to, community expansion or economic development, that could not be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public lands and that outweigh other public objectives or values. The tract was acquired for a specific purpose and is no longer required for that purpose or any other federal purpose. Building on these criteria, Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3373, issued in 2019, directed the BLM to update its policy to “ensure that when identifying BLM-managed public lands available for disposal or exchange the increase or decrease of public access for outdoor recreation – including hunting and fishing – will be one of the factors considered in determining the appropriateness of the disposal or exchange.” The BLM also has state-specific, county-specific, and other location-specific sales and sale-purchase authorities, including the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in Nevada and the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act in Idaho. For the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Congress has given the agency a general exchange authority, the SISK Act exchange authority, and limited authorities to sell National Forest System lands. The limited authorities include the Small Tracts Act (parcels under $500,000), the Townsite Act (for townsite purposes in the 11 western states and Alaska only, and 640 acres or under), the Forest Service Realignment and Enhancement Act (for administrative sites and facilities; currently requiring reauthorization), the Pilot Conveyance Act (very limited), the Education Land Grant Act, and many state-specific or national forest-specific “land adjustment” Acts. The USFS does not have a general land disposal authority or process like the BLM, under FLPMA. USFS and BLM regulations also require that exchanges must be in the public’s interest, specifically the resource values and the public objectives of the lands to be acquired must equal or exceed the resource values and the public objectives of the federal lands that would be conveyed. Additionally, the intended use of the conveyed federal land must not substantially conflict with established management objectives on adjacent federal lands. In making these “public interest” determinations, regulations require that the following factors be considered: When considering the public interest, the authorized officer shall give full consideration to the opportunity to achieve better management of federal lands and resources, to meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies, and to secure important objectives, including but not limited to: protection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, and wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of recreation opportunities and public access; consolidation of lands and/or interests in lands, such as mineral and timber interests, for more logical and efficient management and development; consolidation of split estates; expansion of communities; accommodation of existing or planned land use authorizations; promotion of multiple-use values; implementation of applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plans; and fulfillment of public needs. 36 cfr 254.3 (b)(1) (similar regulations for BLM are found under 43 CFR 2200.0-6) Additionally, the BLM and the USFS, through additional laws, can use the “modified land exchange” or “sale-purchase” model as an efficient alternative to traditional land exchanges. While this approach is like an exchange, it differs in that the sale and purchase parcels do not need to be arranged at the same time; instead, the land sales revenue is deposited into an account, and the federal agencies can draw money from that account for priority conservation and facilitating land sales. This provides more flexibility than the traditional exchange approach, and an incentive for the agency to strategically sell lands, since the money will return to conservation and the sales account, rather than to the Treasury. The public trust is enhanced, not diminished,

20 May 2025 The Honorable Doug BurgumU.S. Department of the InteriorOffice of the Secretary1849 C Street NWWashington, D.C. 20240 Dear Secretary Burgum: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our strong support for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) and urge that they be fully funded in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget, at the FY2025 funding level at a minimum, to continue their critical mission. As our nation confronts the growing impacts of climate change—from rising sea levels and extreme heat to wildfires, invasive species, and prolonged drought—the CASCs provide actionable science, tools, and training that land and resource managers need to safeguard communities, ecosystems, and economies across the nation. The CASCs are unique federal-academic partnerships that conduct regionally tailored, decision-driven climate research and deliver adaptation solutions directly to federal, Tribal, state, and local stakeholders. These centers translate cutting-edge science into usable information that supports all regions of the country, including public lands and working landscapes that are essential to agriculture and forestry, as well as hunting and fishing. Their work not only protects our nation’s natural resources, it also helps avoid costly damages and economic losses through proactive, science-informed decision-making. CASCs support economic competitiveness by reducing risk for industries that rely on natural resources, including forestry, tourism, and fisheries. Their work with the Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change (RISCC) networks proactively addresses threats to forests and crops from emerging pests, helping avoid economic losses, protect jobs, and ensure the continued productivity of working lands. Nature-based solutions developed by CASC researchers not only preserve ecosystem services but often cost less than traditional engineered approaches to climate adaptation. CASCs are already delivering critical solutions. In the Southeast, one current project is working to improve how managers and practitioners’ access and apply information to protect communities and economies at risk from extreme weather events. These include hurricane damage to ports and refineries, flooding of transportation corridors and power stations, and saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers—issues that directly affect critical infrastructure and commerce. In the South Central region, another CASC project is helping land managers and producers respond to increasing drought and water scarcity. By integrating satellite and field data, the project is developing a publicly accessible tool that tracks vegetation health and water-use efficiency. This innovation will allow farmers, ranchers, and conservationists to make better-informed decisions that conserve water and sustain agricultural productivity—especially in regions that support our national food supply chains. CASCs also elevate the voices and knowledge of Tribal nations, integrating Indigenous science and leadership into adaptation planning. By partnering with regional universities and leveraging local expertise, CASCs provide scalable, community-based solutions grounded in both traditional and contemporary science. Their work is instrumental in helping agencies and communities fulfill their missions while preparing for climate-driven threats to public health, water supplies, biodiversity, and infrastructure. CASCs offer an exceptional return on investment. University-hosted centers regularly triple the value of federal funding by securing additional research support and partnerships. This model enhances federal science capacity, expands workforce development opportunities, and ensures that the best available science is used to inform real-time decision-making. In short, CASCs protect lives and livelihoods, reduce future costs, support climate-ready industry, and safeguard the places and systems Americans depend on every day. We respectfully urge the Department of the Interior to prioritize and fully fund the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers in the FY2026budget at the FY2025 funding level at a minimum. Their work is foundational to building a resilient, competitive, and sustainable future. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to science-informed stewardship of our nation’s lands and resources. Please contact the American Geophysical Union’s Vice President of Science Policy and Government Relations, Lexi Shultz with any questions (ashultz@agu.org). Sincerely, American Geophysical UnionAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesCartography and Geographic Information SocietyEcological Society of AmericaEntomological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AmericaNational Flood AssociationNational Water Resources AssociationRobin O’Malley LLCSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry of North AmericaUniversity Consortium for Geographic Information Sciences cc: Scott Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, DOISarah Ryker, Acting Director, USGSPaul Wagner, Acting Associate Director for the Ecosystems Mission Area, USGSDavid Applegate, Chief Scientist, USGS

The Honorable Mike Johnson Speaker of the House H-232, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries House Democratic Leader H-204, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 May 16, 2025 Re: Concerns with Federal Land Sales in Reconciliation Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries, On behalf of America’s millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, conservationists and outdoor enthusiasts, we write to express our concern regarding the inclusion of federal land sales in the reconciliation package recently passed by the House Natural Resources Committee. While we appreciate the committee’s desire to address land management efficiency and community economic needs, we ask that public land disposal be considered within transparent, public channels and not the reconciliation process. Our concerns are threefold. First, the amendment accelerates the land conveyance process under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by imposing strict timelines and reducing public input, notably through exemptions from standard notice of realty action requirements for affordable housing conveyances. These changes limit opportunities for hunters, anglers, recreationists and other stakeholders to engage in decisions affecting lands that belong to all Americans. Public participation is a cornerstone of FLPMA, ensuring transparency and accountability, and we fear that curtailing it sets a troubling precedent for future land management decisions, and land sales would be made that do not serve the public interest. Second, the bill directs proceeds from these sales to the general fund of the Treasury, rather than reinvesting them in conservation programs that sustain our nation’s wildlife, habitats and recreational opportunities. Federal lands have historically been a public trust investment, not a resource for general budgetary offsets, and the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) was permanently reauthorized in 2018 to collect receipts from appropriate BLM land sales and reinvest those dollars into projects that expand access and conserve habitat. Diverting sale proceeds away from conservation deviates from the deal struck by a broad spectrum of interests, and it could lower the ecological and recreational value of our public lands. Third, and perhaps most critically, the proposed sales could include lands that are vital to hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation, particularly in rural areas. Hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking are deeply ingrained in our cultural heritage and local economies. The loss of access to these areas could impact hunters, anglers, and other recreationists who rely on public lands for their traditions and livelihoods. Considerations about any such sales should go through a transparent public process and only proceed if they serve the public interest. Losses of access and hunting and angling opportunities should be mitigated through new acquisitions funded through the FLTFA account. We recognize the need for efficient management and community economic development, but reconciliation legislation is not an appropriate place for land sales, and we urge you to reconsider these provisions in the House bill. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. We stand ready to work with you to ensure that our public lands continue to serve as a legacy for all Americans. Sincerely,   American Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationAmerican Sportfishing AssociationAmerican Woodcock SocietyAngler Action FoundationArchery Trade AssociationAssociation of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesBackcountry Hunters & AnglersBass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.)Bonefish & Tarpon TrustCaptains For Clean WaterDelta WaterfowlIzaak Walton League of AmericaMasters of Foxhounds AssociationNational Association of Forest Service RetireesNational Bobwhite & Grassland Initiative FoundationNational Deer AssociationNational Wild Turkey FederationNew York State Conservation Council National Wildlife Refuge AssociationNational Wildlife FederationNorth American Falconers AssociationNorth American Grouse PartnershipOrion, the Hunter’s InstitutePheasants ForeverPope and Young ClubPublic Lands FoundationQuail ForeverRuffed Grouse SocietyTall TimbersThe Conservation FundThe Wildlife SocietyTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipTrout UnlimitedWhitetails UnlimitedWildlife ForeverWild Sheep FoundationWildlife Management Institute

May 15, 2025 Mr. Paul SouzaActing DirectorU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1849 C St., NWWashington, DC 20240 Re: Rescinding the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species Act; Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034 Dear Mr. Souza: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following information in response to the proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in Endangered Species Act (ESA or the Act) regulations. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best-available science in policy-making efforts. We write today to share our perspective on the value of the Endangered Species Act and its importance to our nation’s fish and fisheries. We urge you to maintain our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, including the ESA. The ESA prohibits “take” of endangered species. The existing regulatory definition of “harm,” which includes habitat modification, is essential to a science-based ESA. AFS opposes the proposed change to the definition. The ESA is a science-based tool for recovering America’s threatened and endangered species. The proposed change to the definition of harm to exclude habitat modification would undermine the scientific foundations of the ESA. The current regulation defines “harm” to include significant habitat modification that kills or injures species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. This broad interpretation is intended to protect not just animals and plants themselves but the places they need to survive, such as spawning areas, nursery grounds, or migratory corridors. Harm, or the potential for harm, through habitat modification is the most prevalent form of take and it is essential for the definition of harm to include habitat modification. Limiting take to only directly killing or capturing endangered fish, which is extremely difficult to monitor, would undermine the law’s objective of protecting and recovering imperiled species and the ecosystems of which they depend. Fish need habitat to survive, grow, and reproduce. The ESA has been the catalyst for successful delisting or down-listing of many endangered and threatened fish. The ESA has brought back several fish species from the brink of extinction, including the Apache Trout, Okaloosa Darter, Borax Lake Chub, Foskett Speckled Dace, Modoc Sucker, and Oregon Chub (see Appendix A)—all as a result of habitat protection, improvement, and restoration, and not by protecting fish from direct killing. In the alternative, if we lose this protection for habitat, more species will go the way of the Harelip Sucker, a fish that was once widely distributed in the southeastern U.S. It is now extinct due to harm created from habitat damage as a result of sediment pollution, rather than from direct killing. Importance of Habitat Habitat loss is the leading factor in species population declines in the U.S. In fact, habitat loss is estimated to impair more than 80% of known species and is the greatest single threat to species existence (Hogue and Breon 2022). In passing the ESA, Congress recognized that listed species depend on entire ecosystems. Indeed, many ESA petitions and listings have identified the loss of usable habitat or access to habitat as the primary reason for the decline in species. Increases in water temperature, insufficient levels of water in streams and rivers, poor water quality, and non-native invasive species have led to the imperilment of 40% of all freshwater species (Su et al. 2021). Any definition of “habitat” must account for a wide enough variety of situations to ensure the ecosystems that support and maintain listed and vulnerable species can be conserved. A broader definition allows for more tools in the conservation “tool box.” This flexibility is particularly important in the face of anthropogenic, detrimental climate change. A dual approach of both protecting existing quality habitat and increasing occupiable habitat is necessary to sustain species into the future, prevent listings, and achieve delistings. Successful conservation efforts for species protection and recovery require holistic watershed approaches (e.g., Native Fish Conservation Areas like the Little Tennessee River and Willamette River for Oregon Chub) and partnerships across state, federal, and non-profit groups and landowners. Increasing healthy habitat is the key to delistings, a shared goal amongst conservationists, developers, and the general public. If we lose habitat protection as part of the definition of “harm,” AFS professionals know the consequence is extinction for many more species. AFS stands ready to provide you with additional information should you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeff KopaskaExecutive Director

May 7, 2025 Representative Hal RogersChairSubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Representative Grace MengRanking MemberSubcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Rogers and Ranking Member Meng, AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best-available science in policy-making. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the Fiscal Year 2026 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We are writing today in support of robust funding for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, $19 million for NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, $5 million for the Aquaculture Cooperative Institute established in Fiscal Year 2024, $80 million for National Sea Grant Program, and $18 million for the Sea Grant Aquaculture program in Fiscal Year 2026. We urge you to maintain appropriate funding and staffing to ensure that NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service is able to sustainably manage our nation’s fisheries. The very foundation of natural-resources conservation in this country rests on science to inform decisions and is supported by a strong workforce of professionals to ensure sustainable use and enjoyment for all citizens. Our continued system of federal investment in natural resource conservation returns enormous dividends for the country and the world and is an economic engine for our national, state and local economies. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service We urge you to support robust funding for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service. The proposed draconian budget cuts to the agency for Fiscal year 2026 coupled with the severe reduction in the agency’s fisheries staff threatens the very foundation of sustainable U.S. fisheries. Conducting stock assessments, development of annual catch limits, monitoring fisheries abundance and catch, researching into the impacts of our changing climate are all essential components of sustainable fisheries. The threatened 40% budget cut and continued layoffs and other attempts to reduce the workforce will cripple the agency and erode the knowledge, skills and experience needed to manage our nation’s fisheries. The U.S. system ranks among the most successful in the world at preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. Our precautionary management system must take into account changes in the ocean environment, including warming and acidification, that are altering ecosystems, changing stock productivities, and causing widespread shifts in the distribution of many exploited species. We must continue to research changing ocean conditions and shifting species distributions and population dynamics in the face of these changes. We must also continue to support healthy habitats and associated ecosystems. Failure to do so will put future fish stocks at risk, threaten the livelihoods of the next generation of fishermen and women, and put our coastal economies at great risk. NOAA Aquaculture Support AFS supports responsible and sustainable development of open ocean aquaculture in U.S. federal waters as a mechanism to reduce pressure on wild capture fisheries and as a climate-friendly form of protein production to meet the projected increases in demand for protein world-wide. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)’s Aquaculture Program coordinates across agencies towards a comprehensive regulatory foundation for open ocean aquaculture. We support the important siting analysis for future Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in federal waters, interagency coordination on National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), development of science-based tools and modeling, and associated economic development programs to support expansion of aquaculture into the Exclusive Economic Zone. We support $19 million for NOAA Fisheries Office of Aquaculture for Fiscal Year 2026 and $5 million for Fiscal Year 2026 for the Cooperative Institute (CI) provided for in the Fiscal Year 2024 CJS Appropriations. In addition, we fully support the work of the National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science for its role in the development of the AOAs and the coastal planning tools it offers to assist managers, planners, and industry withsustainable aquaculture development. We urge you to provide funding to maintain this program and support this important work. National Sea Grant College Program and Sea Grant Aquaculture Program The Sea Grant program is a federally funded network of 34 state- or territory-based programs that fund research and perform education and outreach work on coastal environmental and natural resource issues. Individual Sea Grant programs set research priorities based on local needs, often focusing on actionable science.AFS supports this program due to its importance in addressing aquatic invasive species, aquaculture, and fisheries. The Sea Grant program has proven to be a cost-effective vehicle for leveraging local expertise and federal funds to address both theoretical and applied research in service of the public good. We seek level funding of $80,000,000 for the National Sea Grant program and $18,000,000, for Sea Grant Aquaculture program, an increase to support developing sustainable marine aquaculture. We believe this program makes critical progress in advancing open ocean aquaculture in the U.S. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Jeff KopaskaExecutive Director

April 23, 2025 Benita Best-WongDeputy Assistant Administrator for ManagementOffice of WaterU.S. Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington D.C. 20460 Robyn S. ColosimoSenior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)Department of the Army108 Army PentagonWashington, D.C. 20310 Submitted via regulations.govRE: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0093: Waters of the U.S. Definition Request for Recommendations Dear Ms. Best-Wong and Ms. Colosimo, On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation groups offer the following comments regarding the request for recommendations for revising the definition of the “waters of the United States.” Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 in order to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” For decades, the Clean Water Act has been a vital tool to safeguard the water quality of America’s iconic rivers and lakes – including the wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent streams that feed into them. Our organizations do not support any efforts to further weaken or narrow the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. Basic federal Clean Water Act protections safeguard the health and safety of all Americans and ensure that fish and wildlife – and the outdoor passions that rely on them – have the water resources needed to thrive. The term “waters of the United States” is determinative of which waters receive these needed protections and which are left to the risk of federally unregulated pollution and destruction. The scope of waters afforded these protections has already been alarmingly eroded as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA and can withstand no further, unwarranted rollbacks. Americans do not support a return to the time before we had strong federal protections when the Cuyahoga River caught fire and made national news due to decades of pollution prior to the establishment of a strong Clean Water Act. As such, we urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to keep in place the conforming 2023 existing rule, which already modifies the long-standing, Reagan-era definition of “waters of the United States” in alignment with the findings by the Supreme Court in the Sackett decision. We believe the conforming rule gives certainty and clarity in the context of the Sackett decision and that any proposed additional changes should be minimal and carefully weighed with the ability of the Clean Water Act to achieve its goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our Nation’s waters. Strong Measures to Protect Clean Water Enjoy Broad Support The Sackett decision has already significantly weakened the Clean Water Act, removing protections for about two-thirds of the nation’s wetlands and up to 5 million miles of streams. Polls consistently show that clean water is an American value, with up to 94% of Americans across all parties supporting clean water protections. This is why strong and broad clean water protections have historically been advanced by both parties. We urge this Administration to continue this strong bipartisan tradition of protecting clean water, not diluting these protections further. President Trump has vowed that under Administrator Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA would “maintain…the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet.” Maintaining protections for our wetlands and streams is in line with Administrator Zeldin’s plan to ensure clean air, land, and water for every American and the President’s commitment to clean water. Protecting wetlands is also in line with the Administration’s mission to be good stewards of tax dollars. Wetlands are powerhouses that can save taxpayer dollars spent on disasters by blunting the impacts of floods, with one acre of wetlands able to store up to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater. Healthy Waters Protect Communities, Wildlife, and Economies The value of wetlands and small streams for fish and wildlife habitat and access to clean water and quality outdoor recreation opportunities is indisputable. Further loss of protections would irreversibly harm hunting and angling across the country while devastating the outdoor recreation economy. Wetlands filter the water that eventually flows from our taps, provide immense flood storage and retention, recharge groundwater and streams during times of drought, and provide valuable habitat for wildlife among many other functions. Likewise, streams that do not flow year-round, including some that may only flow seasonally or in response to precipitation or snowmelt, provide over 50% of the flow to our most treasured rivers and up to 95% in our most arid states, where perennial streams are also shifting towards intermittent and ephemeral under current drought conditions. They also sustain prized sport fisheries like trout and salmon by providing important nursery habitat for spawning fish and delivering cool, clean water downstream. This is our drinking water, the places we swim, hunt, fish, and that sustains us. At least 117 million people get their drinking water from sources fed by these streams.Farmers also rely on these small streams and wetlands for access to clean water and for flood control. Regular farming activities have always been exempted under the Clean Water Act, through every administration since President Nixon. Destroying wetlands upstream can negatively impact downstream farms, including reduced ability to adequately drain fields for planting and increased erosion, putting farmers and everyone who depends on what they produce at risk. The costs of any further, unnecessary rollbacks will be borne by the public in the form of less safe drinking water, increased flooding, increased wildfire risk, threats to core economic activities that provide jobs and stability to communities, and degraded and destroyed habitat for fish and wildlife among other harms. The economic benefits of hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation – worth $887 billion annually – are especially pronounced in rural areas, where money brought in during fishing and hunting seasons can be enough to keep small businesses operational for the entire year. The Clean Water Act’s Cooperative Federalism Framework Should Remain Strong Each waterbody that is not federally protected must be either

Chairman Bruce Westerman U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural ResourcesWashington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Jared Huffman U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Washington, DC 20515 Chairman Harriet HagemanSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Committee on Natural ResourcesWashington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Cliff BentzSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Committee on Natural ResourcesWashington, DC 20515 Re: March 25, 2025 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 276, H.R. 845, H.R. 1897 & H.R. 1917 Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Huffman, Chair Hageman, and Ranking Member Bentz: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following information in response to the U.S. House of Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries legislative hearing on March 25, 2025 on H.R. 276, H.R. 845, H.R. 1897 & H.R. 1917. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and advocating for the use of best available science in policy-making efforts. We write today to share our perspective on the value of the Endangered Species Act and its importance to our nation’s fish and fisheries. We urge you to maintain our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, including the ESA. We are also compelled to note the devastating impacts of federal workforce cuts to the appropriate management and stewardship of our nation’s public trust resources. The ESA is a powerful science-based tool for recovering America’s threatened and endangered fish and wildlife. We are concerned about proposed changes to the ESA that would undermine the scientific foundations and collaborative nature of the current law. The law, as it is currently written, has been the catalyst for successful delisting or down listing of many endangered and threatened fish. Delisting requires collaborative teams, resources, and most importantly, time for imperiled populations to recover once threats are reduced and habitat is restored. Under the current structure of the ESA and its regulations, including high levels of private, state, and federal collaboration, several species of fish have recovered sufficiently to be delisted including the Apache Trout, Okaloosa Darter, Borax Lake Chub, Foskett Speckled Dace, Modoc Sucker, and Oregon Chub (see Appendix A). Best Available Science Decisions regarding species recovery and delisting should be based largely on science. The best available science must guide species management. Any data that are not vetted through peer review or internal quality control from state or tribal governments does not conform to the best-available science. Definition of Habitat Habitat loss is one of the leading factors in species population declines in the U.S. In fact, habitat loss is estimated to impair more than 80% of known species and is the greatest single threat to species existence (Hogue and Breon 2022). In passing the ESA, Congress recognized that listed species depend on entire ecosystems. Indeed, many ESA petitions and listings have identified the loss of usable habitat or access to habitat as the reasons for the decline in species. Increases in water temperature, insufficient levels of water in streams and rivers, poor water quality, and non-native invasive species have led to the imperilment of 40% of all freshwater species (Su et al. 2021). Any definition of “habitat” must account for a wide enough variety of situations to ensure the ecosystems that support and maintain listed and vulnerable species can be conserved. A broader definition allows for more tools in the conservation ‘tool box.’ This flexibility is particularly important in the face of climate change. A dual approach of both protecting existing quality habitat and increasing occupiable habitat is necessary to sustain species into the future, prevent listings, and achieve delistings. Threatened and endangered species are defined under the ESA as species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. The exact length of this timeframe can be mathematically predicted given enough information; however, these predictions will vary by species because of vast differences in generation times and life cycles. Sturgeon, for example, are one of the most imperiled vertebrate groups on the planet with more than a dozen of these species currently ESA listed. Some sturgeon species can live more than 100 years and may not reproduce for decades. Other species such as darters, a group only found in North America, mayonly live several years. Any effective definition of “foreseeable future” must therefore encompass biological differences between species for us to gain a greater species-specific sense of population viability and achieve delisting. A narrow definition of foreseeable future might have the unintended consequences of not allowing species with shorter generation times to be delisted when enough population information projects sustainable levels. Likewise, the definition of critical habitat is of particular importance for fisheries management because successful conservation efforts for species protection and recovery require holistic watershed approaches (e.g., Native Fish Conservation Areas like the Little Tennessee River and Willamette River for Oregon Chub) and partnerships across state, federal, and non-profit groups and landowners. Any definition of “habitat” applicable to designating critical habitat that excludes currently unoccupied habitat would be counterproductive to delisting and would limit funding and opportunities to expand populations into those unoccupied areas and work towards recovery. Increasing healthy habitat is the key to delistings, a shared goal amongst conservationists, developers, and the general public. Section 10(j) Section 10(j) of the ESA governs the use of experimental populations as a conservation tool intended to aid in the recovery and long-term preservation of threatened and endangered populations. Reintroductions have helped to delist several species , e.g., several mussel species, Oregon Chub, and Okaloosa Darter, and have prevented listing of the Least Chub (Novak et al. 2021). Indeed, conventional conservation measures such as habitat restoration in a species’ original range may be insufficient in the face of rapid climate change. Climate change has already caused range constrictions, shifts in suitable habitat, and increased fragmentation for many species leading to increased extinction risk (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008; Chen et al., 2011). Many aquatic

April 4, 2025 Representative Michael SimpsonChairSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Representative Chellie PingreeRanking MemberSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Pingree: Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026. Founded in 1870, The American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation and restoration of our country’s important fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners, and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within this program, the National Fish Hatchery System serves an important role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation aquaculture. Any funding cuts to this program will result in additional deferred maintenance at federal hatcheries and puts them at risk of catastrophic failure. Likewise, the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership conducts essential research on new fish medications that are seeking FDA approval. This program allows fisheries professionals to more effectively and efficiently rear and manage a variety of fish species to meet production goals, stock healthy fish, and maintain a healthy environment. FAC also conducts important work to control and prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. Through on-the-ground control projects, early detection surveillance and monitoring, and technical support, FAC works to effectively address a primary threat to freshwater fish. Finally, the Fish Passage Program works to address the millions of aging, obsolete, or poorly designed dams, roads, and levees that block fish from accessing food, shelter, and habitat to spawn. These projects address one of the primary drivers of declining fish populations while improving water quality and reducing flood risk for communities. FAC has played an essential coordination role in ensuring effective implementation of the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding for fish passage across the federal family. AFS requests $259.8 million for FAC for FY26. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the nation’s only program that encourages development and implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans and provides funding for state-led science-based, on-the-ground conservation of imperiled species. Today, at least 12,000 species of fish, wildlife and plants have been identified as at-risk of needing protections of the Endangered Species Act. STWG funds support strong partnerships among federal, state, tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to work together to keep common species healthy and prevent imperiled species from sliding towards extinction. The program was funded at $90 million in FY2010, the highest level to date. This figure is far below the identified need of $1.2 billion needed annually to address the full scope of the problem. AFS recommends the highest funding possible for the STWG Program in FY26, and no less than (NLT) the FY24 enacted level of $72.4 million. The National Fish Habitat Partnership is a science-based, state-led initiative to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic ecosystems across the United States. It was founded in 2006 and promotes and unites a network of 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across federal and state agencies and conservation groups. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides both funding and technical assistance to the 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships across the country to aid in implementing aquatic conservation projects nationwide. These partnerships leverage federal, state, tribal, and private resources to achieve the greatest impacts for conservation. AFS supports $7.6 million for the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) program in FY26, which includes funding for 20 fish habitat partnerships. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Ecosystems Mission Area The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving challenges posed by climate change to regional fish and wildlife, ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program’s ability to swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement of tribal communities in project design and resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY26, AFS recommends no less than $69.3 million. The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program plays a significant role in advancing applied scientific understanding and conservation efforts for addressing current real-world fish and wildlife management challenges across the United States. CRUs are dynamic hubs for collaborative research that prioritize the needs of state fish and wildlife agencies and play a central role in training the next generation of conservation professionals. State fish and wildlife agencies rely on the CRU program to conduct critical research that is used to support state fish and wildlife agency decision making and is relevant across jurisdictions (e.g. research on chronic wasting disease, monarchs, and wildlife corridors). The program’s value is clear, as evidenced by its continuous growth from its inception in 1935 to its statutory recognition by Congress in 1960, to the present day where 43 units are located across 41 states. Further budgetary or staffing impacts to the CRU program will directly diminish the research capacity of state fish and wildlife agency and university partners while reducing educational opportunities for students across the nation. AFS recommends a minimum of $28.206M for FY 2026. This level of funding would allow the CRU program to maintain its current function, but would not allow for additional staff or research capacity. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) The Forest Service administers a large transportation and trails infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types of stream crossing features.

February 17, 2025 The Honorable Doug Burgum, SecretaryDepartment of the Interior1849 C Street, NWWashington, DC 20240 RE: USGS Cooperative Wildlife Research Units Dear Secretary Burgum: I am writing on behalf of the National Cooperators’ Coalition (NCC), an alliance of nonfederal cooperators, supporters, and beneficiaries of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) program. Our members include state fish and wildlife agencies, universities, and other organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation and research. The CRU program was impacted on February 14, 2025, by initial staff reductions through the termination of employees still within their probationary period. Based on the recent executive order regarding implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency workforce optimization initiative, we feel it is a critical time for the NCC to again reinforce the value of the CRU program. The CRU program plays a significant role in advancing applied scientific understanding and conservation efforts for addressing current real-world fish and wildlife management challenges across the United States. Cooperative Research Units are dynamic hubs for collaborative research that prioritize the needs of state fish and wildlife agencies (SFWA) and play a central role in training the next generation of conservation professionals. State fish and wildlife agencies rely on the CRU program to conduct critical research that is used to support SFWA decision making and is relevant across jurisdictions (e.g., research on chronic wasting disease, monarchs, and wildlifecorridors). The program’s value is clear, as evidenced by its continuous growth from its inception in 1935 to its statutory recognition by Congress in 1960, to the present day where 43 units are located across 41 states. Impacts to the CRU program will directly diminish the research capacity of SFWA and university partners while reducing educational opportunities for students across the nation. With the administration’s focus on efficiency, it is a fiscally responsible investment. The CRU program leverages about $3 nonfederal dollars for every $1 USGS. The CRU leverages low overhead rate to increase the amount of research that can be accomplished. The CRU program is tremendously important to a variety of partner agencies and organizations and the NCC would appreciate recognition and consideration of their substantial value across the nation. Sincerely, LAURA CONLEEDEPUTY DIRECTOR – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATIONNATIONAL COOPERATORS’ COALITION, CHAIR c: National Cooperators’ Coalition Steering CommitteeRon Regan – Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

American Catfishing Association * American Fisheries Society * American Fly Fishing Trade Association * American Sportfishing Association * Angler Action Foundation * Archery Trade Association * Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies * Backcountry Hunters & Anglers * Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) * BoatU.S. * Bonefish & Tarpon Trust * Boone and Crockett Club * California Waterfowl Association * Center for Sportfishing Policy * Coastal Conservation Association * Conservation Force * Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation * Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports * Dallas Safari Club * Delta Waterfowl * Ducks Unlimited * Guy Harvey Foundation * Houston Safari Club * International Game Fish Association * Izaak Walton League of America * Major League Fishing * Marine Retailers Association of the Americas * Masters of Foxhounds Association * Midwest Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies * Mule Deer Foundation * National Bobwhite & Grassland Initiative Foundation * National Deer Association * National Marine Manufacturers Association * National Professional Anglers Association * National Shooting Sports Foundation * National Wild Turkey Federation * National Wildlife Federation * New York State Conservation Council * North American Falconers Association * North American Grouse Partnership * Northeast Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies * Orion: The Hunter’s Institute * Outdoor Industry Association * Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association * Pheasants Forever * Pope & Young Club * Professional Outfitters and Guides of America * Quail Forever * Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation * Safari Club International * Safari Club International Foundation * Southeastern Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies * Sportsmen’s Alliance * The Conservation Fund * The Wildlife Society * Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership * Trout Unlimited * Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies * Whitetails Unlimited * Wild Sheep Foundation * Wildlife Forever * Wildlife Management Institute * Wildlife Mississippi Feb. 20, 2025 The Honorable Jimmy Panetta U.S. House of Representatives 200 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Mike Thompson U.S. House of Representatives268 Cannon Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Troy Carter U.S. House of Representatives 442 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Blake MooreU.S. House of Representatives1131 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 The Honorable Dr. Greg MurphyU.S. House of Representatives407 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 The Honorable August PflugerU.S. House of Representatives2202 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Dear Representatives Panetta, Moore, Thompson, Murphy, Carter and Pfluger, We, the undersigned sportsmen, professional societies, and conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationists and businesses across the United States, commend your leadership in introducing legislation to address the critical issue of foreign manufacturers avoiding the federal excise tax (FET) on sportfishing and archery equipment through online marketplace facilitators. The Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Programs, funded primarily by the FET collected from archery, sportfishing, and firearms industries, are essential to supporting state fish and wildlife agencies and conservation initiatives nationwide. Unfortunately, the current tax collection model has created a loophole that allows foreign manufacturers to sell sportfishing and archery equipment directly to U.S. consumers via online marketplaces without paying the FET. This avoidance not only undermines a significant portion of current financial support of the American System of Conservation Funding but also gives foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage over domestic competitors. Estimates suggest that the annual loss in revenue due to this loophole exceeds $17 million, a figure that is almost certain to grow if left unaddressed. Thank you for efforts to close this tax loophole and ensure that all sportfishing and archery equipment manufacturers, regardless of their location, contribute their fair share to supporting conservation efforts. Your legislation aligns with the recommendation from the recent Government Accountability Office report titled “Action Needed to Improve Compliance for Sport Fishing and Archery Imports” (GAO-24-106569). By requiring online marketplace facilitators to collect the FET on behalf of foreign manufacturers, we can protect the integrity of the excise tax system and safeguard the future of our nation’s fish and wildlife resources. We stand ready to work with you and our industry partners to advance this important legislation and ensure its successful passage. Thank you for your commitment to conserving our natural heritage. Sincerely, American Catfishing AssociationAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationAmerican Sportfishing AssociationAngler Action FoundationArchery Trade AssociationAssociation of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesBackcountry Hunters & AnglersBass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.)BoatU.S.Bonefish & Tarpon TrustBoone and Crockett ClubCalifornia Waterfowl AssociationCenter for Sportfishing PolicyCoastal Conservation AssociationCongressional Sportsmen’s FoundationConservation ForceCouncil to Advance Hunting and the Shooting SportsDallas Safari ClubDelta WaterfowlDucks UnlimitedGuy Harvey FoundationHouston Safari ClubInternational Game Fish AssociationIzaak Walton League of AmericaMajor League FishingMarine Retailers Association of the AmericasMasters of Foxhounds AssociationMidwest Association of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesMule Deer FoundationNational Bobwhite & Grassland Initiative FoundationNational Deer AssociationNational Marine Manufacturers AssociationNational Professional Anglers AssociationNational Shooting Sports FoundationNational Wild Turkey FederationNational Wildlife FederationNew York State Conservation CouncilNorth American Falconers AssociationNorth American Grouse PartnershipNortheast Association of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesOrion: The Hunter’s InstituteOutdoor Industry AssociationOutdoor Recreation Roundtable AssociationPheasants ForeverPope & Young ClubProfessional Outfitters and Guides of AmericaQuail ForeverRocky Mountain Elk FoundationSafari Club InternationalSafari Club International FoundationSoutheastern Association of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesSportsmen’s AllianceThe Conservation FundThe Wildlife SocietyTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipTrout UnlimitedWestern Association of Fish & Wildlife AgenciesWhitetails UnlimitedWild Sheep FoundationWildlife ForeverWildlife Management InstituteWildlife Mississippi

February 4, 2025 President Donald TrumpThe White House1600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington, DC Dear President Trump: The American Fisheries Society (AFS), the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society in the world, seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by advancing science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. Our 8,000 members from around the world include fisheries managers, biologists, professors, ecologists, aquaculturists, economists, engineers, geneticists, and social scientists spanning federal and state agencies, private industry, and non-governmental organizations. With five journals, a monthly magazine, in-house book publishing with over 200 titles, and the world’s largest fisheries science conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information. AFS supports and promotes the use of best-available science in policymaking and we value all people in the Society, as well as the fisheries profession at-large. Our nation’s fish and wildlife are facing alarming declines. Up to one-third of U.S. fish species need immediate conservation action. Poor water quality, extended droughts causing lack of water in streams and rivers, cataclysmic flooding events, increases in water temperature, invasive species, and habitat degradation have imperiled forty percent of all freshwater species. In the U.S., commercial and recreational fisheries support more than 1.74 million jobs and result in more than $244 billion in sales per year. The economic and environmental value of the ecosystem services provided by our nation’s aquatic resources is of utmost importance and must be safeguarded. We write today to share our priorities for fisheries conservation and management, along with areas of focus for your consideration during your Administration. Sportfish Restoration Re-Authorization The Sportfish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (SFRBTF) is the backbone of fisheries conservation in the U.S. Nearly $720 million is distributed annually to state fish and wildlife agencies for a wide variety of projects, including on-the-ground fisheries science and management, fish population assessment, habitat conservation and rehabilitation, fishing access projects, hatchery operations, aquatic education, and public outreach. Habitat conservation and rehabilitation funded through this program helps to safeguard clean water and ensure high quality outdoor recreation, benefitting fish populations and providing Americans with healthy activities out on the water. The Sportfish Restoration Programs are funded primarily by the Federal Excise Tax (FET) collected from the sportfishing and boating industries under a “user-pays” model. Unfortunately, the current tax collection model has created a loophole that allows foreign manufacturers to sell sportfishing equipment directly to U.S. consumers via online marketplaces without paying the FET. This avoidance not only undermines a significant portion of current financial support of the American System of Conservation Funding but also gives foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage over domestic competitors. Estimates suggest that the annual loss in revenue due to this loophole exceeds $17 million, a figure that is almost certain to grow if left unaddressed. The program is currently authorized through the end of Fiscal Year 2026. AFS supports a timely reauthorization of the SFRTF and efforts to close this tax loophole and ensure that all sportfishing equipment manufacturers, regardless of their location, contribute their fair share to supporting conservation efforts. Investments in Aquatic Connectivity and Habitat Conservation Throughout the U.S., fish habitat is fragmented by culverts, dams, and other water control structures blocking access to habitat and spawning grounds, leading to declining fish populations, Endangered Species Act listings, and lost recreational, subsistence, and commercial fishing opportunities. Freshwater fish, like brook trout and cutthroat trout, need access to upstream habitat to spawn, access food, and escape predators. Anadromous fish, like salmon and steelhead, migrate upstream as adults to spawn while juvenile fish must travel back downstream to the ocean to feed. Restoring aquatic connectivity at the watershed-level creates thriving fish populations, builds resilience, and allows access to cooler habitats as streams warm. Fish passage restoration provides co-benefits for communities including reducing and mitigating flood damage, improving water quality, making road infrastructure more flood resilient, and providing recreational opportunities leading to thriving local economies. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was passed in 2021, providing nearly $2 billion for aquatic ecosystem restoration and fish passage funding to multiple federal agencies. This investment is helping improve the health of watersheds and the ways that federal, state, and Tribal partners collaborate. We appreciate the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in convening federal agencies and stakeholders to chart a path forward for the coordinated and efficient use this funding and we are pleased by the work of our federal partners to identify large-scale, transformational projects and coordinate funding and technical assistance to achieve significant advances in aquatic connectivity. Yet, much work remains with at least $5 billion in unmet aquatic connectivity needs across the country. AFS supports additional federal investments in aquatic connectivity and fish passage in the next Surface Transportation bill and additional investments for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Fish Passage Program, NOAA Fisheries Aquatic Ecosystem Connectivity work, and the U.S. Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails program. Proactive Conservation Funding for Imperiled Species Twenty years ago, Congress recognized the need for proactive conservation for our nation’s fish and wildlife and created the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs (STWG). The program funds on-the-ground conservation such as invasive species control, habitat management, species reintroduction, disease abatement, and research and monitoring that helps fish and wildlife biologists understand and assess declining populations of at-risk species before it’s too late. States and tribes have identified 12,000 species of fish, wildlife, birds, and plants in need of conservation. Yet, the STWG program is only funded at a fraction of the need to adequately address the magnitude of the biodiversity crisis and prevent species from sliding towards extinction. With dedicated and adequate funding, states and Tribes can implement science-based plans to conserve fish and wildlife populations before they become threatened or endangered, while helping to recover those that already are listed under the ESA. AFS supports robust funding for the STWG program and urges passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, legislation that would provide dedicated, substantial funding for fish and wildlife

November 7, 2024 Ms. Noel SharpAquatic Resources DivisionDepartment of Natural ResourcesState of Washington1111 Washington St SE; MS: 47027Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Department of Natural Resources, Modification of WAC 332-30 Dear Ms. Sharp: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Washington Department of Natural Resources’ proposed modification of WAC 332-30 to better achieve the Department’s management guidelines with respect to commercial finfish net pen aquaculture. On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the AFS Fish Culture Section, and the Western Division of AFS, we respectfully submit the following information for your consideration. Founded in 1870, AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fisheries scientists and resource managers. At its core, AFS is an international science organization. The society promotes the conservation and sustainability of fisheries resources and aquatic ecosystems through dissemination of fisheries science via scientific journals on fisheries, conferences, and continuing education. AFS began as a society for aquaculture professionals and many of our members continue to work in aquaculture, particularly in the Western Division of AFS. The AFS supports sustainable growth of U.S. aquaculture. The demand for fish is expected to grow significantly in the next decade and wild fisheries cannot sustainably accommodate increased harvest pressure to meet consumer demand (FAO 2024). Aquaculture is an opportunity to sustainably address America’s ongoing dependence on imported seafood, relieve local pressures on wild stocks, and bolster waterfront communities (AFS 2020). There is a lack of scientific evidence to support either a partial or full ban of net pen aquaculture in the State of Washington or elsewhere in the United States. Aquaculture faces a number of persistent, troubling falsehoods regarding the environmental footprint of net-pen aquaculture, perhaps particularly so in the State of Washington. We seek to provide you with the most up-to-date scientific information. Parasite and disease transmission between farmed and wild stocks occurs in both directions, however, documentation of impacts on wild fish is scant and suggests that impacts are typically small and localized. Introduction of novel pathogens to naive populations is a risk factor that is well-addressed by use of local-origin stocks and routine pathogen testing. Likewise, there is no evidence of escaped farmed salmon causing genetic impacts to wild stocks despite media reports to the contrary. Escapement events have proven to be well-managed via recapture events and the reluctance of farmed fish to disperse and interact with wild fish. Further, with proper siting and best management practices, there is little risk of long-term net pen and/or benthic degradation. These findings are supported by the work of scientists and resource managers with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and others familiar with the circumstances specific to the Evergreen State (Amos and Appleby 1999; WA DoE 2022). In recent decades, the U.S. has improved its resource efficiency in terms of the amount of fish meal and fish oil used in feeds, and reduced its environmental impacts in terms of the mass loading and impact of nutrient discharge on the receiving ecosystem, the incidence and treatment of fish diseases, the use of antibiotics, and the number and impact of fish escapes, while increasing production. These changes can be attributed to a combination of advances in science and technology, the rising cost of fish meal/oil, improved management, and informed regulatory practices (Rust et al., 2014). With proper regulatory oversight, adherence to best management practices, and good siting of farms, net pen aquaculture can be accomplished without causing adverse impacts to the surrounding environment or wild fish stocks. An assessment of net-pen aquaculture should consider benefits to food supply, the economy and wild stocks, as well as any risks to the environment. We urge you to consider the science and to maintain opportunities for properly regulated and environmentally sound net pen aquaculture on state-owned lands in Washington. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeff KopaskaExecutive Director

October 29, 2024 Ms. Ann HijuelosSenior Project Manager, Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management StudyUnited States Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study Team Re: Comments regarding the Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study Ms. Hijuelos and LMR Comprehensive Management Study Team, The following comments regarding the Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study are being submitted by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership on behalf of our members and the undersigned organizations including: The International Gamefish Association Ducks Unlimited Delta Waterfowl American Fisheries Society B.A.S.S. – Bassmaster Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation American Sportfishing Association  All organizations endorsing these comments represent hunters, anglers, fisheries and wildlife biologists and conservation interests in the lower reaches of the Mississippi River and across the country. These comments are intended to continue and further an ongoing dialogue among our organizations and representatives from the Corps of Engineers who are working with stakeholders throughout the region to identify projects and policy changes that can improve fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, navigation, sediment management, recreational access and a host of other issues involving the lower Mississippi’s watershed. We intend to work closely with the Corps and other federal and state agencies and elected and appointed officials at the national, regional, state and local level as the Corps of Engineers continues to move this Congressionally-authorized study into its second year. As the Corps begins to identify more specific project types and possible policy changes that will benefit lower river management, we hope these comments and additional engagement will ensure fish and wildlife habitat, fisheries and wildlife productivity and access to fishing and hunting opportunities are an integral part of conclusions reached in the study and prescriptions for changes in lower river management. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to continuing to work with the Corps and hunting, angling and conservation advocates as the study moves forward and reaches its final conclusions. Please email me at cmacaluso@trcp.org or call at (225) 802-4048 if you have any questions or see future opportunities for the TRCP and its partners to meet with the Corps to participate in the ongoing study. Sincerely, Chris MacalusoDirector, The Center for Marine FisheriesThe Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study Comments Introduction These comments are submitted for consideration as a part of the Comprehensive Management Study in the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) – a study to evaluate alternatives for ensuring effective long-term management of the river from Cape Girardeau to the Gulf of Mexico by reviewing all operations and management aspects of the Lower Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T). Congress directed the Corps to undertake the study in Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-260). The Lower Mississippi River (LMR) stretches 954 miles from the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers in southern Illinois to Head-of-Passes, Louisiana, where it splits into distributaries leading to the Gulf of Mexico. This region encompasses a 3-million-acre floodplain featuring abandoned channels, meander scars, and vast forested wetlands and coastal plain wetlands. However, the active floodplain is now 80% smaller than it was historically. The Lower Mississippi River basin is one of the most ecologically and culturally diverse and economically significant regions in the United States. The basin supports a wide range of fish and wildlife species, providing critical habitats for migratory birds, freshwater fish, and numerous other species. These ecosystems are not only vital for biodiversity but also for the local economies and cultures, which rely on them for activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and other forms of outdoor recreation as well as commercially and recreationally harvested seafood such as crawfish, shrimp, blue crabs, catfish and a host of other crustaceans and finfish species. This vast watershed is home to more than  90 freshwater fish species and several federally listed threatened or endangered species. It is also a crucial part of the Mississippi Flyway, the world’s largest bird migration route, supporting over 300 migratory bird species and approximately 70% of the nation’s migratory waterfowl. Recreation and tourism along the LMR generate $17 billion annually, supporting thousands of businesses and employing more than 240,000 people. Fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching alone account for 38 million trips each year, contributing $1.3 billion in trip expenditures, and providing jobs for more than 54,000 people. The economic and ecological significance underscores the importance of preserving and enhancing the Lower Mississippi River for fish, wildlife, recreational use and the communities that enable and support access to these resources. During the Scoping phase of this study, the Corps received considerable comments focused on ecosystem restoration, wildlife habitat conservation, and recreation. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has convened the undersigned conservation and advocacy organizations that represent anglers, hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts from the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Illinois. We are proud to submit these comments for consideration to further inform the scope and development of the Study, alternatives development and NEPA analysis. We urge the Corps to prioritize projects, programs and alternatives that enhance the long-term sustainability of natural ecosystems of the Lower Mississippi River and improve public access to those resources. As the Corps proceeds to the next phase of its comprehensive study spanning the broad reach of its authority over the Mississippi River and its tributaries, we urge you to prioritize these outcomes: Enhanced Fish and Wildlife Habitat – Taking steps to reconnect the river to its natural floodplain is essential for restoring the natural hydrology of the river. This process can enhance fish spawning grounds, improve water quality, and increase resilience to floods and droughts. Increased Recreational Access to Fish and Wildlife Resources – Enhancing access to natural resources encourages outdoor recreation, which is a significant economic driver and culturally integral to the region. Improved access can increase tourism, support local businesses, and foster a greater appreciation for the natural environment. Prevention and Control of Invasive Species – Invasive species, including a variety of fish, mammals,

July 23, 2024 Chairman Cliff BentzU.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries1324 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Jared HuffmanU.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Natural ResourcesSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries1324 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Re: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 7544, H.R. 8308 & H.R. 8811 Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following information in response to the July 9, 2024 legislative hearing of the U.S. House of Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries on H.R. 7544, H.R. 8308 & H.R. 8811. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and promoting the use of best available science in policy-making efforts. AFS supports the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act (ACE), particularly as it relates to re-authorization of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships. The society also supports dedicated funding for state fish and wildlife agencies, as provided for in the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, S. 1149, to prevent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings and to recover listed species. AFS has concerns with several proposed changes to the ESA as provided in the draft discussion bill that we explain more fully below. America’s Conservation Enhancement Act AFS supports the ACE Act, particularly as it relates to re-authorization of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships. NFHP is a voluntary, non-regulatory, and locally driven program that has funded more than 1,300 on-the-ground aquatic habitat improvement projects since 2016. AFS urges swift, unanimous passage of the ACE Act and supports funding levels for the NFHP, as authorized in the Senate-passed S. 3791. AFS Support Recovering America’s Wildlife Act AFS supports dedicated funding for imperiled species conservation as called for in the bi-partisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA), S.1149, as introduced by Sen. Martin Heinrich and Sen. Tom Tillis. Populations of many species are in decline and at least 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater fish species are now rare or imperiled. Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would be the only federal conservation program that provides sustained funding to tribal nations and state fish and wildlife agencies for the proactive conservation of at-risk species and populations. With increasing habitat loss and evolving threats as a result of a changing climate, state and federal agencies will need adequate funds to address the biodiversity crisis. Currently, funding only covers a fraction of the need. As a result, states must focus on very few species, with many more at-risk and heading towards endangerment. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would provide funding to implement three-quarters of every State Wildlife Action Plan, state-led, congressionally mandated, science based blueprints for imperiled species conservation. Through actions such as reintroduction of imperiled species, conserving and restoring important habitat, and fighting invasive species and disease, states would have the ability to significantly reduce the number of species in decline and prevent these species from needing protections afforded under the ESA. Without significant funding to address these declines, many more species will qualify for protection under federal and state endangered species laws, vulnerable species are more likely to progress to more dire conditions where regulatory actions are required, time is short, and litigation and community resistance impede recovery. AFS Supports a Science-Based, Collaborative ESA The ESA is a powerful science-based tool for recovering America’s fish and wildlife. The law has been the catalyst for successful delisting or down listing of many endangered fish, which took decades of planning and commitment by interdisciplinary teams of individuals. Under the current structure of the ESA and its regulations, including high levels of private, state, and federal collaboration, several species of fish have recovered sufficiently to be delisted (Okaloosa Darter, Snail Darter, Borax Lake Chub, Foskett Speckled Dace, Modoc Sucker, Oregon Chub). Four of these six species have ranges in Oregon, a state that has invested revenue in watershed conservation and restoration through matching grants. Thus, delisting takes investment of collaborative teams, resources, and most importantly, time for imperiled populations to recover once threats are reduced and habitat is restored as illustrated in the following examples. The Borax Lake Chub is endemic to Borax Lake in southeastern Oregon and was listed in 1982 and delisted in 2020. Geothermal energy development, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, and recreational vehicles threatened its habitat. After listing, habitat was protected by land leases and purchases by The Nature Conservancy from willing private landholders, cessation of irrigation diversions and livestock grazing, fencing, and passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management & Protection Act, which limited private lands development in the basin (Bangs et al. 2020). Historically widespread in off-channel habitats along the main stem Willamette River, the Oregon Chub was listed in 1993 and delisted in 2015. Population declines were caused by habitat losses from channelization, dams, wetland drainage, and non-native fishes. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife guided recovery along with the Oregon Chub Conservation Agreement and Oregon Chub Recovery Plan while safe-harbor agreements with private landowners and land purchases by tribal governments enabled success. Today, chub occur in 59 previously undocumented populations and 19 introduced populations; half the latter are on private property (Hughes et al. 2019). The Foskett Speckled Dace was listed in 1985 and delisted in 2019. Livestock grazing and groundwater pumping threatened this fish found in a single eastern Oregon spring/wetland system. The Bureau of Land Management obtained the spring and its riparian zone via a land exchange with private landholders and livestock were excluded from most of the habitat thanks to private, state, academic, and federal participants and a Cooperative Management Plan (USFWS 2019). The Modoc Sucker is endemic to the upper Pit River basin of northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. It resides in small streams that traverse nearly equal amounts of public and private lands. It was listed in 1985 because of habitat losses

May 10, 2024 Representative Michael Simpson Chair Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Representative Chellie PingreeRanking MemberSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Simpson and Ranking Pingree: Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025. Founded in 1870, The American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation and restoration of our country’s important fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners, and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within this program, the National Fish Hatchery System has served an important role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation aquaculture. AFS fully supports an increase in funding for this program for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River Basin. However, we are particularly concerned with Administration’s proposed funding reductions for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation. The program’s important work to protect, restore, and recover native fish and our nation’s freshwater ecosystems must be maintained to address increasing impacts to freshwater ecosystems and native fish populations from habitat loss, fragmentation, aquatic invasive species, pollution, and climate change. AFS requests $253 million for FAC for FY 2025 to maintain funding for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation and for additional appropriations for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River Basin. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the nation’s only program that encourages development and implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans. Collectively, STWG funds support strong partnerships among federal, state, tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to implement on-the-ground conservation activities that benefit over 12,000 at-risk species, with the goal of eliminating the need to list them under the Endangered Species Act. In FY 2010, appropriations were at $90 million for the program – allowing states to complete more projects deemed necessary for monitoring and management of at-risk fish and wildlife. Subsequent budget reductions in STWG, however, have not allowed this highly successful program to reach its full potential. AFS requests that Congress increase funding for the program to at least $100 million annually. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Ecosystems Mission AreaThe Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving challenges posed by climate change on regional fish and wildlife, ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program’s ability to swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement of tribal communities in project design and resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY 2025, AFS recommends the full realization of the Administration’s proposal, reaching no less than $69.3 million. The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) foster federal, state, nongovernment organization (NGO), and academic partnerships to provide actionable science tailored to the needs of natural resource managers. This science plays a pivotal role in the implementation of state and federal management decisions. CRUs are an exemplary model for cooperative natural resource science programming; with the support of collaborators this program leverages an average of three dollars in outside funds for every federal dollar invested. Thanks to support from Congress, Indiana was able to establish the Indiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit hosted by Purdue University. Despite growing interest from other states, limited federal funding has constrained the expansion of units and continues to result in vacancies at existing units. To address this gap, AFS recommends a funding increase to $36 million in FY 2025, enabling CRUs to capitalize on emerging partnerships and fill vacancies in an effort to meet longstanding commitments. U.S. Forest Service (USFS)The Forest Service administers a large transportation and trails infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types of stream crossing features. Stream crossings pose a significant challenge to water quality and the health of fish and aquatic species habitat. Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program improves fish and aquatic species passage and reduces erosion and sediment into streams to improve water quality while increasing flood resilience. AFS requests the full $6 million in annual appropriations for FY 2025 in the Administration’s proposal for decommissioning roads, removal or replacement of stream crossing structures that are barriers to aquatic organism passage, road and trail repair and improvements and associated activities in environmentally sensitive areas; and repair and improvements on roads and trails subject to recent storm damage. Thank you for your commitment to conserving our country’s natural resources. We appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D.Executive Director

April 5, 2024 The Honorable Pete ButtigiegSecretaryU.S. Department of Transportation1200 New Jersey Ave.Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Buttigieg: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations, scientific societies, and businesses contributing to the $1.1 trillion outdoor recreation economy write to express our continued commitment to working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on implementation of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). We have approached the mid-point for implementation of BIL program funding. Our organizations continue to be appreciative of the momentum behind key provisions supported by our community including the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program; the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Discretionary Grants Program; and the Wildlife Crossings Safety Pilot Program. Our organizations worked closely with the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional leaders on the foundational structure and purpose of these provisions. Firstly, we write to thank the Department and FHWA for issuing the initial notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program, and are eagerly awaiting notice for subsequent funding. We admire FHWA’s focus on delivering a program that meets the standards set forth in recent Presidential Executive Orders focusing on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (EO 12898) and Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 14008). We were also pleased to see FHWA actively coordinating the parameters of this new program with other federal fish passage and conservation grant programs. While we recognize the intent to achieve these objectives, we have concerns with other elements of the NOFO. In our opinion, the criteria in Section B – Federal Award Information, and Section C – Eligibility Information, precludes the program from successfully achieving the aforementioned standards in on-the-ground project implementation. Specifically, Section B states that “Grant awards are administered on a reimbursement basis. Culvert AOP Program funds will reimburse recipients only for reasonable and authorized costs incurred and for work performed after a grant agreement has been executed, allowable expenses are incurred, and valid requests for reimbursement are submitted.” We were alerted to this potential funding strategy early in the NOFO development and immediately initiated conversations with project partners throughout the country, with a focus on the Pacific Northwest, to determine if this reimbursement requirement would preclude them from pursuing this funding opportunity. We heard unequivocally, particularly from Tribal and rural underserved community partners, that this criteria effectively eliminates their ability to pursue funding from this Program. A majority of the communities where our organizations work are historically resource-dependent, capacity-limited communities that have been identified as disadvantaged by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and have a ‘moderate to high’ or ‘high’ level of vulnerability according to the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. The majority of potential eligible applicants from Tribes or units of local governments within these geographies simply do not have sufficient upfront funding to implement these projects on a reimbursable basis. Numerous other federal agencies recognize this dilemma, and as such, implement grant programs to ensure that historically underfunded communities can access critically important federal funds. We have serious concerns with DOT/FHWA opting not to follow tried and true federal funding disbursement methods, particularly in light of the aforementioned Executive Orders to address equity and barriers to opportunity in the disbursement of federal funds. We recognize that DOT/FHWA indicated potential for an alternative funding mechanism in the NOFO: “At DOT’s sole discretion alternative funding arrangements may be considered on a case-by-case basis.” However, we recommend that DOT amend the Program to automatically enable alternative funding arrangements for Tribal and underserved community applicants. Clearly identifying eligibility for this alternative path will remove the burden on already capacity strapped entities (such as rural counties and Tribes) who would otherwise dedicate limited staff time to develop grants with no knowledge of whether they meet the criteria for an undefined alternative funding mechanism. Further, given the capacity challenges that many rural local government and Tribal partners face, we also see implications to the success of the program under Section C of the current NOFO language: Section C – Elegibility InformationEligible Applicants are: (1) States; (2) a unit of local governments; or an (3) Indian Tribe.DOT expects that the Eligible Applicant that submits the application will administer and deliver the project. Numerous other federal funding programs allow for the pass through of funds, to enable entities such as conservation non-profits not under the same capacity limitations and often times with increased access to private philanthropic match funding, to contract with the eligible applicant to perform the on-the-ground project implementation and management duties. If the expectation of DOT is that the applicant must administer and implement the project directly, your solicitation will only secure project applications from large, well-staffed entities and fail to deliver projects. If that is not the intent of the NOFO, and funding can be passed through to alternative implementation entities, we recommend that future NOFOs be amended to clearly indicate that the pass through of funds from eligible entities is permitted. In addition to our recommendations to improve equitable access to the Program, we believe that there is significant need for the inclusion of minimum design standards in the NOFO. Given that the intent of the Program is to benefit fish passage, design criteria that includes minimum fish passage requirements and hydraulic design methodology that incorporates climate influence on hydrology should be required as part of project design funded through the Program. Hydraulic design methodology to facilitate fish passage, such as stream simulated design, is already a key component of minimum fish passage criteria for other federal funding programs. Additionally, the Program should require a minimum project design life and sizing that is climate resilient. Projects that utilize these minimum design standards will provide greater ecosystem benefit, including in many cases the dual purpose of terrestrial passage, while also

April 15, 2024 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.PresidentThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: The undersigned organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write today regarding the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), known also as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or “BIL” and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Together, these laws infused billions of dollars into programs and projects that balance infrastructure investments with landscape and watershed conservation, improve fish and wildlife habitat on working forests and agricultural lands, advance natural infrastructure and nature-based solutions, connect Americans to their public lands and waters, and offer long-term benefits for climate resilience. Our coalition, co-led by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and the Association and Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), has played a pivotal role over the past few years in actively supporting the Administration’s implementation of these historic investments. Our collaborative efforts extend across jurisdictions and include federal, state, territorial, Tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in local partnerships that focus on BIL and IRA programs targeting ecosystem restoration, wildfire resilience, aquatic connectivity and fish passage, wildlife crossings, clean water, and drought and flood resilience projects. Over the past year and a half, our coalition has consistently convened to explore BIL and IRA implementation opportunities and challenges. We have engaged with federal, tribal, state, territorial, and NGO stakeholders to examine implementation constraints and to develop recommendations and strategies that may achieve more efficient, meaningful, and lasting conservation outcomes. We have also focused on addressing capacity needs and other barriers to getting funding to on-the-ground projects in an efficient and environmentally beneficial manner. Following enactment of this historic funding, our coalition drafted a letter to this Administration to offer expertise and resources to ensure BIL and IRA funding delivery would be driven by science, targeted and strategic, built upon years of on-the-ground conservation and recreation partnerships, and sustainable for the long-term. As we approach the mid-point of this historic funding opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity to continue this important work together, and offer the following recommendations to address some remaining areas of concern based on our shared experiences with BIL and IRA implementation. Enhanced Federal Agency Coordination and Collaboration for Durable Conservation and Outdoor Recreation at the Landscape and Watershed Scale It is critically important to maximize benefits for fish and wildlife by continuing to direct the historic funding from BIL and IRA to achieve transformational change at the landscape and watershed levels. The broad and extensive funding opportunities provided through BIL and IRA span numerous federal agencies and programs. The magnitude of funding provides great opportunity, but in some instances has led to siloed decision making. We continue to be concerned that simply funding a large number of projects without an overarching coordinated vision or plan, including the utilization for existing landscape level plans, will not have the desired impact for fish and wildlife conservation. This approach has also created a complex network of funding opportunities that grantees need to knit together to address the full scope of a project or artificially fragment a project into parts. This adds to the administrative burden for grantees, particularly in underserved communities, and reduces the potential for transformational outcomes. We support the use of existing landscape and watershed-scale plans to guide federal investments of BIL and IRA funds. Further, enhanced coordination amongst the Federal agencies that receive funding for similar and related purposes is essential to maximize potential for landscape and watershed scale conservation. We encourage the administration to require federal agencies to coordinate their funding and programs for enhanced successful conservation outcomes. We are encouraged by the formation of the Interagency Fish Passage Task Force, under the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and we would support similar efforts that facilitate the development of shared priorities and outcomes in other areas. Address Federal Agency Workforce Capacity Common themes of challenges and hurdles that federal agencies face throughout the implementation process are primarily associated with a lack of staffing capacity and technical expertise needed to effectively deploy the resources granted by unprecedented amounts of BIL and IRA funding. Another major concern shared by officials across the federal family is a lack of technical and scientific expertise on the ground, especially because each state, territory, and region in the United States faces different needs and challenges. A recent Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General (IG) Report found that DOI bureaus and offices are still 20-to-30 percent below the capacity needed to get the dollars out the door responsibly. Since the adoption of the BIL, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has worked to accelerate hiring for key federal positions, including engineers, scientists, project managers, IT, HR specialists, and construction managers. Integral to this effort was the release of OPM’s Talent Surge Executive Playbook and the utilization of specific hiring flexibilities, including temporary appointments, to address discrete agency critical hiring needs. Despite these efforts, several key agencies still face challenges in ensuring they can promptly deploy the funding, maintain staffing and resource capacity, produce reliable information, and establish appropriate program controls. We recommend expanding initiatives such as OPM’s Talent Surge Executive Playbook, Schedule A authority, and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program to address staffing and technical expertise challenges. We strongly encourage the use of federal contractors with a demonstrated ability and track record for managing large project portfolios, who can navigate the planning and federal review processes, and deliver federal funds to on-the-ground projects in an efficient and environmentally beneficial manner.One example of increasing capacity through partnerships includes work by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), who is expanding their collaboration with the Forest Service to conduct controlled burns in some of the places in the United States that need them most. Throughout North America, a dizzying array of landscapes need fire in some intervals. When they do not get the fire they need, many become prone to potentially destructive and extreme wildfires because of the natural fuels

March 13, 2024 The Honorable Cliff BentzChairHouse Natural Resources CommitteeSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and FisheriesUnited States House of Representatives409 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Jared HuffmanRanking MemberHouse Natural Resources CommitteeSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and FisheriesUnited States House of Representatives2445 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, The undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations, and professional societies write to share our support for the bipartisan Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act (H.R.6841) and to encourage the committee to advance this legislation. With your efforts, Congress can conserve coastal and estuary habitats across the United States and defend outdoor recreation opportunities and economies that rely on effective conservation and research. Along the almost 100,000 miles of American shorelines, outdoor recreation is a pillar for local coastal communities. Nationwide, the economic output of outdoor recreation is calculated at $1.1 trillion, accounting for 2.2 percent ($563.7 billion) of the total U.S. GDP and 3.2 percent of total U.S. employment. As of 2021, all of the top ten states for outdoor recreation spending were located along our oceans or Great Lakes. And according to NOAA, “the ocean-based tourism and recreation sector alone employs more Americans than the entire real estate industry, as well as more people than building construction and telecommunications combined.” For the 40 percent of Americans living in coastal counties and for the millions of Americans that travel to our coasts every year, the ability to hunt, fish, and recreate along our shorelines represents both a lifestyle and a lifeline. As we recognize the reliance of coastal and Great Lakes communities on outdoor recreation, it’s also crucial to recognize outdoor recreation’s own reliance on forward-thinking conservation and research. This industry and its traditions are deeply tied to the health of our natural spaces and local ecosystems. Through the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, the House Committee on Natural Resources has the opportunity to strengthen our coastal and Great Lakes environments in the face of growing challenges.H.R.6841 centers on two vital conservation and research programs established under the Coastal Zone Management Act: the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). CELCP was originally authorized to conserve ecologically important coastal lands and recreational opportunities. The program helped conserve more than 110,000 acres through assistance to state and local governments for conservation easements in coastal and estuarine areas across the country – including the Nemadji River in Wisconsin and Minnesota, Chowan Swamp in North Carolina, Lapakahi Marine Life Conservation District in Hawaii, South Slough Reserve in Oregon, Cat Island in Mississippi, and beyond. However, in recent years, CELCP has lost its funding sources, after dedicated Congressional appropriations were rolled back in 2013 and other federal funding avenues were depleted in 2017. The NERRS was created to provide for the stewardship, research, training, and education necessary to conserve and study estuarine systems. Today, the system serves as a network of 30 coastal sites covering 1.4 million acres of study area, offering vital information on nonpoint source pollution, community resilience, habitat restoration, and invasive species. Of the 32 largest cities in the world, 22 are located on estuaries, and our research reserves help ensure that we maintain and expand the biodiversity, ecosystemhealth, community benefits, and economic impacts that estuaries foster at home and abroad – providing social, economic, and environmental benefits, particularly toward outdoor recreation, that far exceed their cost of operation. If enacted, the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act would take necessary and overdue steps to reinforce both the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The bill would revitalize CELCP, renaming the program to the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, reauthorizing funding to restore conservation practices, and recalibrating program language to address emerging challenges to coastal communities. It would also enable the NERRS to expand their research and data monitoring supporting local conservation and management. The passage of the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act would help ensure the continued prosperity of our coastal and Great Lakes environments, safeguarding outdoor recreation opportunities for millions of Americans and strengthening the widespread economic benefits of one of America’s most impactful and growing sectors. As hunters, anglers, conservationists, and professional societies, we support H.R.6841 and we strongly encourage the House Committee on Natural Resources to advance this legislation.Thank you for your time and for your support for outdoor recreation. We look forward to working with you to pass this important bill. Sincerely, AFFTA Fisheries FundAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationAmerican Forest FoundationAmerican Shore & Beach Preservation AssociationAmerican Sportfishing AssociationAngler Action FoundationAssociation of State Floodplain ManagersBackcountry Hunters and AnglersBass Anglers Sportsman SocietyBonefish & Tarpon TrustCoastal Conservation AssociationCoastal States OrganizationDucks Unlimited Guy Harvey FoundationInternational Game Fish AssociationIzaak Walton League of AmericaLand Trust AllianceNational Audubon SocietyNational Estuarine Research Reserve AssociationNational Wildlife FederationNew York State Conservation CouncilNorth American Falconers AssociationRestore America’s EstuariesThe Nature ConservancyThe Wildlife SocietyTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipWild Salmon Center cc:The Honorable Bruce Westerman, Committee on Natural Resources, ChairmanThe Honorable Raúl M. Grijalva, Committee on Natural Resources, Ranking MemberCommittee on Natural Resources, MajorityCommittee on Natural Resources, Minority

December 23, 2023 Chairman Cliff BentzSubcommittee on Water, Oceans and WildlifeCommittee on Natural ResourcesU.S. House of Representatives Ranking Member Jared HuffmanSubcommittee on Water, Oceans and WildlifeCommittee on Natural ResourcesU.S. House of Representatives Re: Examining the Biden Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the Pacific Northwest’s Clean Energy Production Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), we submit this information for the record in follow-up to the December 12 hearing of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources entitled “Examining the Biden Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the Pacific Northwest’s Clean Energy Production.” AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery scientists and resource managers. At its core, AFS is a science organization. AFS promotes the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems through dissemination of fisheries science via scientific journals on fisheries, conferences, and continuing education. Many of AFS’ members live and work in the western United States and have long-studied salmon and their declining populations. The science is indeed clear and compelling, supported by decades of rigorously peer-reviewed published reports and manuscripts, and demonstrates removing the four lower Snake River dams is essential to restore critically at-risk populations of wild Snake River salmon and steelhead. Snake River populations are currently hovering on the brink of extinction and action is urgently needed. After carefully reviewing the science on this issue, AFS adopted a policy statement in support of breaching the lower four Snake River dams in January 2023 (Winters 2023). We attach it here for your consideration. The policy statement concludes that “[i]f Snake River basin salmon and steelhead are to be saved, then policymakers and stakeholders at all levels will need to implement appropriate processes and funding provisions to breach the four dams on the Lower Snake River, as well as implement all necessary habitat rehabilitation.” Today, only 1–2% of formerly abundant, historic wild salmon and steelhead return to the Snake River to spawn (Winters 2023). Despite billions of dollars spent to date on Snake River anadromous fish restoration (including hatchery stocking), recovery efforts have not been effective (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022; Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023; Winters 2023). Recent reports demonstrate that 42% of Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon and 19% of steelhead populations have declined to the threshold where extinction is highly likely (O’Toole 2021) and will continue to decline without breach. The climate crisis increases the urgency for action and will continue to worsen conditions for these and other coldwater species. Ensuring access to the Snake River basin’s intact and high elevation habitat provides the best opportunity for broadscale population recovery and persistence in the face of the climate crisis (Storch et al. 2022). In the 1990s, 30 scientists from state, federal, tribal, and other entities participated in the PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) process that evaluated smolt-to-adult ratios and the probability of achieving the interim survival and recovery standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (Marmorek et al. 1998). The PATH analyses concluded that the Natural River option to restore the Snake River (via breaching the four lower Snake River dams) was the only option that would provide recovery. This option was found to have the “highest certainty of success and the lowest risk of failure.” (Storch et al. 2022). The PATH conclusions have been reaffirmed by scientific review panels, agencies, and scientists for the past 25 years (ISAB 2019, Hatch Magazine 2021, NOAA Fisheries 2022). In 2020, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council “reaffirmed the prior benchmark of smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) averaging 4% (range: 2%–6%) for spring/summer Chinook Salmon… (A) minimum SAR of 2% is required to consistently maintain existing populations, whereas SARs greater than 2% indicate degrees of population growth… Smolt-to-adult return rates equal to or greater than 4% achieved on a regular basis should promote a high likelihood of recovery (i.e., consistent generational increases in abundance… The Independent Scientific Advisory Board…has reviewed…the 2–6% SAR objective and identified extensive evidence to support these goals…” The need to breach the four lower Snake River dams is further confirmed by comparisons of SARs versus the number of dams anadromous fish must pass. Recent SARs for Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon have averaged 0.7% above eight dams, in comparison to SARs for non-ESA listed, wild spring Chinook Salmon that pass fewer dams in the mid-Columbia River and continue to meet sustainable SAR objectives (McCann et al. 2019). From 2000-2017, wild Chinook Salmon SARs averaged 3.6% in the John Day River above three dams, 2.5% in the Yakima River above four dams, and 0.7% in the Snake River above eight dams (McCann et al. 2019). Importantly, temporal analysis also demonstrates that the productivity of Snake River Chinook salmon declined much more precipitously after construction of the Federal Columbia River Power System compared to productivity of Chinook salmon in the John Day River (Schaller et. al 2014). The John Day, Yakima, and Snake River populations experience the same treaty and nontreaty fisheries, pinniped predation, and ocean conditions; the primary difference among them is the number of dams they must pass (Storch et al. 2022). Wild, Snake River anadromous salmon above eight dams are unable to meet SAR goals and are declining toward extinction. Importantly, recent models also demonstrate the population’s ability to recover and grow with SARs approaching 2% (Jacobs et al. 2023). The Columbia Basin Partnership established healthy and harvestable levels as the population goal for wild Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery (NMFS 2020). During the December 12 hearing, recent salmon returns were falsely characterized as “strong.” Clearly, returns are not meeting established healthy and harvestable populations. Indeed, 2022 was a very low return year for wild Chinook salmon in Central Idaho. The Middle Fork Salmon River total redd count was n=322. That number is only 1.3% of estimated wild Chinook salmon returns to the drainage that occurred into the mid-1960s. Many areas with exceptionally high quality and

  December 18, 2023 Mr. Jack FaulkOceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, Office of Water (4504T)Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20460 In re: EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482 (EPA standards of performance under the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act) Dear Mr. Faulk: The American Fisheries Society and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission together provide the following comments about the EPA’s proposed ballast water rule (Proposed Rule), published on October 18, 2023 pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is dedicated to improving the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) was established by treaty between Canada and the United States in 1955 to improve and perpetuate fish stocks of common concern between the two nations. Since the 1980s, both AFS and the Commission have been strong proponents of ballast water regulations, laws, and best management practices that protect the Great Lakes and North American waters because ship ballast is a primary vector for injurious invasive species that hurt the economy and alter and damage the ecology. AFS and the Commission support effective ballast water standards and practices for vessels—new and old—that operate in the Great Lakes. The practices should be uniform across state and international boundaries. Many of the region’s most damaging invasive species—like zebra and quagga mussels, European ruffe, Bythotrephes—have been brought to the Great Lakes via oceangoing vessels (“Salties”). Several of those species have made the Great Lakes home and have spread throughout the system, mainly by “Lakers,” which are vessels that do not leave the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system yet remain a significant vector for the spread of invasive species. These comments relate to the portions of the Proposed Rule that exempt the Lakers from meaningful action to prevent the spread of invasive species. As the economic and cultural powerhouse of the region, the Great Lakes generate almost $6 trillion annually in economic activity. The fishery alone generates more than $7 billion each year. The lakes contain 84% of North America’s surface freshwater, supplying tens of millions of Canadians and Americans with drinking water supplies. This natural wonder attracts millions of tourists, enhances property values, and accounts for an unrivaled quality of life. Invasive species threaten all that is valued about the Great Lakes. Whether accidentally or intentionally introduced, the lakes harbor more than 185 non-native species, many of which are harmful. Once a new invasive species enters the lakes and establishes a population, the ability to control, let alone eradicate, the species is virtually impossible. It is imperative that policymakers take the necessary steps to stop new introductions and prevent the spread of those that are present. EPA is now considering whether an equipment standard for new Lakers may be technologically available, be economically achievable, and have acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. In 2018, Congress enacted the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA) and directed the EPA to establish national standards for vessel discharges, such as ballast water. In October 2020, EPA released its proposed draft VIDA rules that regulate oceangoing vessels but exempted all Lakers from having to treat ballast water. The Proposed Rule would now require “new” Lakers to install, operate, and maintain ballast water management systems. The existing Lakers would be exempt under the Proposed Rule, leaving a major pathway for invasion open. The Proposed Rule inadequately addresses the significant vector of invasive species from Lakers and, in fact, is a step backward in attempts to protect the Great Lakes from interlake movement of harmful species.   Studies are clear and compelling. Recent sampling and analysis research,[1] conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, builds upon considerable research to confirm that ballast water management systems (BWMS) reduced the abundance of living organisms in Great Lakes ballast water by more than 98%. Based on this assessment, Lakers using BWMS would represent a significant reduction in the risks posed by Great Lakes ships for spreading invasive species.  Lakers move and discharge a considerable amount of ballast water[2]. Lake Superior, for instance, has received eleven new species from other Great Lakes, Lake Michigan five, Lake Huron seven, Lake Erie four, and Lake Ontario three[3].  Laker ballast water contains zooplankton and phytoplankton, including invasive species. A Canadian-government assessment3 conducted in 2014 demonstrates the considerable risk Lakers pose by moving species throughout the Great Lakes system and Adebayo et. al.[4] demonstrate that the St. Lawrence River is a gateway to the Great Lakes; Salties leave exotic AIS in the river and Lakers pick them up and bring them to the Great Lakes. According to Casas-Monroy et. al.,[5] Lakers, on a per-discharge basis, carry more non-indigenous zooplankton than other shipping pathways, such as Atlantic and Pacific transoceanic voyages and east coast of Canada coastal domestic voyages. Moreover, Rup et. al.,[6] note that the relatively short nature of interlake voyages accounts for the release of a high volume of healthy organisms, and Casas-Monroy et. al.,[7] assert that the environmental similarity between Laker ports means the likelihood of survival once an organism is discharged is quite high. The literature about the Laker risk is more extensive than cited here. While AFS and the Commission sympathize with domestic shippers in that they did not transport invasive species into the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes region, the fact remains that Lakers move species throughout the system, either by expediting the expansion of their range or by bringing species to areas where they would not have arrived without human means of transport. Both outcomes hasten and exacerbate the economic and ecosystem losses. The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act was quite clear in expecting that Lakers be regulated. Indeed, it bears stressing that US law has not exempted Lakers from ballast water regulation and, as such, the proposed rule should require steps to ensure Lakers treat their ballast before discharge into the Great Lakes. Canada is confident enough in BWMS that it intends to require BWMS on Lakers

August 9, 2023 Ms. Brenda Mallory Chair Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503 Via regulations.gov Re: Columbia River Salmon and Other Native Fish, Docket No. CEQ-2023-0002 Dear Chair Mallory: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), we thank you for the opportunity to submit comments supporting a long-term strategy to restore Columbia River basin salmon and other native, migratory fish populations to healthy and harvestable abundance levels. AFS is a scientific organization of over 7,000 professional fishery scientists and resource managers across the world, many of whom live and work in the western United States and have long-studied salmon and their declining populations. AFS promotes the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems through dissemination of fisheries science via scientific journals on fisheries, conferences, and continuing education. The science is clear and compelling; removing the lower four Snake River dams is necessary to restore critically at-risk populations of wild Snake River salmon and steelhead that hover on the brink of extinction. Today, only 1–2% of formerly abundant, historic wild salmon and steelhead return to the Snake River to spawn (Winters 2023). Recent reports demonstrate that 42% of Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon and 19% of steelhead populations have declined to the threshold where extinction is highly likely (O’Toole 2021). Climate change will continue to worsen conditions for these and other coldwater species. Ensuring access to intact and high elevation habitat in the Snake River basin provides the best opportunity for broadscale population recovery and persistence in the face of a changing climate (Storch et al. 2022). Because the science is clear and compelling and effective action is urgently needed, in January, AFS adopted a policy statement in support of breaching the lower four Snake River dams (Winters 2023). We attach it here for your consideration. The policy statement concludes that “[i]f Snake River basin salmon and steelhead are to be saved, then policymakers and stakeholders at all levels will need to implement appropriate processes and funding provisions to breach the four dams on the Lower Snake River, as well as implement all necessary habitat rehabilitation. There are other services that must be accounted for if dam breaching were to occur.” In addition to this policy statement, we ask you consider the following information as you formulate actions to restore wild, anadromous salmonids and other native fishes in the Columbia/Snake River system: Why is Hydropower not a “green” energy source? Hydropower dam/reservoir systems are actually not ”green” because of their profound effects on water quality, cyanobacteria, instream flow, habitat blockage, and greenhouse-gas (methane/nitrous oxide) emissions (Storch et al. 2022; Twidell 2022; Winters 2023). What constitutes “restoration” of the lower Snake River and what steps should the federal government take to restore the lower Snake River? Restoration of wild anadromous fish to healthy and harvestable levels is an appropriate restoration goal. In Idaho, recreational harvest of wild Chinook Salmon has been closed since 1978, a 45-year period. Endangered Species Act (ESA)-driven minimum requirements for recovery are insufficient to achieve agreed-upon socially, culturally, economically, and ecologically grounded high range goals as established by the Columbia Basin Partnership (CPB; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/vision-salmon-and-steelhead-goals-restore-thriving-salmon-and-steelhead-columbia-river-basin).Decades of science showing lack of effective recovery (Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023) demonstrates the need to breach the lower four Snake River dams to reach this restoration goal (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022). The need to breach these dams is confirmed by a comparison of smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) versus the number of dams anadromous fish must pass. Recent SARs for Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon have averaged 0.7% above eight dams, in comparison to SARs for non-ESA listed, wild spring Chinook Salmon above fewer dams in the mid-Columbia River that have sustainable SAR objectives (McCann et al. 2019). From 2000-2017, wild Chinook Salmon SARs averaged 3.6% in the John Day River above three dams, 2.5% in the Yakima River above four dams, and 0.7% in the Snake River above eight dams (op. cit.). The John Day, Yakima, and Snake River populations experience the same treaty and nontreaty fisheries, pinniped predation, and ocean conditions; the primary difference among them is the number of dams they must pass (Storch et al. 2022). Dam removal will also help meet ecological benchmarks for anadromous fish restoration (Storch et al. 2022). In 2020, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council “reaffirmed the prior benchmark of smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) averaging 4% (range: 2%–6%) for spring/summer Chinook Salmon… (A) minimum SAR of 2% is required to consistently maintain existing populations, whereas SARs > 2% indicate degrees of population growth… Smolt-to-adult return rates ≥ 4% achieved on a regular basis should promote a high likelihood of recovery (i.e., consistent generational increases in abundance… The Independent Scientific Advisory Board…has reviewed…the 2–6% SAR objective and identified extensive evidence to support these goals…” Connectivity in the lower Snake River is further critical for steelhead, Bull Trout, White Sturgeon, and Pacific Lamprey. Restoring the Snake River will reestablish opportunities for repeat spawning to maintain their populations (Vadas 2000; Vadas et al. 2016; Storch et al. 2022), as dams and low/warm flows negatively affect immigrations of adults and outmigration of both juveniles and spent adults that survive and may spawn again in future years. This approach has been successfully used in Maine, where dam breaching increased abundances of repeat spawning Atlantic Salmon and nonsalmon species (Chelminski 2015; Whittum et al. 2023; Winters 2023). What considerations should inform the federal government’s approach to restoring the lower Snake River? The science on the need for and efficacy of dam breaching is clear. The billions of dollars spent to date on recovery of Snake River anadromous fish have not been effective (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022; Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023; Winters 2023).In the 1990s, 30 scientists from state, federal, tribal, and other entities participated in the PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) process that evaluated SARs and the probability of achieving the interim survival and recovery standards of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (Marmorek

April 17, 2023 The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader United States Senate Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell, Our coalition of diverse organizations, businesses, professional societies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal nations collectively represent millions of Americans. We are writing to express our thanks for your leadership on this bill and respectfully request that you support and advance the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S.1149) toward passage in the Senate. This bill was reintroduced by Senators Heinrich (D-NM) and Tillis (R-NC) on March 30th and is currently gathering bipartisan cosponsors. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would immediately address the biodiversity crisis by helping to recover and conserve species at risk by investing $1.3 billion annually for states and territories and $97.5 million for tribal nations for on-the-ground conservation projects. The legislation funds the implementation of congressionally mandated State Wildlife Action Plans, which outline specific, science -based conservation actions necessary to recover and sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations. Similarly, tribal nations will be able to expand successful conservation efforts on their lands, which provide vital habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, including more than 500 species that are listed as threatened or endangered. It also will support much needed investments in continued economic growth and job creation in Tribal communities. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would be the only federal conservation program that provides sustained funding to tribal nations and state fish and wildlife agencies for the proactive conservation of at-risk species. One-third of the fish and wildlife species in the United States are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered. The challenges facing our nation’s fish and wildlife are daunting, but this legislation provides a solution. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will provide state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies and tribal fish and wildlife managers with dependable, dedicated resources to address more than 12,000 species in need of proactive, voluntary conservation before a listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. This legislation represents a smart, future focused investment that will also strengthen the economy and create a significant number of jobs that help grow the $862 billion outdoor economy and bring support to key sectors such as agriculture and forestry – all while supporting the conservation of America’s fish, wildlife, and the habitats they depend on. Public polling demonstrates that more than 70 percent of Americans support this bill and less than 5 percent oppose. Taking measures to conserve species before they are on the brink of extinction and ensuring healthy populations is fiscally responsible and will help save taxpayer dollars and prevent these species from needing costly “emergency room” measures under the Endangered Species Act – truly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Rather than defaulting to regulation and litigation, this bill saves America’s imperiled wildlife through collaborative and constructive voluntary partnerships. This collaborative approach to conservation is good for wildlife, good for taxpayers, good for landowners, good for business and good for America. Further, this bill builds on the successful restoration track records of state fish and wildlife agencies which for more than eight decades have successfully managed game species. Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson Act in 1950 to restore iconic game species such as deer, elk, striped bass, and wild turkey. Passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would complete the safety net so state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have resources to conserve all fish and wildlife species. This Congress can join the legacy of the 75th and 81st Congress’s to ensure our nation’s rich fish and wildlife legacy is sustained for future generations. Over 100 million Americans participate in some form of wildlife recreation. Increasingly, Americans from all walks of life have turned to the outdoors and nature to improve physical and mental well-being. Creating thousands of jobs immediately, restoring natural resources infrastructure, increasing access to the outdoors, and reducing long-term costs through enactment of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will unify Americans and elected officials that represent diverse constituencies. Thank you for your consideration of our request to support a Senate floor vote and passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. We thank you for your support of America’s fish and wildlife and look forward to working with you to enact this groundbreaking legislation. Sincerely, Accent Signs LLC American Bird Conservancy American Clean Power Association American Fisheries Society American Fisheries Society, Colorado/Wyoming Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects American Sportfishing Association Archery Trade Association Arkansas Chapter of The Wildlife Society Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Atlantic Salmon Federation Audubon California Audubon Delta (AR, LA, MS) Audubon Great Lakes Audubon Great Plains Audubon Mid-Atlantic Audubon Minnesota/Iowa/Missouri Audubon New York Audubon Rockies Audubon South Carolina Audubon Texas Audubon Vermont Audubon Washington Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Barry Conservation District Bass Pro Shops Bat Conservation International Bayou Land Conservancy Belltown Sportsmen’ Club, Inc. Bexar Audubon Society Bristol Fish & Game Association Bucks County Audubon Society Buffalo Nations Grasslands Alliance Cabela’s Caddo Lake Institute California Invasive Plant Council Central Mountains and Plains Section of The Wildlife Society Cibolo Center for Conservation Clark Fork Coalition Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Conservation Officers Association Connecticut Falconers Association Connecticut Hunter Education Association Connecticut River Conservancy Connecticut Trappers Association Inc Conococheague Audubon Society Conservation InSight Dallas Zoo Delmarva Birding Weekends DLF Consulting, Inc. Ducks Unlimited East Glastonbury Fish and Game Assoc. Inc Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR) Ecological Society of America Entomological Society of America Environment America Fin and Fur Films Firstlight Printing & Graphics, LLC Fisheries Advisory Council – State of CT Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Friends of CE/FS Friends Of Connecticut Sportsmen Friends of Scarborough Marsh Friends of the Fort Worth Nature Center & Refuge Georgia Audubon Georgia Chapter AFS Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Gulf Coast Bird Observatory Heart of the Rockies Initiative Hill Country Alliance Hill Country Conservancy Houston Wilderness HuntStand Innovative

April 14, 2023 Mr. Mitch Landrieu Senior Advisor and Infrastructure Implementation Coordinator The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Ms. Shalanda D. Young Director Office of Management and Budget 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20503 Ms. Brenda Mallory Chair Council on Environmental Quality 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20501 Re: Coordination of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Fish Passage Funding Dear Mr. Landrieu, Ms. Young, and Ms. Mallory: The undersigned hunting, fishing, wildlife conservation, landowner organizations, and scientific societies are writing in regard to the historic federal investment in fish passage and aquatic connectivity through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Throughout the U.S., fish habitat is fragmented by culverts, dams, and other water control structures leading to declining fish populations, Endangered Species listings, and lost recreational, subsistence, and commercial fishing opportunities. Eight federal agencies have received nearly $2 billion in funding to restore fish passage and aquatic connectivity. The agencies are now releasing the second of five years of funding with projects totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars in progress or moving toward implementation. The conservation community has expressed our hope that this once in a generation opportunity will result in watershed-level connectivity at a scope and scale necessary to address one of the most significant nation-wide challenges for fish and aquatic organisms. We are encouraged by the ongoing, multi-agency dialogue underway and look forward to the agencies sharing a strategic vision for achieving watershed-level connectivity and an efficient process for coordination and implementation of these funds. We look forward to continued engagement with our federal partners as this process moves forward to ensure that this unique funding opportunity achieves maximum benefit for fish and communities. Restoring aquatic connectivity at the watershed-level creates thriving fish populations, builds resilience, and allows access to cooler habitats as streams warm in the face of climate change. Further, these restoration activities economically benefit rural, tribal, and underserved communities by leveraging local labor, supplies, and materials. We appreciate the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Director Martha Williams in convening federal agencies and stakeholders to chart a path forward for the coordinated and efficient use of BIL funding for aquatic connectivity. Under her leadership, the federal agencies have made progress toward- coordination. Last July, FWS convened a successful Fish Passage Summit at the National Conservation Training Center that brought together federal partners, state agencies, and the conservation community to begin a dialogue. In follow-up, the agencies met in December 2022, to further discuss opportunities for collaboration. As a conservation community, we look forward to more details on the shared strategic vision for achieving watershed-level connectivity and specifics on an efficient process for coordination and implementation across the federal family. Partners across the nation, including many of the signatories here, are undertaking restoration projects for fish with significant co-benefits for communities including reducing and mitigating flood damage, improving water quality, and providing recreational opportunities leading to thriving local economies. We share the goal of ensuring that these projects result in the greatest benefits for our nation’s fish, rivers, streams, and communities. We are encouraged by the dialogue that began last July at the Fish Passage Summit and we look forward to re-engaging in those discussions and working together to ensure this once-in-a generation funding opportunity has maximum impact for fish and aquatic organisms and local communities. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Fly Fishing Trade Association American Sportfishing Association Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation National Wildlife Federation The Nature Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Wildlife Forever Wild Salmon Center

March 31, 2023 The Honorable Patty Murray Chair Senate Appropriations Committee S-128 CAP Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Susan Collins Ranking Member Senate Appropriations Committee S-146A CAP Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Collins, The undersigned organizations represent millions of hunters, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, land stewards, scientists, and natural resource professionals who together comprise the centerpiece of a powerful economic engine and have helped to place the United States as the world leader in conservation. In July 2020, we delivered to Congress our joint Sportsmen & Sportswomen Climate Statement detailing nature-based climate solutions and asking for meaningful legislation to address the impacts of climate change. We write to express support for the critical programs and initiatives that contribute to climate action within the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Transportation (DoT), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Department of Commerce (DOC). These programs expand and mature the role of nature-based solutions in infrastructure and climate mitigation and adaptation solutions that benefit fish and wildlife, habitat, and people and communities that depend upon healthy ecosystems. As your subcommittee drafts FY24 spending legislation, we ask you to consider our recommendations below: Department of Agriculture Climate Hubs – $40 million With 10 regional locations, the Climate Hubs collaborate across USDA agencies linking research and tools to producers and agency staff. The hubs support the adoption of climate-smart practices and establish regional and State-based projects that improve understanding of how natural resource conditions on working lands are affected by climate change. The Hubs are essential to improve the performance of programs that conserve the land and sustain agriculture production by enabling climate-informed decision-making. Department of Transportation Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Formula and Competitive Programs – $1.8 billion The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established the PROTECT program to make transportation infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather events, seal level rise, and other natural disasters. As infrastructure continues to be impacted by climate change, these programs are critical to support planning and implementation of resilience improvements for evacuation routes and community resilience in the face of extreme weather events like wildfires, flooding, and extreme heat. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program – $1 billion set aside In a proactive approach to climate risk, funding for pre-disaster mitigation is critical to enable communities to reduce risks from climate-influenced future disasters and natural hazards. Administered through a 6% set aside from the Disaster Relief Fund, the program’s funding levels have not been enough to meet demands. This requested additional $1 billion appropriation for the BRIC program will enable greater emphasis and support for projects that incorporate nature-based solutions enhance climate resilience and adaptation. Additionally, we recommend language to support continued focus on natural infrastructure: “Natural Infrastructure Activities. Within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, FEMA shall provide the Committees a report on the number, total requested funding, and percentage of fiscal year 2022 BRIC applications for natural infrastructure projects, and a comparison of these numbers to the fiscal year 2021 grant cycle. The report shall be disaggregated by successful and unsuccessful applications and describe the types of natural infrastructure activities funded.” Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Economic-Environmental Accounts – $8.5 million BEA will establish a new system for U.S. Economic-Environmental Accounts to measure the contribution of environmental economic activities to economic growth. Many studies have supported the growing knowledge that responsible land management contributes to the economy. Funding research on environmental-economic statistics is in alignment with the National Strategy on Developing Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions and will allow strategic decision-making for land management strategies to further support economic growth. Healthy, functioning ecosystems mitigate climate change while also making our communities and wildlife more resilient to climate change impacts. The funding provisions outlined above will help protect, restore, and enable critical ecosystems necessary for maintaining hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation economies while providing relevant agencies with access to the best available data to ensure our natural systems work to protect and sustain us. We appreciate your consideration of these requests, and we look forward to working with you and your colleagues as FY24 spending legislation progresses through Congress. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Fly Fishing Trade Association American Sportfishing Association American Woodcock Society Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Fly Fishers International Izaak Walton League of America Minority Outdoor Alliance National Deer Association Pheasants Forever Quail Forever Ruffed Grouse Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Wildlife Management Institute

April 4, 2023 The Honorable Jeff Merkley Chair Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 131 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Lisa Murkowski Ranking Member Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 125 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski, The undersigned organizations represent millions of hunters, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, land stewards, scientists, and natural resource professionals who together comprise the centerpiece of a powerful economic engine and have helped to place the United States as the world leader in conservation. In July 2020, we delivered to Congress our joint Sportsmen & Sportswomen Climate Statement detailing nature-based climate solutions and asking for meaningful legislation to address the impacts of climate change. We write to express support for the critical programs and initiatives that contribute to climate action within the Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These programs expand and mature the role of nature-based solutions in infrastructure and climate mitigation and adaptation solutions that benefit fish and wildlife, habitat, and people and communities that depend upon healthy ecosystems. As your subcommittee drafts FY24 spending legislation, we ask you to consider our recommendations below: USGS Climate Adaptation Science Center and Land Change Science Program – $128 million The regional and national Climate Adaptation Science Centers are essential to effective implementation of conservation, restoration, and land management both within and outside of DOI. Through land change science, research and modeling of environmental, land, and climate change interactions provide better understanding of ecosystem resilience and ways in which nature can help buffer human communities from natural hazard. Federal, state, and local programs rely on these centers to deliver climate science for decisions on how to prepare for and respond to climate change. USGS Understanding and Quantifying Ecosystem Services – $11 million The Land Management Research Program within the Ecosystems Mission Area demonstrates through research how to restore and manage ecosystems while maximizing their ability to support biodiversity and prepare for anticipated climate change impacts. The program’s budget includes funding to build a stronger understanding of the benefits that ecosystems offer and what ecosystem services are most beneficial to communities and would entail quantitative analysis of benefits and trade-offs across the range of land management alternatives. This initiative will help to better measure the value of green infrastructure and better inform land managers and decision makers to achieve multiple conservation outcomes. USGS Transforming Fire and Drought Science Delivery for Natural Resource Managers – $6.5 million The Ecosystems and Water Resources Mission Areas have identified the effect of long-term drought and increased wildfires, particularly in the West, as a threat to meeting mission responsibilities. This investment in science delivery and decision support tools will give a more complete picture of the landscape-level changes resulting from these critical issues and would enable resource managers to develop strategies to prevent and mitigate impacts from drought and wildfire in the future. North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCA) – $60 million Established in 1990, NAWCA is a locally-driven partnership grant program which provides federal dollars at a 1:1 match to conserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat, often doubled or tripled at the local level. The America’s Conservation Enhancement (ACE) Act reauthorizes NAWCA at $60 million annually through FY2025. This program supports climate adaptation and resiliency and important outdoor activities for sportsmen and sportswomen. Continual support and an increase in funding for this program demonstrates the nation’s investment toward long-term climate mitigation and nature-based infrastructure to minimize impacts of natural disasters and extreme weather. USFWS National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) – $7.6 million Established in 2006 and codified by Congress through the ACE Act, NFHP works to improve the quality of life for the American people through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation and mobilize national support for healthy aquatic ecosystems and their associated fisheries. These partnerships have already led to over 1,300 successful conservation projects in all 50 states benefitting fish habitat and anglers throughout the country. These projects, which include fish passage restoration, stream bank stabilization, invasive plant removal, and other habitat improvements, create more resilient aquatic systems and fisheries. USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program – $79 million This program has been critical for landowner engagement and migration corridor conservation on private lands leading to more than 60,000 habitat restoration projects spanning more than 7 million acres. These projects also enhance drought resistance through water conservation projects, create resilience to wildfire, and support climate adaptation and mitigation. USFS Forest and Rangeland Research (FRR) – $350 million Expanding the scope and scale of research and science programs related to reforestation, carbon sequestration, and carbon accounting is essential to climate adaptation, mitigation, and risk reduction. Under this program, the USFS supports the Joint Fire Science program with the Department of the Interior to address problems associated with managing wildland fuels, forests, and fire-impacted ecosystems. Within FRR the Forest Inventory and Analysis program supports Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments in climate planning and resilience activities with data, tools, syntheses, and geospatial analyses essential to understanding and informing climate-smart practices. FRR also works with partners such as USDA Climate Hubs to increase scientifically-sound climate adaptation and mitigation practices and information on pursuing nature-based solutions for climate risk reduction. USFS Reforestation Trust Fund – $262 million Healthy forests sequester and store carbon. Funds are used to reduce the backlog in reforestation and for stand improvement work. Stand improvement projects improve forest health and productivity, reduce hazardous fuels, create resilient landscapes, and improve wildlife habitat. USFS Capital Improvement and Maintenance – $235 million Construction, maintenance, and improvement of roads has been identified as an increasing gap that is crucial to meeting our critical natural resource needs. Poor road conditions and subsequent erosion present threats to water quality and ecosystem health making climate adaptation actions less effective. USFS Legacy Roads and Trails – $15 million The program addresses climate change adaptation by restoring, protecting, and maintaining

American Fisheries Society * Arizona Wildlife Federation * Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Fly Fishers International * Indiana Wildlife Federation * Izaak Walton League of America National Wildlife Federation * Nevada Wildlife Federation * Ohio Conservation Federation Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership * Trout Unlimited   The Honorable Charles E. Schumer Majority Leader United States Senate S-221 Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader United States Senate 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 CC: United States Senate March 14, 2023 Re: Oppose H.J. Res. 27/S.J. Res. 7 – Support a Strong Clean Water Act. Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell, The below-signed members of the hunting, fishing, and scientific community urge you to OPPOSE H.J. Res. 27/S.J. Res. 7, the Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval of the Revised Definition of the “Waters of the United States” rule. H.J. Res. 27/S.J. Res. 7 would invalidate the Biden administration’s recently finalized “waters of the United States” regulation, which restores long-standing protections for small streams and wetlands that are critical not just for trout and salmon fisheries but also for healthy watersheds and clean water for downstream businesses and communities. In virtually every respect, the rule is a codification of the approach that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps have used for most of the past 15 years to identify waters that qualify as “waters of the United States.” This commonsense, science-based approach recognizes that pollution upstream can have downstream impacts, and thus we must protect the whole system to safeguard downstream communities and the environment. The rule also maintains longstanding Clean Water Act permitting exemptions for routine farming and ranching activities like plowing, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices, protecting these important economic activities. Using the CRA to attack this rule would prevent future administrations from issuing rules that are “substantially the same,” meaning that both protections and exemptions codified in this rule, including those for the agriculture industry, could be called into question in future rules to define “waters of the United States.” In addition to providing drinking water for our homes and businesses, the small streams and wetlands under threat also provide clean water for farmers, keep the economy afloat, protect communities from floods, serve as natural features to promote water recharge and drought resilience, provide critical wildlife habitat, and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities including hunting and fishing. Wetlands alone can absorb vast quantities of water during heavy rains or storms – one acre of wetlands can store up to 1.5 million gallons of floodwater which can reduce downstream impacts to critical infrastructure and promote resilience to drought. The fish and wildlife that sustain our outdoor passions and support the nation’s $887 billion outdoor recreation economy rely on these small streams and wetlands as well. Ephemeral and tributary streams serve as important spawning grounds as well as nursery habitat for juvenile fish, such as salmon and trout. Roughly half of North American waterfowl hatch in the Prairie Pothole Region, shallow, depressional wetlands that are particularly at risk, and more than a third of North American bird species rely on wetlands for food, shelter, breeding, nesting, and rearing their young. The economic benefits of hunting and fishing alone – which total $200 billion a year – are especially pronounced in rural areas, where money brought in during fishing and hunting seasons can be enough to keep small businesses operational for the entire year. Without clear federal protections for these waters and everything they feed into, hunting and angling across the country would be irreversibly harmed, devastating the outdoor recreation economy. H.J.Res.27/S.J. Res. 7 is a dangerous attempt to open up our wetlands and streams to pollution and destruction. This effort to undo fifty years of progress to protect clean water threatens the water resources that are critical for fish and wildlife, downstream communities, and the drinking water for millions of Americans. We urge you to oppose H.J.Res.27/S.J. Res. 7 when it comes to the floor for a vote. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director American Fisheries Society Scott Garlid Executive Director Arizona Wildlife Federation John Gale Vice President Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Tom H. Logan Chairman/Senior Advisor – Conservation Fly Fishers International Board Conservation Committee Dan Boritt Executive Director Indiana Wildlife Federation Jared Mott Conservation Director Izaak Walton League of America Jim Murphy Director of Legal Advocacy National Wildlife Federation Russell Kuhlman Executive Director Nevada Wildlife Federation Tom Butch President Ohio Conservation Federation Alexander Funk Director of Water Resources Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Kate Miller Director of Government Affairs Trout Unlimited

March 9, 2023 Chairman Tom Carper U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: 2023 Biden Administration Waters of the U.S. Rule Dear Chairman Carper: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), we write today to urge you to vote against S.J. Res. 7, the joint resolution of disapproval seeking to invalidate the Biden Administration’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule (2023 Rule) published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023. AFS has long supported a science-based definition of WOTUS. AFS fully supported the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 CWR) because it was informed by the best scientific information available and based protections on the many physical, chemical, and biological connections of headwaters to downstream navigable waters. We are on record in opposition to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection (2020 NWPR) rule because it removed federal Clean Water Act protections for millions of miles of headwater streams and millions of acres of wetlands. The 2023 Rule is a vast improvement over the 2020 NWPR and represents a step forward in protecting our nation’s waters and the critical ecosystem services they provide for people and the environment. Invalidating the 2023 rule in an attempt to return to the very limited protections in the 2020 NWPR threatens highly valued fish, fisheries, ecosystem services, and the communities that rely on them. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fisheries and aquatic scientists and managers. The Society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by advancing science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. We greatly value the country’s clean waters and healthy aquatic ecosystems as they are critical to maintaining fisheries and other critical ecosystem services such as supporting biodiversity, flood control, and carbon storage. The mandate of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This can only be achieved if the definition of WOTUS is grounded in sound science that recognizes the multiple dimensions of waterbody connectivity: physical/hydrologic, chemical, and biological. AFS has long supported a science-based definition of WOTUS. The 2023 Rule seeks to balance the science with efficiency and provides additional clarity for implementation of the rule. We are on record in opposition to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection (2020 NWPR) rule. The limited protections it provides for our nation’s waters threaten highly valued fish, fisheries, ecosystem services, and the communities that rely on them (Colvin et al. 2019). The 2020 NWPR removed protections for millions of miles of headwater streams and millions of acres of wetlands and would have resulted in severe ecological and economic losses and caused irreparable cultural and social damage (Cohen et al. 2016; Fesenmyer et. al. 2021; Creed et. al. 2017; Sullivan Declaration 2020.) More than a half century of scientific research demonstrates that the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on tributaries – including headwater ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams – as well as many associated lakes, wetlands, and off-channel habitats (USEPA, 2015). Aquatic ecosystems depend upon transfers of chemical components, organisms, sediment, and organic materials among waterbodies to support the life in and around their shores. Without the safeguards of the Clean Water Act for these streams and wetlands, the ability of these waters to convey nutrients, provide pathways for migrating organisms such as fish and wildlife, and serve as a drainage and storage system for floodwaters is severely undermined. AFS fully supported the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 CWR) because it was based on the demonstrated importance of the many physical, chemical, and biological connections of headwaters to the ecological condition of downstream and downslope navigable waters and their biota. The 2015 CWR was informed by the best scientific information available as set forth in the comprehensive scientific report that accompanied the rule, i.e., the “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence” (herein the “Connectivity Report” but described in the 2015 CWR as the “Science Report”). The Connectivity Report synthesized over 1,200 peer-reviewed publications and provided the technical basis for the 2015 CWR. In the intervening years, interdisciplinary scientific efforts have further demonstrated the importance of protecting non-permanent waterbodies, including intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams and wetlands that are hydrologically and biologically connected to navigable waters (e.g., Cohen et al. 2016, Rains, et al. 2016, Fritz et al. 2018, Harvey et al. 2018, Leibowitz et al. 2018, Schofield et al. 2018, Colvin et al. 2019). In contrast, the 2020 NWPR was not based on current science and reversed decades of protections that were put in place to ensure clean water would be available for future generations (Sullivan et al. 2019, Sullivan et al. 2020). The 2020 NWPR rule focused only on hydrological surface connections to establish jurisdiction. It ignored many key biological and chemical connections that are critical for fully functioning aquatic ecosystems. It only recognized a limited subset of connectivity conditions, and it relied on flow permanence and physical abutment as measures of jurisdiction. Hence, it arbitrarily ignored other ecologically critical aspects of physical connectivity such as bed, banks, and high-water marks, and chemical, biological and ecological connectivity that were incorporated in the 2015 CWR. The 2020 NWPR eliminated protections for a staggering number of headwater streams, which are broadly defined as portions of a river basin that contribute to the development and maintenance of downstream navigable waters including rivers, lakes, and oceans. Headwaters include wetlands outside of floodplains and small streams with permanent flow, intermittent flow, and ephemeral flows. Headwaters affect downstream and downslope streams and wetlands; that is, they are hydrologically, chemically, physically, biologically and ecologically connected to what happens downstream. Headwaters are key to the sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters and should be protected (Colvin et al., 2019). The loss of Clean Water Act protections for headwaters would diminish ecosystem services provided by those waters, increase threats to imperiled species,

AFS recently joined almost 100 conservation, outdoor recreation, engineering, and water organizations in calling for full funding of the U.S. Geological Service’s Streamgage Network. This request consists of $32 million dedicated to Federal Priorities Streamgages, $68 million for the Cooperative Matching Funds Program (including $33 million for streamgage support), and $35 million for Next Generation Water Observing System and data delivery modernization. Letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment & Related Agencies Letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment & Related Agencies

February 7, 2023 Chairman David Rouzer U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Grace Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member Napolitano: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), thank you for the opportunity provide testimony on the impacts of the Biden Administration’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule (2023 Rule) published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fisheries and aquatic scientists and managers. The Society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by advancing science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. We greatly value the country’s clean waters and healthy aquatic ecosystems as they are critical to maintaining fisheries and other critical ecosystem services such as supporting biodiversity, flood control, and carbon storage. The mandate of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This can only be achieved if the definition of WOTUS is grounded in sound science that recognizes the multiple dimensions of waterbody connectivity: physical/hydrologic, chemical, and biological. AFS has long supported a science-based definition of WOTUS. The 2023 Rule, seeks to balance the science with efficiency and provides additional clarity for implementation of the rule. We oppose returning to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection (2020 NWPR) rule. The limited protections in the 2020 NWPR threaten highly valued fish, fisheries, ecosystem services, and the communities that rely on them (Colvin et al. 2019). The 2020 NWPR removes protections for millions of miles of headwater streams and millions of acres of wetlands and would result in severe ecological and economic losses and cause irreparable cultural and social damage (Cohen et al. 2016; Fesenmyer et. al. 2021; Creed et. al. 2017; Sullivan Declaration 2020.) More than a half century of scientific research demonstrates that the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on tributaries – including headwater ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams – as well as many associated lakes, wetlands, and off-channel habitats (USEPA, 2015). Aquatic ecosystems depend upon transfers of chemical components, organisms, sediment, and organic materials among waterbodies to support the life in and around their shores. Without the safeguards of the Clean Water Act for these streams and wetlands, the ability of these waters to convey nutrients, provide pathways for migrating organisms such as fish and wildlife, and serve as a drainage and storage system for floodwaters is severely undermined. AFS fully supported the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 CWR) because it was based on the demonstrated importance of the many physical, chemical, and biological connections of headwaters to the ecological condition of downstream and downslope navigable waters and their biota. The 2015 CWR was informed by the best scientific information available as set forth in the comprehensive scientific report that accompanied the rule, i.e., the “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence” (herein the “Connectivity Report” but described in the 2015 CWR as the “Science Report”). The Connectivity Report synthesized over 1,200 peer-reviewed publications and provided the technical basis for the 2015 CWR. In the intervening years, interdisciplinary scientific efforts have further demonstrated the importance of protecting non-permanent waterbodies, including intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams and wetlands that are hydrologically and biologically connected to navigable waters (e.g., Cohen et al. 2016, Rains, et al. 2016, Fritz et al. 2018, Harvey et al. 2018, Leibowitz et al. 2018, Schofield et al. 2018, Colvin et al. 2019). In contrast, the 2020 NWPR was not based on current science and reversed decades of protections that were put in place to ensure clean water would be available for future generations (Sullivan et al. 2019, Sullivan et al. 2020). The 2020 NWPR rule focused only on hydrological surface connections to establish jurisdiction. It ignored many key biological and chemical connections that are critical for fully functioning aquatic ecosystems. It only recognized a limited subset of connectivity conditions, and it relied on flow permanence and physical abutment as measures of jurisdiction. Hence, it arbitrarily ignored other ecologically critical aspects of physical connectivity such as bed, banks, and high-water marks, and chemical, biological and ecological connectivity that were incorporated in the 2015 CWR. The 2020 NWPR eliminated protections for a staggering number of headwater streams, which are broadly defined as portions of a river basin that contribute to the development and maintenance of downstream navigable waters including rivers, lakes, and oceans. Headwaters include wetlands outside of floodplains and small streams with permanent flow, intermittent flow, and ephemeral flows. Headwaters affect downstream and downslope streams and wetlands; that is, they are hydrologically, chemically, physically, biologically and ecologically connected to what happens downstream. Headwaters are key to the sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters and should be protected (Colvin et al., 2019). The loss of Clean Water Act protections for headwaters would diminish ecosystem services provided by those waters, increase threats to imperiled species, impair commercial and recreational fisheries in both fresh and salt waters, and degrade fishes of great cultural value to Native Americans and the recreating public. Climate change will only exacerbate those losses. Aquatic resources in many states, particularly in the central and western U.S., are already stressed by overuse of water and extreme weather patterns. The reduction in groundwater has greatly impaired flow regimes, causing many streams to shift from perennial to intermittent or even ephemeral (Colvin et al., 2019). Under the 2020 NWPR rule, streams and playas may no longer be protected that were historically perennial but now have impaired flows because of groundwater depletion. Whereas water rights and use largely fall outside the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, the negative impacts of unregulated dredge and fill within those streams and

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 31, 2023 Contact: Drue Winters dwinters@fisheries.org AFS Commends EPA Veto of Pebble Mine Project to Protect Bristol Bay Salmon Fisheries The American Fisheries Society commends the EPA’s use of its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to safeguard Bristol Bay’s, sustainable wild salmon and the pristine habitat they thrive in from the irreversible effects of Pebble Mine, a project whose impacts to fisheries and the watershed cannot be adequately reduced or mitigated. Bristol Bay supplies 57 percent of the world’s wild Sockeye Salmon, generating $2.2 billion annually, supporting 15,000 American jobs, and sustaining Indigenous communities since time immemorial. Incredibly, more than 78 million salmon returned to Bristol Bay in 2022. In addition to Sockeye Salmon, Bristol Bay and the watershed support one of the world’s largest remaining wild Chinook Salmon runs and healthy Coho, Chum, and Pink Salmon runs. These salmon, as well as resident trout, sustain lucrative commercial and recreational fisheries and provide jobs and food security to 25 rural Alaska Native villages and thousands of people. The high salmon production fuels an entire ecosystem including grizzly bears, moose, and estuarine birds. The indigenous Yup’ik and Dena’ina, two of the planet’s last salmon-based subsistence cultures, rely on these fisheries for food and these salmon runs are integral to their culture. Pacific salmon are already facing very real threats from climate change throughout their ranges. Protecting the productive waters of Bristol Bay is critical for maintaining their unique populations and their resilience to climate change as temperatures rise and hydrology changes. The habitat disturbance created by the Pebble Mine would erode that resilience, threatening the salmon populations and everyone who depends on them. AFS has long expressed concerns about the development of a mine in Bristol Bay. Today’s veto closes a chapter in the long-struggle to preserve an extraordinary fishery of global significance. “Salmon across the nation are sliding towards extinction due to pollution, habitat loss, and warming waters, yet Bristol Bay is one of the few places where salmon continue to thrive,” said AFS Executive Director, Douglas Austen, Ph.D. “EPA’s decision to use its Clean Water Act authority to preserve the last healthy wild salmon runs in the country and their untouched habitat is the right decision.” ### Editor’s Notes: Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals and numerous books and conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world.

December 6, 2022 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Buttigieg: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations, scientific societies, and businesses contributing to the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy write to express our continued commitment to working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on implementation of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). As the Department and FHWA move forward with implementation of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, we are pleased to see momentum building on key provisions supported by our community including the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program; the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Discretionary Grants Program; and the Wildlife Crossings Safety Pilot Program. Our organizations worked closely with the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional leaders on the foundational structure and purpose of these provisions and now turn, along with the administration, toward on-the-ground successful implementation. Firstly, we write to thank the Department and FHWA for issuing a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program. We admire FHWA’s focus on delivering a program that meets the standards set forth in recent Presidential Executive Orders focusing on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (EO 12898) and Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 14008). We were also pleased to see your interest in coordinating with other federal fish passage and conservation grant programs. While we recognize the intent to achieve these objectives, we have concerns with other elements of the NOFO. In our opinion, the criteria in Section B – Federal Award Information, and Section C – Eligibility Information, precludes the program from successfully achieving the aforementioned standards in on-the-ground project implementation. Specifically, Section B states that “Grant awards are administered on a reimbursement basis. Culvert AOP Program funds will reimburse recipients only for reasonable and authorized costs incurred and for work performed after a grant agreement has been executed, allowable expenses are incurred, and valid requests for reimbursement are submitted.” We were alerted to this potential funding strategy early in the NOFO development and immediately initiated conversations with project partners throughout the country, with a focus on the Pacific Northwest, to determine if this reimbursement requirement would preclude them from pursuing this funding opportunity. We heard unequivocally, particularly from Tribal and rural community partners, that this criteria effectively eliminates their ability to pursue funding from this Program. A majority of the communities where our organizations work are historically resource-dependent, capacity-limited communities that have been identified as disadvantaged by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and have a ‘moderate to high’ or ‘high’ level of vulnerability according to the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. The majority of potential eligible applicants from Tribes or units of local governments within these geographies simply do not have sufficient upfront funding to implement these projects on a reimbursable basis. Numerous other federal agencies recognize this dilemma, and as such, implement grant programs to ensure that historically underfunded communities can access critically important federal funds. We have serious concerns with DOT/FHWA opting not to follow tried and true federal funding disbursement methods, particularly in light of the aforementioned Executive Orders to address equity and barriers to opportunity in the disbursement of federal funds. We recognize that DOT/FHWA indicated potential for an alternative funding mechanism in the NOFO: “At DOT’s sole discretion alternative funding arrangements may be considered on a case-by-case basis.” However, by not clearly identifying the path that applicants must take to determine eligibility for this alternative, DOT is placing the burden on capacity strapped entities (such as rural counties and Tribes) to dedicate limited staff time to develop grants with no knowledge of whether they meet the criteria for an undefined alternative funding mechanism. Instead, we propose at least 50% of funding available in the 2022 NOFO be administered via grantmaking, using implementation methods proven effective by other federal agencies like the USFWS and NOAA. In successive years, to eliminate barriers to entry, we encourage that all projects be funded via grantmaking. We also encourage DOT/FHWA to explore opportunities for expeditiously moving this funding toward on-the-ground projects including cooperative agreements with entities such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Further, given the capacity challenges that many rural local government and Tribal partners face, we also see implications to the success of the program under Section C of the current NOFO language: Section C – Elegibility Information Eligible Applicants are: (1) States; (2) a unit of local governments; or an (3) Indian Tribe. DOT expects that the Eligible Applicant that submits the application will administer and deliver the project. Numerous other federal funding programs allow for the pass through of funds, to enable entities such as conservation non-profits not under the same capacity limitations and often times with increased access to private philanthropic match funding, to contract with the eligible applicant to perform the on-the-ground project implementation and management duties. If the expectation of DOT is that the applicant must administer and implement the project directly, your solicitation will only secure project applications from large, well-staffed entities and fail to deliver projects in more rural, capacity-limited geographies. If that is not the intent of the NOFO, and funding can be passed through to alternative implementation entities, we recommend that an amended NOFO with corrected language be released including consideration for both recommendations above – 1) at least 50% of funding available in the 2022 NOFO be administered via grantmaking, using approved implementation methods proven effective by other federal agencies like the USFWS and NOAA; and 2) the NOFO provide clear indication that the pass through of funds from eligible entities is permitted. Our intent is to share our knowledge of on-the-ground habitat restoration project implementation so that DOT/FHWA is well informed about

December 21, 2022 The Honorable Gina Raimondo Secretary Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 The Honorable Brenda Mallory Chair Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place NW Washington, DC 20503 The Honorable Rick Spinrad Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 The Honorable Shalanda Young Director Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW Washington DC 20503 Dear Secretary Raimondo, Administrator Spinrad, Chair Mallory, and Director Young: The undersigned conservation organizations, scientific societies, and businesses, representing hundreds of thousands of stakeholders focused on improving and restoring coastal habitats in the face of accelerating climate change, are writing to urge you to commit the $2.6 billion of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) “Investing in Coastal Communities and Climate Resilience” funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) toward efforts to conserve, restore, and protect coastal and marine habitats to increase climate resilience and sustainability of coastal and marine resource-dependent communities. We share the goals of the Inflation Reduction Act—to build a sustainable future and better the lives of hardworking Americans. This funding can support ongoing efforts by NOAA to address the needs of coastal communities. Coastal counties in the U.S. are home to over 128 million people, or almost 40 percent of the nation’s population. The lives and livelihoods of these communities will be at even greater risk as climate change exacerbates the effects of storms, flooding, and erosion. Specifically, we urge NOAA to prioritize these IRA funds toward on-the-ground, nature-based solutions to address community climate adaptation needs like storm surges and flooding as well as coastal restoration work to invest in improving ecosystem function and health. Natural infrastructure and restoration projects, especially those that also provide benefits to fish and wildlife, should be a primary funding focus. Given the amount of funding available, we recommend NOAA consider allocating these funds through sizable grants (larger than $25 million) that can be utilized to implement projects across large landscapes. NOAA should also consider utilizing its existing community-focused grant programs to put funding on the ground, and programs like the America the Beautiful Challenge managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Finally, we strongly support NOAA prioritizing economically-disadvantaged communities and tribes for grant funding, including support for developing grant proposals, and encourage NOAA to broadly engage private sector expertise in ecological restoration, especially for larger, more complex projects. NOAA has received a monumental allocation of new resources during this Administration through the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This historic appropriation included in the IRA is a crucial opportunity for NOAA to support historically underfunded coastal and marine-resource dependent communities and tribes, while also addressing climate resiliency needs at larger scales. We support these efforts and stand ready to help NOAA with this groundbreaking funding opportunity. Please don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions, we look forward to working with you. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Fly Fishing Trade Association Ducks Unlimited Ecological Restoration Business Association Land Trust Alliance National Wildlife Federation The Conservation Fund The Nature Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Wild Salmon Center Wildlife Forever CC: Coastal Lawmakers

December 5, 2022 The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House United States House of Representatives The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader United States House of Representatives Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy, Our coalition of diverse organizations, businesses, professional societies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal nations collectively represent millions of Americans. We are writing to respectfully request your support for passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R.2773/S.2372) this year, including as part of a funding package. This bill was introduced by Sens. Heinrich (D-NM) and Blunt (R-MO) and Congresswoman Dingell (D-MI) respectively in the 117th Congress. Recent public polling demonstrates that more than 70 percent of Americans support this bill and less than 5 percent oppose. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would immediately address the biodiversity crisis by helping to recover and conserve species at risk by investing $1.3 billion annually for states and territories and $97.5 million for tribal nations for on-the-ground conservation projects. The legislation funds the implementation of congressionally mandated State Wildlife Action Plans, which outline specific, science -based conservation actions necessary to recover and sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations. Similarly, tribal nations will be able to expand successful conservation efforts on their lands, which provide vital habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, including more than 500 species that are listed as threatened or endangered. It also will support much needed investments in continued economic growth and job creation in tribal communities. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would be the only federal conservation program that provides sustained funding to tribal nations and state fish and wildlife agencies for the proactive conservation of at-risk species. One-third of the fish and wildlife species in the United States are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered. The challenges facing our nation’s fish and wildlife are daunting, but this legislation provides a solution. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will provide state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies and tribal fish and wildlife managers with dependable, dedicated resources to address more than 12,000 species in need of proactive, voluntary conservation before a listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. This legislation represents a smart, future focused investment that will also strengthen the economy and create a significant number of jobs that help grow the $862 billion outdoor economy and bring support to key sectors such as agriculture and forestry – all while supporting the conservation of America’s fish, wildlife, and the habitats they depend on. This common-sense, fiscally responsible solution passed the House of Representatives with a bipartisan vote in June and has 42 bipartisan Senate cosponsors and was passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works with a bipartisan vote in April. Now is the time to pass this widely supported transformational legislation. Taking measures to conserve species before they are on the brink of extinction and ensuring healthy populations will help save taxpayer dollars and prevent these species from needing costly “emergency room” measures under the Endangered Species Act – truly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Rather than defaulting to regulation and litigation, this bill saves America’s imperiled wildlife through collaborative and constructive voluntary partnerships. This collaborative approach to conservation is good for wildlife, good for taxpayers, good for landowners, good for business and good for America. Further, this bill builds on the successful restoration track records of state fish and wildlife agencies which for more than eight decades have successfully managed game species. Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson Act in 1950 to restore iconic game species such as deer, elk, striped bass, and wild turkey. Passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would complete the safety net so state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes have resources to conserve all fish and wildlife species. This Congress can join the legacy of the 75th and 81st Congress’s to ensure our nation’s rich fish and wildlife legacy is sustained for future generations. Over 100 million Americans participate in some form of wildlife recreation. Increasingly, Americans from all walks of life have turned to the outdoors and nature to improve physical and mental well-being. Creating thousands of jobs immediately, restoring natural resources infrastructure, increasing access to the outdoors, and reducing long-term costs through enactment of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will unify Americans and elected officials that represent diverse constituencies. Thank you for your consideration of our request to support passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act this year. We thank you for your support of America’s fish and wildlife and look forward to working with you to enact this groundbreaking legislation. Sincerely, ABQ BioPark Acorn Studio, Inc. Alabama Ornithological Society Allamakee County Protectors ~ Education Campaign American Eagle Foundation American Fisheries Society American Fisheries Society – Fisheries Administration Section American Fisheries Society Sacramento-Davis Student Subunit American Fisheries Society, Ball State University Student Subunit American Fly-Fishing Trade Association American Forests American Hunting Dog Club, Inc. American Sportfishing Association American Woodcock Society Appalachian Mountain Club Aquarium of Niagara Aquashicola/ Pohopoco Watershed Conservancy Aqua-Terra Environmental Ltd. Archery Trade Association Arizona Chapter of The Wildlife Society Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Arkansas Chapter American Fisheries Society Arkansas Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Arkansas Chapter of The Wildlife Society Aspetuck Land Trust Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Audubon Mid-Atlantic Audubon Society Mahoning Valley Audubon Society of Portland Audubon Texas Audubon Vermont Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust Austin Science Advocates Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Backcountry Hunters & Anglers – California Chapter Barry Conservation District Bartlett Tree Experts Bass Pro Shops Bassdozer Worldwide Bass Fishing LLC Bat Conservation International Baton Rouge Zoo Foundation Bayou Land Conservancy Bear-Paw Regional Greenways Belltown Sportsmen’s Club, Inc. Bergen County Zoo BGSU American Fisheries Society Student Subunit Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

  The Honorable Tracy Stone-Manning Director Bureau of Land Management The Honorable Camille Touton Commissioner Bureau of Reclamation The Honorable Stephanie Pollack Acting Administrator Federal Highway Administration The Honorable Michael Regan Administrator Environmental Protection Agency The Honorable Rick Spinrad Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Honorable Mike Connor Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Honorable Martha Williams Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Honorable Randy Moore Chief U.S. Forest Service Re: Federal Agency Coordination and Strategic Stakeholder Input regarding Fish Passage Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dear Director Stone-Manning, Commissioner Touton, Acting Administrator Pollack, Administrator Regan, Administrator Spinrad, Assistant Secretary Connor, Director Williams, and Chief Moore: The undersigned hunting, fishing, wildlife conservation, landowner organizations, and scientific societies are writing to urge a sustained and high-level commitment to a coordinated implementation of the historic federal investment in fish passage and aquatic connectivity provided in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) to ensure the greatest benefit to our nation’s fish, rivers, streams, and communities. We appreciate the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in convening federal agencies and stakeholders to chart a path forward for the coordinated and efficient use of the approximately $2 billion in BIL funding for aquatic connectivity. Freshwater fish, like brook trout, need access to upstream habitat to spawn, access food, and escape predators. Anadromous fish, like salmon and steelhead, migrate upstream as adults to spawn while juvenile fish must travel back downstream to the ocean to feed. Throughout the U.S., fish habitat is fragmented by culverts, dams, and other water control structures leading to declining fish populations, Endangered Species listings, and lost recreational, subsistence, and commercial fishing opportunities. Restoring aquatic connectivity at the watershed-level creates thriving fish populations, builds resilience, and allows access to cooler habitats as streams warm in the face of climate change. Partners across the nation, including many of the signatories here, are undertaking restoration projects for fish with significant co-benefits for communities including reducing and mitigating flood damage, improving water quality, and providing recreational opportunities leading to thriving local economies. We urge a sustained commitment at both the agency leadership and staff levels to develop a shared strategic vision for achieving watershed-level connectivity through BIL aquatic connectivity funding and an efficient process for implementation. We also urge you to develop a robust stakeholder engagement process to ensure that the greatest conservation and community benefit will result from this investment. A patchwork approach to spending this funding is unlikely to organically yield the watershed-level connectivity that is needed to address the scope of this nation-wide challenge for fish and aquatic organisms and to ensure these projects result in the greatest benefits for communities. Further, a lack of coordination in engineering review and permitting processes across agencies will significantly delay on-the-ground project implementation. A well-coordinated multi-agency design and permitting process will greatly accelerate the collective ability to realize transformational gains from this once-in-a-generation funding opportunity. We recognize that this cross-agency coordination to implement funding will require a great deal of work and ingenuity. We stand ready to provide support as you move forward. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Fly Fishing Trade Association American Sportfishing Association Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) Bonefish & Tarpon Trust Camp Fire Club of America Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Fly Fishers International National Wildlife Federation North American Falconers Association Orion: The Hunter’s Institute Public Lands Foundation The Nature Conservancy The Wildlife Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Whitetails Unlimited Wild Salmon Center Wildlife Forever Wildlife Mississippi

November 30, 2022 The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House United States House of Representatives The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader United States House of Representatives Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy, On behalf of the millions of hunters, anglers, recreational target shooters, boaters, professional scientists, and outdoor enthusiasts our organizations represent, we write to strongly urge immediate passage of the bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R. 2773/S. 2372), including as part of a potential comprehensive government funding bill. For nearly a century, America’s sportsmen and women have been our nation’s leading conservationists and have maintained unmatched forethought to the health of our nation’s fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. Through the enactment of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, the two most important fish and wildlife conservation programs in the country, sportsmen and women have continuously led the way for conservation. These programs, which are funded on the backs of the very industries and individuals we represent, generated approximately $1.5 billion for state-based funding in FY22. It is through Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson that iconic species like elk, wild turkey, white-tailed deer, striped bass, and waterfowl that were once on the brink, are now thriving. Unfortunately, today, we face a new wildlife crisis; one in which the magnitude of the solution must match the magnitude of the challenge. Conservation efforts are at a critical point, with more than one-third of American species at-risk and in need of proactive recovery. State Wildlife Action Plans, developed with the best available science in collaboration with federal, local and tribal agencies, have collectively identified more than 12,000 “Species of Greatest Conservation Need”. These plans include species cherished by many of us such as Northern bobwhite quail, monarch butterflies, artic graying, brook trout, big horn sheep, songbirds, many waterfowl species, and nearly 12,000 other fish and wildlife identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. That is why we write today urging passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. H.R. 2773/S. 2372 would provide the necessary funding to implement the congressionally mandated, but severely underfunded, State Wildlife Action Plans, as well as critical Tribal and Territorial wildlife conservation programs, conserving wildlife populations before they become threatened or endangered, while helping to recover those that already are. By ensuring passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, this Congress will ensure that our fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation traditions and their associated national economic benefits will endure for the benefit of future generations. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act represents an historic opportunity to simultaneously benefit wildlife, conservation, sportsmen and women, the economy and taxpayers. Earlier this year, Recovering America’s Wildlife Act received a successful, bipartisan vote to pass the House in June, where it has the support of 194 bipartisan cosponsors. In the Senate, S. 2372 has the support of 42 bipartisan cosponsors, and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 15-5. The House floor vote and the Senate Committee vote demonstrate the wide-spread support for H.R. 2773/S. 2372. Given the robust showing of support in both chambers and the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, now is the time to pass Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. The collaborative, non-regulatory approach of this bill will empower conservation for the full diversity of American’s wildlife as well as critical natural resources. Failure to fund these conservation efforts will not only endanger many more at-risk species, but threaten the local, state, and federal economies bolstered by the $862 billion outdoor industry, which employs 4.5 million Americans. We urge you to pass this high priority legislation for fish, wildlife, and sportsmen and sportswomen before the 117th Congress adjourns. We thank you for your support for conservation. Sincerely, American Catfishing Association American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association American Woodcock Society Archery Trade Association Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) Bear Trust International Bonefish & Tarpon Trust Boone and Crockett Club California Waterfowl Association Camp Fire Club of America Catch-A-Dream Foundation Coastal Conservation Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports Dallas Safari Club Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation Houston Safari Club International Game Fish Association Izaak Walton League of America Major League Fishing Marine Retailers Association of the Americas Masters of Foxhounds Association Mule Deer Foundation National Association of Forest Service Retirees National Bobwhite & Grassland Initiative National Deer Association National Professional Anglers Association National Shooting Sports Foundation National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation North American Falconers Association North American Grouse Partnership Orion: The Hunter’s Institute Pheasants Forever Pope & Young Club Quail Forever Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Ruffed Grouse Society Safari Club International Sportsmen’s Alliance Texas Wildlife Association The Bass Federation The Conservation Fund The Walleye Federation The Wildlife Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Whitetails Unlimited Wild Sheep Foundation Wildlife Forever Wildlife Management Institute Wildlife Mississippi

October 4, 2022 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, We are writing to request that you prioritize the National Wildlife Refuge System in your Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget proposal by including a robust increase for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System, accounting for inflationary costs, salary increases, and the significant increase in visitation and land base of the Refuge System since 2010. The current enacted funding level of $519 million is drastically insufficient, and has led to a Refuge System strained under the weight of critically low staffing levels and lost capacity. It is crucial that Congress and the Administration address this unsustainably low level of funding in FY 2024. As the only system of federal public lands focused primarily on wildlife conservation and habitat, the National Wildlife Refuge System must play a key role in achieving the biodiversity and climate targets set forth under the America the Beautiful Initiative. Further, the Refuge System’s Urban Wildlife Conservation Program, which seeks to bolster recreational access, is well-positioned to support the outreach and recreation efforts outlined in America the Beautiful. With at least one refuge in every state, the Refuge System provides rural and urban communities recreational opportunities, like angling, hunting, bird watching, and environmental education. The Refuge System requires a substantial increase in funding to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature. The National Wildlife Refuge System is an important asset for our country. Refuges are home to over 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species, over 1,000 species of fish, and 513 threatened and endangered species. Over 65 million people annually visit the nation’s 568 refuges, which are found in every state and territory and within an hour’s drive of every major city. The Refuge System provides families and everyday Americans access to some of the nation’s best hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, photography, and more. As more Americans explore our wild places, management of these places must keep up to ensure the safety of their visitors. Although annual visitors to the Refuge System increased by 38 percent since 2010, the Refuge System’s budget has only increased by 3 percent since FY 2010. This, along with the addition of 13 refuges, 2 million land acres, and 597 million acres of marine national monuments, significant staff cuts (1,000 FTE since 2010), and increased pressures from natural events like wildfires and flooding, has put the Refuge System under increasing fiscal strain. In order to properly steward its lands and waters, the Refuge System requires additional conservation planning dollars: while Comprehensive Conservation Plans are required to be updated every 15 years, 40 percent of them are out of date. Increased investment in the Refuge System is not only warranted, but also a wise investment in local economies. In FY 2020, Refuges generated about $3 billion in economic benefits for local economies and supported over 41,000 jobs. In fact, studies have shown that every dollar invested in our Refuge System by the federal government returns about five dollars in local economic activity. Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this important request. We recognize the ongoing challenges facing the discretionary budget and look forward to working with you to support these vital programs. Sincerely, Alaska Wilderness League American Birding Association, Inc. American Fisheries Society American Rivers American Sportfishing Association Appalachian Trail Conservancy Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Boone and Crockett Club Braided River California Waterfowl Association Camp Fire Club of America Coalition of Refuge Friends and Advocates Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports Defenders of Wildlife Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Endangered Species Coalition Environment America Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Friends of Bombay Hook NWR, Smyrna DE Friends of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Friends of Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Friends of Loess Bluffs National Wildlife Refuge Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges Friends of Neal Smith NWR Friends of Red River NWR Friends of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex Houston Safari Club Foundation Izaak Walton League of America Marine Conservation Institute National Audubon Society National Deer Association National Ocean Protection Coalition National Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Refuge Association North American Grouse Partnership Ohio Environmental Council Orion: The Hunter’s Institute Patagonia Ruffed Grouse Society & American Woodcock Society Safari Club International Seeding Sovereignty Sierra Club The Conservation Fund The Nature Conservancy The Wilderness Society The Wildlife Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Waterway Advocates Wildlife Forever Wildlife Management Institute Wildlife Mississippi CC: Debra Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior Tommy Beaudreau, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior Shannon A. Estenoz, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Martha Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cynthia Martinez, Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System Stephenne Harding, Senior Director for Lands, White House Council on Environmental Quality Jessica Ennis, Public Engagement Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality Kate Kelly, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Department of the Interior Jacob Glass, Natural Resources Division, Office of Management and Budget Shantha Ready Alonso, Director of Intergovernmental and External Affairs, Department of the Interior

September 6, 2022 Mr. Michael S. Regan Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20460 via regulations.gov Re: Proposed determination to restrict the use of certain waters in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed as disposal sites for discharge of dredged or fill material in association with mining the Pebble deposit; Docket No. EPA-R10-OW-2022-0418-0001 (Proposed Determination) Dear Administrator Regan: On behalf of the members of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and the Alaska Chapter of AFS, we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Proposed Determination to restrict the use of certain waters in the North Fork Koktuli River (NFK), South Fork Koktuli River (SFK), and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in connection with mining of the Pebble deposit; Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2022-0418-0001. The American Fisheries Society and the Alaska Chapter of AFS fully support the EPA’s use of its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to restrict the use of certain waters in the NFK, SFK, and UTC watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in connection with mining the Pebble deposit due to unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fish. Large-scale mining in the watershed would cause irreversible impacts to this pristine habitat and the valuable fisheries it supports. We have long-standing concerns about the development of a mine in Bristol Bay, a project whose impacts to fisheries and the watershed cannot be adequately reduced or mitigated. The American Fisheries Society represents over 7,500 professional fishery scientists and resource managers who work in the private sector, in academic institutions, and in tribal, state, and federal agencies. The Alaska Chapter of AFS has more than 400 members. Our common mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. Bristol Bay is a global treasure (Woody 2018). The high diversity and connectivity of aquatic habitats in the Bristol Bay watershed make it one of the most productive regions for Pacific salmon in the world (Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Wobus et al. 2015). Bristol Bay is home to the world’s largest wild Sockeye Salmon fishery, supporting half the global catch (Cline et al. 2019; Tiernan et al. 2021). Along with Sockeye Salmon, Bristol Bay supports one of the largest wild Chinook Salmon runs as well as healthy runs of Coho Salmon, Chum Salmon, and Pink Salmon (Johnson and Blossom 2018). These salmon support major commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries, providing jobs and food security to rural communities and thousands of people, and are a vital cultural element for Alaska Native peoples (Halas and Neufeld 2018; Tiernan et al. 2021). High salmon production also brings marine-derived nutrients to the Bristol Bay watershed, providing crucial food sources through eggs and carcasses to a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (Cederholm et al. 2011; EPA 2014). Due to the cyclical nature of salmon life histories, it could take years before harm from a mine to salmon populations becomes detectable. Within that time, undetected irreparable harm could affect generations of salmon populations and have significant impacts on the people and wildlife that depend on them. The EPA makes four independent unacceptability findings that support restricting the use of certain waters in the NFK, SFK, and UTC watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material in connection with mining of the Pebble deposit. They are (1) the pristine condition and productivity of anadromous habitat throughout the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds; (2) the large amount of permanent loss of anadromous fish habitat; (3) the degradation of additional downstream spawning and rearing habitat for Coho, Chinook, and Sockeye salmon resulting from the loss of ecological subsidies provided by the eliminated streams, wetlands, and other waters; (4) and the resulting erosion of both habitat complexity and biocomplexity within the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds, which are key to the abundance and stability of salmon populations within those watersheds. These findings are consistent with the best-available science and our prior comments to the agency on the significant harm that would result to Bristol Bay’s anadromous and resident fish and fisheries from large-scale mining activities. In 2014, AFS objected to the agency’s withdrawal of the 404(c) Proposed Determination for many of these reasons and others. In addition to the EPA’s unacceptability findings, Pacific salmon are already facing very real threats from climate change throughout their ranges (Muñoz et al. 2019). Protecting the pristine waters of Bristol Bay is critical for maintaining their unique populations and their resilience to climate change (Cline et al. 2019). As temperatures continue to rise, it is likely that the hydrological conditions of the Bristol Bay watershed will change. Uncertainty in how they would change, and what that would mean for salmon, increases the magnitude of risks associated with the development of the Pebble Mine (Wobus et al. 2015). The high diversity of aquatic habitats and high quality of hydrological conditions in the Bristol Bay watershed has resulted in high degrees of phenotypic and genotypic diversity across the region’s salmon populations (Hilborn et al. 2003; Schindler et al. 2010). The introduction of the mine would erode that resilience, threatening the salmon populations and everyone who depends on them (Muñoz et al. 2019) We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the Proposed Determination and the opportunity to voice our support for Bristol Bay’s prolific, sustainable, all-wild salmon fisheries. We encourage the EPA to move quickly to finalize this process to ensure that these valuable resources are protected. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director American Fisheries Society REFERENCES Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83–138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 2011.

August 8, 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MS: PRB/3W 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 via regulations.gov Re: Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Experimental Populations, Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0033-0001 Dear Sir or Madam: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the proposed changes to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0033-0001, submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for public comment on June 7, 2022. AFS represents over 7,500 professional fishery scientists and resource managers who work in the private sector, academic institutions, and in tribal, state, and federal agencies. Our common mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. Section 10(j) of the ESA concerns the use of experimental populations as a conservation tool. At its current standing the translocations of species is limited to historic ranges, unless under the extreme circumstance in which the primary habitat has been irreversibly destroyed or altered to make unsuitable. As you consider proposed changes to section 10(j) that would allow for introduction of experimental populations outside of historic ranges in the absence of emergency (e.g. unexpected contamination, disease, habitat destruction, unprecedented mass deaths, or extreme climatic changes), we submit the following science-based guidelines and best practices to inform the development of the rule. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Conservation translocations are a global conservation tool intended to aid in the recovery and long-term preservation of threatened and endangered populations. In the U.S., reintroductions have helped to restore a number of species (Novak et al. 2021). Indeed, conventional conservation measures such as habitat restoration in a species’ original range may be insufficient in the face of rapid climate change. Climate change has already caused increased range constrictions, shifts in suitable habitat, and increased fragmentation for many species leading to increased extinction risk (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008; Chen et al., 2011). Many species do not have the ability to adapt or move in response to climate change. For those that do, their ability to cover the necessary geographical distance may be inadequate (Butt et al. 2020). Trends in shifting ranges are generally towards the poles and to higher altitudes. Natural and anthropogenic barriers can impede a species ability to range shift (Chen et al. 2011; Scheffers and Pecl 2019). The intentional movement of species outside of its native/historical range, often termed assisted colonization, assisted migration, or managed relocation, could be critical for preventing extinction (McLachlan et al. 2007; Hoegh-Guldberge et al. 2008; Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009; Richardson et al. 2009; Shirey and Lamberti 2010). However, concerns have been raised regarding the use of assisted colonization and it has thus far been considered a conservation measure of last resort (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008; Butt et al. 2020). Assisted colonization as a conservation tool must be an iteratively informed process, involve a nuanced understanding of species and ecosystem specific criteria, embrace community, industry, scientific, and indigenous input and continued partnership, and include a rigorous scientific monitoring program designed to study holistic chemical, physical, and biological ecosystem interactions. The primary habitat restriction under the section 10(j) regulations (50 C.F.R. §17.81) is a challenging standard to overcome from a scientific perspective when planning for climate change because the agency did not define the degree of habitat change that results in an “unsuitable and irreversible alteration” (Shirey and Lamberti 2010). Negative impacts Negative impacts on the recipient ecosystem are major concerns regarding assisted colonization and has been a key factor in arguments against the use of assisted colonization. Whether it’s re-introduction or new introduction, translocations alter the bio-abundance and biodiversity of an ecosystem. These alterations can range in impact from short-term low impact to systemically transformative, and be beneficial or harmful (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Nature is unpredictable and how species and ecosystems will interact cannot be wholly predicted. We recommend taking precautionary approaches when introducing a species outside their native range. Rigorous risk assessments should be used to determine the negative consequences associated with the risk to the target species as well as the risk to the recipient ecosystem. SOURCE POPULATION Any removal of individuals from a source population will decrease the available genetic diversity within that population. Though very rare, this could result in negative impacts for the source population. At-risk species generally already suffer from decreased genetic diversity (Willoughby et al. 2015; Furlan et al. 2019). The founder individuals should be selected form a source population that is genetically fit while also avoiding the possibility of inbreeding or outbreeding depression. Monitoring of both the genetic fitness for the source and the experimental populations is important to ensure the health of both and allow for low-level human mediation if necessary (IUCN/SSC 2013; McLennan et al. 2020). RECIPEINT ECOSYSTEM Harm done to recipient ecosystems is a major concern for the movement of species outside of their historic range (IUCN/SSC 2013). As of 2021, there has been only one case where a conservation translocation resulted in negative unintended consequences (Novak et al. 2021). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service translocated a population of 200 endangered Watercress Darters (Etheostoma nuchale) to Tapawingo Spring, which was outside of the taxon’s native range. This translocation resulted in the local extirpation of the Tapawingo Darter (E. phytophilium), which had been previously thought to be a more common taxon, the E. parvipinne (Bart Jr. & Taylor, 1999; George et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the Tapawingo Darter is only found in three Alabama counties, and the impact of this loss was significant (Novak et al., 2021). This is a prime example of the concerns regarding assisted colonization, and while this is a rare occurrence, steps should be taken to mitigate this risk. Biological and risk assessments done on the recipient ecosystem should include genomic sequences of species that could be impacted by the introduction of the target species, such as prey or competition species, to help ensure that species with restricted ranges, like with

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY ● THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 06 April 2022 Senator Tom Carper, Chair Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Ranking Member Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society thank you and your colleagues for your consideration of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 2372) – groundbreaking legislation that would empower our nation’s fish and wildlife professionals to proactively and cost-effectively conserve at-risk species. Our organizations would like to express sincere support for the amendment in the nature of a substitute submitted by Chairman Carper. We appreciate the collective efforts of you and your staff to reach bipartisan language that will allow state, tribal, and federal fish and wildlife professionals to hold our nation’s fish and wildlife in the public trust for generations to come. The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society are dedicated to development of natural resource professionals, advancing science, and conserving fish and wildlife. With your support of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, our nation’s natural resources professionals will be able to work in partnership with stakeholders to meet the needs of at-risk species before costly emergency action is required. For species that have already reached the point of Endangered Species Act listing, newly targeted funds will provide much-needed resources to help species recover. We strongly encourage the committee to favorably consider this legislation in order to provide fish and wildlife professionals with a stable and predictable funding source to combat the growing biodiversity crisis and maintain native species for the enjoyment of all Americans. If you have any questions in the lead up to Thursday’s markup, please do not hesitate to reach out to Drue Winters, Policy Director at AFS (dwinters@fisheries.org) or Caroline Murphy, Government Relations Manager at TWS (cmurphy@wildlife.org). Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director American Fisheries Society Gordon R. Batcheller, CWB® President The Wildlife Society Founded in 1937, TWS and its network of affiliated chapters and sections represents more than 15,000 professional wildlife biologists, managers, and educators dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship. TWS’ mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitat through science-based management and conservation. wildlife.org Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The AFS mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With its renowned journals, books and conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world. fisheries.org

(Letter sent to all U.S. Senators) February 14, 2022 United States Senate Constitution Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator, We write to request your support for increasing U.S. production of healthful, sustainable, and affordable seafood through marine aquaculture. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Reps. Ed Case (D-HI) and Steve Palazzo (R-MS) have introduced an updated version of the “Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act” or the “AQUAA Act”. This bipartisan bill establishes a process for permitting marine aquaculture in federal waters and institutes a clear set of National Standards that preserve existing environmental safeguards and minimize impacts to existing ocean-based industries. While aquaculture supplies over 50% of seafood globally and is the fastest growing food sector in the world, it is still an untapped industry in the United States. The U.S. imports 90% of the seafood we eat and ranks 16th in production of farmed seafood. As a result, our seafood trade deficit is $14 billion and growing. Expanding American aquaculture production can help close this gap with the added economic benefits of job creation, investment in coastal communities, expanded markets for wild-caught seafood and new markets for American-farmed feed ingredients like soybeans, corn, and peas. A doubling of U.S. aquaculture production could create an additional 50,000 direct and indirect jobs, including in coastal communities, on farms and in emerging technology fields. Further there is a growing demand for seafood among American consumers, and the AQUAA Act will ensure that the U.S. can meet that demand without depending upon overseas suppliers, which often reside in countries with relaxed or non-existent environmental regulations. Through marine aquaculture, the U.S. can increase sources of healthful and fully traceable seafood protein providing food security for American consumers, who are increasingly focused on access to local food, traceability, sustainability, and affordability when making purchasing decisions. Over the past 30 years, management practices and scientific innovation have reduced, eliminated, or minimized many of the environmental risks at responsibly managed farms.1 The AQUAA Act includes a national plan to identify and establish areas particularly well-suited for aquaculture, known as Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs). NOAA is already leading the charge in identifying the most suitable areas in the exclusive economic zones for aquaculture development. Using the best available science and collaboration with ocean use stakeholders, identifying AOAs is an opportunity to use the best global science and guidance on sustainable aquaculture management to support the “triple bottom line” of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. In conjunction with the AQUAA Act the efforts of NOAA will help build out a sustainable US aquaculture sector slowly over time, which is a key factor in encouraging environmental sustainability. Providing a comprehensive, predictable regulatory framework is critical to build a stronger, more resilient seafood sector supported by both well managed sustainable aquaculture and wild fisheries. The AQUAA Act would provide that framework, supporting American jobs, increasing food security, and ensuring consumer demand is met with sustainably produced U.S. seafood. We urge you to reach out to Sens. Wicker, Schatz and Rubio and Reps. Palazzo and Case to learn more about the AQUAA Act and the numerous benefits of an increased domestic production of healthful, sustainable, affordable seafood. Together we can build it here, and we can build it right. Reference 1 Hall, S. J., A. Delaporte, M. J. Phillips, M. Beveridge, and M. O’Keefe. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. TheWorldFishCenter, Penang, Malaysia. Sincerely,

March 2, 2022 The Honorable Deb Haaland Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 The Honorable Tom Vilsack Secretary U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250 The Honorable Pete Buttigieg Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 The Honorable Gina Raimondo Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230 The Honorable Mike Conner Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E446 Washington, DC 20320-0108 The Honorable Michael Regan Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 The Honorable Deanne Criswell Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 The Honorable Brenda Mallory Chair Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20506 Dear Secretary Haaland, Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Buttigieg, Secretary Raimondo, Assistant Secretary Conner, Administrator Regan, Administrator Criswell and Chair Mallory: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations and businesses contributing to the $689 billion outdoor recreation economy write to express our interest in working closely with the Biden-Harris Administration and federal departments and agencies on implementation of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA provides a critical infusion of resources to advance infrastructure solutions that recognize the value of natural systems and enhance climate resilience while connecting Americans to their public lands and waters. Our organizations worked diligently with Congress to help pass the IIJA, strengthening established conservation and recreation programs with a track record of success while helping to create new programs focused on infrastructure innovations that offer long-term benefits for climate resilience while better integrating our nation’s infrastructure system with our natural systems. We secured important wins to implement natural infrastructure solutions, restore and adapt existing and establish new recreation resources, advance wildlife crossings, ensure aquatic connectivity and fish passage, promote clean water, and sustain broad-scale restoration objectives in support of local communities throughout the country. We are now reaching out to you and your senior leadership to express our desire to remain constructive partners as the administration develops new spending plans, guidelines, and programs for IIJA implementation, and to offer expertise and resources to ensure IIJA funding is driven by science, targeted and strategic, built upon years of on-the-ground conservation and recreation partnerships, and sustainable for the long-term. With the challenges of a changing climate, ongoing human development pressures, mega-wildfires, the spread of invasive species, and other stressors that are leading to serious impacts on biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitats, and natural systems across the country, the conservation and recreation communities have continued to advance efforts that accomplish conservation at scale and advance collaborative conservation approaches with private landowners while maintaining Americans’ connections to public lands and waters. Large landscape and watershed approaches are most durable and lasting when they transcend ecological and social boundaries, are grounded in trust and partnership with local communities and decisionmakers, and embrace collaboration with private working landowners. These are neither new nor experimental concepts – the programs we have championed and reference in this letter are proven and cost-effective solutions that benefit the environment and people. These successful programs should be considered guides for strategically and effectively targeting IIJA funding. While the Administration has given broad direction for coordination with state, tribal, and local governments, the success of IIJA implementation will depend upon hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists, conservationists, private landowners, scientists, and community-based stakeholders working collectively with federal partners to advance conservation and recreation objectives for the nation’s public and private lands and freshwater and marine resources. These stakeholders must be brought to the table early and often as full partners in IIJA project planning, development, and implementation. As your administration moves forward with IIJA implementation, our community is particularly interested in working with the Biden-Harris Administration on the following key areas: Building on Existing Partnerships Our community has worked tirelessly to build ground-up conservation and recreation programs with established delivery mechanisms that have stood the test of time and have led to significant conservation victories on public and private lands across the United States. Federal programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, National Fish Habitat Partnership Program, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, National Fish Passage Program, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the USDA & DOI Working Lands for Wildlife Program, EPA Geographic Programs, USDA Farm Bill Title II Conservation Programs (FSA Conservation Reserve Program and NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program, among others), USFS’ Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting authorities, Shared Stewardship Agreements, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration and Joint Chief’s Programs, NOAA’s National Coastal Resilience Fund and Community-Based Restoration Program, DOI-USDA-DOD Sentinel Landscapes, and other partnership and collaborative conservation models should be maximized during IIJA implementation. Durable Conservation and Outdoor Recreation at the Landscape- and Watershed-Scale There are many exemplary models of progress in large landscape and watershed conservation and outdoor recreation across the country. It is important to harness the lessons learned from these landscapes and watersheds, including the effectiveness and scalability of collaborative conservation with private landowners, as the Biden-Harris Administration implements IIJA programs and funding streams to advance durable and lasting conservation at scale and connect Americans to their public lands and waters. We support efforts to leverage broad and diverse coalition structures that are already underway within priority regions – the Mississippi River Delta, Prairie Potholes, Sagebrush ecosystem, Great Plains Grassland, Southeastern Longleaf, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Colorado River, Sacramento/San Joaquin, Klamath, Yakima, Columbia-Snake Basin, and Southeast Alaska, as examples – while also supporting new opportunities to build capacity and planning needs for communities that have often not had opportunities to engage in federal, regional, or state planning efforts nor access to federal resources. Addressing Capacity Needs and Other Barriers Our community is committed to working with the Biden-Harris Administration to address barriers to the utilization of

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists February 7, 2022 Mr. Michael S. Regan Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Department of the Army 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0104 via https://www.regulations.gov Re: Waters of the U.S., Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0602 Dear Administrator Regan and Assistant Secretary Pinkham: Thank you for your commitment to crafting an effective and durable definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that protects public health, the environment, and downstream ecosystems and delivers the Clean Water Act mandate. The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) continues to support a science-based definition of WOTUS1 because of its importance to fish, fisheries, wildlife, watersheds, water quality and supply, flood control, ecosystem carbon storage and climate resilience services,2 as well as the people and economies that rely on them.3 CASS is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act, U.S. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0602, as published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2020 (Proposed Rule). We support the repeal of the harmful 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR)4 and a return to a modified pre-2015 regulatory regime, as an interim step, while the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Agencies) work to craft a more considered and durable definition of WOTUS consistent with current science and the Clean Water Act. We strongly support the science-based protections established in the 2015 Clean Water Rule5 because returning to a pre-2015 regulatory regime while the Agencies work to establish a new, durable definition will help limit the impacts of the harmful NWPR. We anticipate continued work with the Agencies to expeditiously re-establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will facilitate the Clean Water Act (CWA) fulfilling its mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The NWPR significantly deviates from previous interpretations of CWA jurisdiction and the definition of WOTUS and largely ignores and oversimplifies basic science.6, 7 CASS fully supports the definition of WOTUS in the 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR)8 as the basis for a new rule, which can be further informed by connectivity science that has emerged over the past 7 years.3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 As documented in the EPA’s “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence,” the 2015 CWR was overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed science.14 The NWPR is inconsistent with more than a half century of scientific research that demonstrates that the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on ephemeral (i.e., flow only after precipitation events), intermittent (i.e., flow seasonally), and perennial (flow year-round) streams, as well as on wetlands located both within (i.e., floodplain wetlands) and outside (i.e., nonfloodplain or geographically isolated wetlands) of floodplains.7, 14 If allowed to stand, the very narrow definition of WOTUS in the NWPR would allow continued loss of protections for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands, including many types of isolated wetlands and ephemeral streams with ecological and economic value disproportionate to their areas.15, 16 Further, given the very real and substantial impacts of climate warming, land uses, and groundwater extraction on our nation’s waters and other aquatic resources, it is imperative that any definition of WOTUS consider the accelerating effects of those anthropogenic pressures on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Intermittent and ephemeral aquatic ecosystems and their associated biodiversity are particularly vulnerable and will need robust protections. Currently half of global river networks are prone to flow intermittence and because of climate change intermittency will increase.3,17,18 Rather than protecting our waters’ integrity, if left to stand the NWPR would have intensified the vulnerability of water resources to climate change and extensive and intensive land and water uses driven by agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry, mining, and urbanization.6,19,20 Science-based CWA protections can help protect aquatic ecosystems, maintain crucial ecosystem services for sequestration and storage of carbon, improve climate resilience, and promote our progress towards the drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere.2 We note that had the NWPR continued to be in effect, the resulting loss and impairment of previously protected WOTUS would have resulted in increased carbon releases into the atmosphere, further jeopardizing important goals to limit climate heating. As it stands, the Proposed Rule—while a vast improvement in water protection over the NWPR—does not fully align with the best-available science, leaving too many water bodies (e.g., ephemeral streams, multiple types of wetlands) vulnerable to discretionary determinations of jurisdiction. In particular, summer-dry or winter-wet streams and rivers,16,21,22 including spatially intermittent and temporally ephemeral systems, often host unique and diverse aquatic biota and they respond to water quality stressors in different manners than do permanent streams and rivers. Therefore, they must be monitored, assessed, and managed differently than permanent waters.22, 23,24,25 Thus, we want to continue working with you to quickly establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will allow the CWA to fulfill its mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society International Association for Great Lakes Research North American Lake Management Society Phycological Society of America Society for Freshwater Science Society of Wetland Scientists 1 Letter from the Consortium of Aquatic Sciences

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY ● THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 07 December 2021 Senator Tom Carper, Chair Environment and Public Works Committee U.S. Senate 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Senator Shelley Moore Capito Environment and Public Works Committee U.S. Senate 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society thank you for holding a hearing on the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 2372) – groundbreaking legislation that would empower our nation’s fish and wildlife professionals to proactively and cost-effectively conserve at-risk species. Our organizations are dedicated to development of natural resource professionals, advancing science, and conserving fish and wildlife. We work to promote science-based policies that empower fish and wildlife professionals to hold our nation’s fish and wildlife in the public trust for generations to come. With more than 200,000 species of plants and animals across America, our nation’s fish and wildlife professionals are working on the front lines of species diversity and conservation. The “Reversing America’s Wildlife Crisis” report (attached), released by the American Fisheries Society, The Wildlife Society, and the National Wildlife Federation, documents how the diversity of native species face alarming declines from threats such as habitat loss, invasive species, disease, and the accumulating problems caused by a changing climate. As detailed in the report, up to one-third of U.S. species need immediate conservation action, including 40 percent of freshwater fish species and 42 percent of amphibian species. As relayed by the more than 1,700 natural resources scientists in a 2019 letter to Congress (attached), reversing these staggering declines requires a proactive and cooperative approach that will empower state and tribal natural resource managers to work directly with stakeholders, creating buy-in at all levels of governance. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would help achieve this goal by providing nearly $1.4 billion in dedicated funding annually for the more than 12,000 species determined by state fish and wildlife agencies to be at-risk. Specifically, the legislation would provide funding for implementation of states’ wildlife action plans. These congressionally mandated action plans provide a roadmap for full implementation of at-risk species recovery efforts by state agencies alongside federal and non-government partners. The bill would also provide $97.5 million in dedicated funding annually for tribal fish and wildlife agencies to work on at-risk species recovery. Unfortunately, years of inadequate federal funding has not allowed for the goals of state wildlife action plans or tribal species recovery efforts to be realized. Tribes have continuously been left out of federal funding opportunities for conservation. At present, no federal fund exists that tribal agencies can utilize annually for long-term conservation planning. By rewriting this narrative and investing in state and tribal species conservation, our public trust wildlife will have a chance at recovery, saving the federal government significant funds by avoiding future species listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For species that have already reached the point of ESA listing, natural resource professionals will have the ability to prioritize listed species conservation efforts thanks to 15 percent of funds targeted at multistakeholder conservation efforts for listed species. We strongly encourage the committee to favorably consider this legislation in order to provide fish and wildlife professionals with a stable and predictable funding source to combat the growing biodiversity crisis and maintain native species for the enjoyment of all Americans. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D., FP-C Executive Director American Fisheries Society Gordon R. Batcheller, CWB® President The Wildlife Society Founded in 1937, TWS and its network of affiliated chapters and sections represents more than 15,000 professional wildlife biologists, managers, and educators dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship. TWS’ mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitat through science-based management and conservation. wildlife.org Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The AFS mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With its renowned journals, books and conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world. fisheries.org

October 7, 2021 The Honorable Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader United States Senate The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House United States House of Representatives Dear Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, Thank you for your ongoing efforts to pass a Build Back Better Act that includes robust funding for climate-smart agriculture. As you continue to consider this important legislation, the undersigned groups write in strong support of the proposed $28 billion investment into USDA agriculture conservation programs and conservation technical assistance and urge you to ensure that it remains in the final budget reconciliation package. This would be the largest investment into agriculture conservation in decades and would be transformative for farms, ranches, and forests across the country. Increasing funding for USDA’s popular and effective Farm Bill conservation programs is one of the quickest and most practical ways to energize rural economies, improve climate resilience, and ensure that our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and foresters are part of the solution to climate change. USDA’s voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs enable farmers, ranchers, and forest owners to adopt practices that build soil health, sequester carbon, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving surface and ground water quality, increasing water efficiency, creating habitat for fish and wildlife, and protecting agricultural lands for future generations. Unfortunately, Farm Bill conservation programs are critically oversubscribed and meet only a fraction of the need for voluntary conservation on the landscape. Demand for conservation on 13.8 million acres goes unmet because of inadequate funding every year. That’s why last month, over 215 groups announced their support for doubling of the Farm Bill conservation program funding. A $28 billion investment in Farm Bill conservation programs, conservation technical assistance, and climate-smart agriculture would go a long way towards that goal. Hundreds of farm, food and conservation advocates, companies, and private citizens have weighed in with input during the budget reconciliation process, and they confirmed that the climate-smart agriculture provisions of the Build Back Better Budget will make a historic impact on conservation efforts. Increasing funding for the Farm Bill conservation programs and climate-smart agriculture and ramping up conservation technical assistance on the ground will enable landowners to mitigate the impacts of drought and flood, restore wildlife habitat, improve soil health and long-term food security, create new job opportunities for rural economies, and galvanize the agriculture sector to lead the charge in our fight against climate change. Farmers, ranchers, and foresters are ready adopt practices that sequester carbon and reduce emissions if they are provided the tools and resources to make that goal a reality. Action this year on a reconciliation bill with robust funding for climate-smart agriculture represents the best opportunity in decades to meet farmer demand for conservation programs. Thank you for all of your work on the Build Back Better Act and climate-smart agriculture funding. We look forward to working with you in the future to continue to build out these priorities that will energize the American economy and put Americans back to work. Sincerely, National Groups and Companies: Alter Eco American Bird Conservancy American Farmland Trust American Fisheries Society Appalachian Trail Conservancy Carbon180 Ceres Clif Bar & Co Climate Positive Consulting Defenders of Wildlife Dr. Bronner’s Earthjustice Eleni Toubanos, LLC Environment America Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Working Group Farm Aid GreenStep Solutions Inc. Hazon Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Impossible Foods Inc. Izaak Walton League of America Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Land Trust Alliance League of Conservation Voters National Association of Conservation Districts National Audubon Society National Center for Appropriate Technology National Deer Association National Farmers Union National Organic Coalition National Parks Conservation Association National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition National Wildlife Federation National Young Farmers Coalition Natural Resources Defense Council North American Grouse Partnership Organic Farmers Association Organic Farming Research Foundation Oregon Tilth Pesticide Action Network Plant Based Foods Association Pollinator Partnership Queenan Productions River Network Save the Dunes Sierra Club Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Soil and Water Conservation Society Tentree The Bee Girl Organization (BGO) The Conservation Fund The Nature Conservancy The Tofurky Company The Trust for Public Land Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership U.S. PIRG Union of Concerned Scientists Wild Farm Alliance Wildlife Management Institute World Wildlife Fund Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Regional, State, and Local Groups: Alliance for the Shenandoah Valley Anacostia Watershed Society Arizona Wildlife Federation Audubon Western Everglades Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Bread Riot California Climate & Agriculture Network Cacapon Institute Capital Region Land Conservancy Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (CFSA) Carteret Food and Health Council – NC Center for Rural Affairs Chesapeake Bay Foundation Chesapeake Conservancy Chesapeake Legal Alliance Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Community Farm Alliance Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) Conservation Federation of Missouri Conservation Northwest Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania Delaware Valley Ornithological Club Environmental Law & Policy Center Faith Community Church Farm to Table – New Mexico Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Foodshed Capital Friends of Family Farmers Friends of St. Clements Bay Friends of the Mississippi River Friends of the Rappahannock Georgia Organics Green Lands Blue Waters Green State Solutions Guilford Urban Farming Initiative Harpeth Conservancy Healthy Gulf Hendry-Glades Audubon Society Hoosier Environmental Council Idaho Wildlife Federation Illinois Stewardship Alliance Indiana Sportsmens Roundtable Iowa Wildlife Federation Izaak Walton League – Illinois Division Izaak Walton League of America – Cypress Chapter (Florida) Izaak Walton League of America – Dwight Lydell Chapter (Michigan) Izaak Walton League of America – Florida Division Izaak Walton League of America – Florida Keys Chapter Izaak Walton League of America – Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America – Oregon Division Izaak Walton League of America – Porter County Chapter (Indiana) Izaak Walton League of America – W. J. McCabe Chapter (Minnesota) Izaak Walton League of America – Will Dilg Chapter (Minnesota) Izaak Walton League of America – Wisconsin Division Kansas Rural Center Lancaster Clean Water Partners Lancaster Farmland Trust Land For Good Land Stewardship Project League of Rural Voters Maine Farmland Trust Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association MD Campaign for Environmental Human Rights Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Milwaukee Riverkeeper Mississippi

Download PDF version September 21, 2021 The Honorable John Kerry Special Presidential Envoy for Climate U.S. Department of State Dear Special Envoy Kerry: In advance of the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) would like to make you aware of the global consensus of aquatic science societies on the effects of climate change on fisheries and other aquatic resources and the urgency of reducing carbon emissions to ensure the sustainability of this vital global food source, the loss of which could undermine international security and peace efforts. We also seek to underscore the importance of protecting the integrity of healthy aquatic ecosystems and restoring degraded systems in order to maintain their crucial storage of carbon as part of halting and eventually reversing the effects of climate change. We applaud the commitment of the U.S. to securing global net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and we urge your leadership on the world stage in achieving this goal to hold temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. Founded in 1870, the mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals, a monthly magazine, in-house book publishing with over 200 titles, and the world’s largest fisheries science conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world. We support and promote the use of best-available science in policy-making. Last fall, AFS and 111 other science societies representing 80,000 scientists across the world called for urgent action to reduce emissions to avoid catastrophic impacts to commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, human health, and global economies. Attached please find the statement that details the irreversible impacts to freshwater and marine ecosystems, fish, and fisheries from climate change that are projected to occur without swift and resolute action to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. We must act now to safeguard our drinking water, food supplies, and human health and well-being. Urgency of Carbon Emission Reductions Scientists are already observing significant changes to freshwater and marine species as a result of climate change. Today, freshwater fish species are already imperiled as a result of pollution, habitat loss, water withdrawals, and invasive species. Highly valued fisheries will be further stressed by climate change as it accelerates and intensifies water pollution, species range reductions, species extinctions, and facilitates invasive species expansion to the detriment of native species. Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, and streams and altering precipitation patterns throughout America, reducing habitat availability for fish, particularly for coldwater species. Climate change is also altering marine and coastal ecosystems with significant implications for wild capture fisheries and marine economies. Projected increases in ocean temperature are expected to reduce the maximum catch potential in most areas of the U.S. and this trend is anticipated around the world. Many harvested stocks are already shifting towards cooler and deeper water and will continue to shift from one area to another, or even across international boundaries with implications for seafood supply, ports, and associated businesses. Loss of habitat from sea level rise will lead to declines in the vast majority of commercially and recreationally harvested marine finfish and shellfish that are dependent on estuaries and coastal systems for some stage of their life cycle. Increased carbon dioxide absorption is changing ocean chemistry, rendering some waters too acidic for marine organisms with calcium-based shells, such as oysters and clams, and threatening the base of the marine food web. Many of these changes are and will be irreversible. They will continue to worsen if we persist on our current trajectory with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems, human societies, and local and global economies. In the U.S., commercial and recreational fishing supports more than 1.74 million jobs and results in more than $244 billion in sales per year. Globally, fisheries provide quality protein sources not easily replaced by terrestrial sources. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, fish accounts for 17% of animal protein consumed globally, fishing and aquaculture directly employ nearly 60 million people, and global trade in fish products is valued at US$152 billion per year. Globally, the loss of fisheries resources could have serious consequences for international security and peace. Mitigation and Adaptation to Help Protect Aquatic Resources As part of any climate solution, we must protect the integrity of our healthy aquatic ecosystems and work to restore degraded systems in order to maintain their crucial storage of carbon as part of halting and eventually reversing the effects of climate change. Land and water-based conservation solutions are critical to capture carbon and to make our rivers, lakes and streams, forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal systems more resilient to the impacts of climate change. To the extent possible, we must mitigate the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries and plan for adaptation required to ensure the long-term health of freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems. We applaud the commitment of President Biden to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to address the climate crisis and urge your continued leadership on the global stage. The economic and environmental value of the ecosystem services provided by global aquatic resources is of great importance and must be safeguarded. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen Executive Director

The Honorable Michael Regan Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Mail Code 1101A Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 108 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-0108 Submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0328 – Comments on Request for Recommendations: Waters of the United States September 2, 2021 Dear Administrator Regan and Acting Assistant Secretary Pinkham: On behalf of our organization’s members and supporters, who are hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationists, conservationists, and scientists, we call on you to not appeal the recent United States District Court for the District of Arizona’s ruling granting vacatur of the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (2020 Rule) nationwide. We further urge you to begin the process to engage with stakeholders, consider the extensive administrative record assembled during all past rule-making efforts, and find durable Clean Water Act protections for our country’s waters – including headwaters and ephemeral streams and our remaining wetlands—in the promulgation of a new rule. Judge Rosemary Márquez’s ruling granting vacatur of the 2020 Rule is solid. The court’s ruling acknowledges that the 2020 Rule posed risk of serious environmental harm and is in line with both the science underlying the need for broader protections of streams and wetlands and with legal precedent. The court’s ruling also supports the overall direction the agencies are taking. Therefore, we strongly urge the agencies to abide by the court’s ruling, which stops implementation of the 2020 Rule and requires the use of the pre-2015 regime until a replacement rule is finalized. The case for abiding by the court’s holding is strong. The Clean Water Act was passed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Unfortunately, the 2020 Rule left up to half of the country’s stream miles and millions of acres of wetlands at risk of being polluted or destroyed. These streams provide essential fish and wildlife habitat that support a robust outdoor recreation economy worth $887 billion. Overall, the 2020 Rule did not incorporate best available science regarding the connectivity of waters and is inconsistent with the objectives of the Clean Water Act which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our waters. Already, thousands of waterways were deemed non-jurisdictional under the 2020 Rule – including two recently revised jurisdictional determinations that removed protections from about 200 acres of wetlands and 10,000 linear feet of streams in Texas and from about 200 acres of wetlands that absorb floodwaters in a flood prone area for a large development near South Carolina’s Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. Overall, according to Environmental Protection Agency officials, at least 333 projects likely to harm streams or wetlands have received determinations allowing them to proceed without a permit. These waters may sometimes be small, but they are enormously valuable. Headwaters, ephemeral and some at-risk intermittent streams provide drinking water to millions of Americans, support fish and estuaries prized for angling and recreation, and provide clean water to larger, beloved rivers, lakes, and bays. EPAs own scientific record underscores that the scientific literature demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function. Wetlands, even non-floodplain wetlands such as prairie potholes, filter out pollutants, protect communities from flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife, including endangered species and by serving as stops along the country’s major international flyways for migratory birds. In short, protecting these waterways is essential to the Clean Water Act’s primary objective. Restoring protections to these waters is also vital to the administration’s priorities of addressing climate change and environmental justice. As climate change drives more severe storms, wetlands’ flood protection will become even more vital. Wetland systems have also been demonstrated to mitigate the impacts of wildfire on aquatic ecosystems and wetland protection is critical to maintaining carbon sequestration benefits. And as climate change intensifies drought, more of our streams are less likely to run year-round, especially in the arid and semi-arid West. Wetlands can help address these drought concerns by assisting in restoring aquifer recharge and enhancing late season flows critical to fish and wildlife. Preserving wetlands and streams for communities already overburdened by pollution and flooding should also be viewed as an environmental justice imperative. Lack of durable protections of headwaters and ephemeral streams poses significant threats to the access or clean drinking water supplies, which is already a significant challenge disproportionately affecting low-income communities. Tribes recognize water as part of their culture, subsistence, and identity. As hunters, anglers, outdoorsmen and conservationists, we believe the 2020 rule enabled the degradation of waterways that support our community. Without CWA protections, the resulting impacts on wildlife, water quality, climate resilience and environmental justice pose significant challenges to America’s outdoor heritage and the countless Americans who recreate and enjoy streams, wetlands and they biodiversity they support. For these reasons, our organizations urge you to begin the process of developing a science-based, durable rule that provides Clean Water Act protections for those waters that are critical to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity for our nation’s waters. Time is of the essence. Given the court’s ruling and administrative record on the 2020 Rule — including widespread public opposition and criticism from EPA’s own science advisors and leadership–the agencies have the tools needed to begin replacing the 2020 Rule as soon as possible and complete it expeditiously. We urge you to do so. Next year, our nation will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. As stewards of this bedrock environmental statute, we call on you to engage with stakeholders, consider the extensive administrative record assembled during all past rule-making efforts, and find durable Clean Water Act protections for our country’s waters—including headwaters and ephemeral streams and our remaining wetlands—before we reach that half-century milestone on October 18, 2022. Sincerely, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited American Sportfishing Association

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists September 3, 2021 Mr. Michael S. Regan Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 Mr. Jaime A. Pinkham Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Department of the Army 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0104 Re: Waters of the U.S. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0328 Dear Administrator Regan and Assistant Secretary Pinkham: Thank you for your commitment to crafting a reasonable, effective, and durable definition of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) that protects public health, the environment, and downstream communities. We applaud your intent to rescind the harmful 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) 1 and we urge you to quickly re-establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will allow the Clean Water Act (CWA) to fulfill its mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) is on the record supporting a science-based definition of WOTUS for its importance to fish, fisheries, wildlife, watersheds, water quality and supply, flood control, as well as the people and economies that rely on them.2 The NWPR significantly deviates from previous interpretations of the CWA and largely ignores and oversimplifies science.3 CASS fully supports the definition of WOTUS in the 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR)4, which was overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed science. CASS is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We support the development and use of the best-available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources for the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. The NWPR is inconsistent with more than a half century of scientific research that demonstrates that the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on ephemeral (i.e., flow only after precipitation events), intermittent (i.e., flow seasonally), and perennial (flow year-round) streams, as well as on wetlands located both within (i.e., floodplain wetlands) and outside (i.e., non-floodplain or geographically isolated wetlands) of floodplains.2 The very narrow definition of WOTUS in the NWPR resulted in the loss of protections for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands, including five types of isolated wetlands with ecological value disproportionate to their area. The comprehensive Environmental Protection Agency scientific report that accompanied the 2015 CWR, “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence,”5 synthesized more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications. Along with input from 49 experts and a 25-member panel of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), this report provided the technical basis for the 2015 CWR. Substantial additional literature has emerged that reaffirms the report and the 2015 CWR. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 We stand by this science. The loss of protections for our nation’s waters under the NWPR threatens fish, fisheries, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, and the human populations that rely on them and places the highly valued ecosystem services that are derived from these systems in great peril.7, 13 Unlike the 2015 definition of WOTUS that established protection based on the connectivity of waters, the NWPR defines a WOTUS in terms of its direct, consistent surface flows with traditionally navigable waters. This is inconsistent with the full mandate of the CWA and is a critical shortcoming of the NWPR since many waters that play an important part in maintaining ecological integrity flow ephemerally or intermittently and fluctuate substantially throughout any typical year. In the face of climate change, it has never been more important to protect streams and wetlands that store carbon, provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, provide flood storage, and maintain downstream water quality and quantity.14,15,16, 17 Science-based Clean Water Act protections can help to protect the integrity of aquatic ecosystems, maintain crucial ecosystem services for sequestration and storage of carbon, improve climate resilience, and promote our progress towards the drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere.18 Rather than protecting our waters’ integrity, the NWPR intensifies their vulnerability to climate change and extensive and intensive land uses such as agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry, mining, and urbanization.3,13 Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands and significantly altering precipitation patterns (both increasing and decreasing precipitation depending on season and location) throughout America and is accelerating and intensifying water-quality problems, altering the functions of aquatic ecosystems, and impacting species’ ranges and survival.18 These impacts to our nation’s waters extend from small lakes and streams to large rivers like the once perennial Gila, lower Colorado, and Río Grande rivers. These changes are not just theoretical; scientists are already seeing massive shifts in seasonal flows, stream length, and surface flows from climate change and land use shifts, water withdrawal, and groundwater pumping.17, 7 By length, approximately half of stream channels in the conterminous United States are ephemeral, and 50% of these are no longer protected under the NWPR; thus, at least 25% of the nation’s stream channels have now lost protection.19 Removing previous protections from millions of miles of these ephemeral headwater streams will only exacerbate the transformation of historically perennial streams and rivers into highly vulnerable intermittent and ephemeral streams and rivers. The NWPR reduces protections across the nation, with some of the strongest impacts in arid areas of the country, such as in many states in the Southwest and Southern Plains. As such, the loss of CWA protections will be most acute where water quantity and quality issues already threaten the sustainability of watersheds and communities. The NWPR also abandons the bipartisan and long-standing “No Net Loss of Wetlands” national policy, first established by President George H. W. Bush, by excluding nonfloodplain wetlands, or

American Fisheries Society · International Association of Great Lakes Researchers · North American Lake Management Society · Phycological Society of America · Society for Freshwater Science · Society of Wetland Scientists August 2, 2021 The Honorable Michael S. Regan Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Via regulations.gov Re: Submission of Comments regarding “Notice of Intention To Reconsider and Revise the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule” (86 FR 29541; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0302) Dear Administrator Regan: On behalf of the undersigned scientific societies, we respectfully submit the following comments in response to the “Notice of Intention To Reconsider and Revise the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule,” published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2021. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on this matter. Our scientific societies represent more than 13,000 individuals with diverse areas of expertise in the aquatic, ecological, hydrologic, biogeochemical, biological and ecological restoration sciences. Our members have deep subject matter expertise and a commitment to independent objectivity and peer-review of science and work in the private sector, academia, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We promote the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage and restore our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources for the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. Cooperative federalism is at the core of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Water Quality Certification (WQC) process served as a successful model of cooperative federalism—until it was constrained by the most recent rule. The CWA requires that, when considering whether to approve certain actions, federal agencies must respect state and tribal authority and control over water quality within their respective boundaries. Revising the CWA Section 401 Certification Rule is of immense importance to the states and tribes that rely on Section 401 as a means of protecting the quality of their surface waters. The current CWA Section 401 Certification Rule—adopted without any rigorous analysis—disrupts the partnership between the states and tribes and the federal government in administering the CWA. The CWA Section 401 Certification Rule undermines the ability to uphold the CWA’s mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the CWA Section 401 Certification Rule be revised to provide full state and tribal authority to promote water quality under the CWA. Indeed, as Justice Stevens, concurring in the 7 – 2 majority opinion in PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), observed, “Not a single sentence, phrase, or word in the Clean Water Act purports to place any constraint on a State’s power to regulate the quality of its own waters more stringently than federal law might require. In fact, the Act explicitly recognizes States’ ability to impose stricter standards.” We support revisions to restore the state and tribal roles and authorities to complete adequate review of federal permits. Revisions should be guided by three common-sense principles: (1) to make decisions that promote the CWA’s objective, a certifying authority must have the relevant data related to the proposed activity; (2) to make decisions that promote the CWA’s objective, a certifying authority must have adequate time to review the relevant data; and (3) the federal role in the WQC process should be to support state and tribal efforts to promote the CWA’s objective. The certification request must contain sufficient information for the certifying authority to make an informed decision about how best to protect water quality, including physical, chemical and biological contributions to water quality. The current CWA Section 401 Certification Rule’s requirements for a certification request do not provide the certifying authority with sufficient notice and information to allow it to properly evaluate potential water quality impacts. Furthermore, the current rule is too restrictive about what may be considered—limited to the direct impacts of a point source discharge, rather than the impacts of the activity as a whole, as well as non-point discharges, which at a national spatial extent are more biologically limiting (Herlihy et al. 2020). To provide the certifying authority with sufficient notice and information to begin evaluation of the proposed project, a certification request, or preferably a complete application, should (at a minimum) include the following: (1) A full description of the proposed project: geographic location, boundaries, purpose of the permitted activity, description of the permitted activity, proposed impacts to wetlands and waters (both temporary and permanent), and affected waterbodies; (2) Description of the location, type of material, and extent—acres, square feet, linear feet, volume, as applicable—of any discharge that may result from the proposed project, and the location of receiving waters; (3) A description of any methods and means proposed to monitor the discharge and the equipment or measures planned to treat or control the discharge, including an Inadvertent Return Plan when horizontal directional drilling is proposed; (4) A description of any methods and means proposed to mitigate temporary impacts to wetlands and waters; (5) A delineation of wetlands and waters prepared by a qualified professional; (6) Maps, engineering diagrams, and drawings to support the application; (7) A conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan, when one is required by the federal permitting authority; (8) A copy of the Pre-construction Notification (PCN) when one is required by the federal permitting authority (a properly prepared PCN would include items 1 through 7); and (9) Any additional information deemed necessary by the state certifying authority on a case-by-case basis. As a practical matter, we recommend that the project proponent be required to submit to the state certifying authority, at a minimum, a copy of all documents and materials that were submitted to the federal permitting authority. This requirement would facilitate an efficient and easily understandable process. The certifying authority must have adequate time to review the relevant data to make an informed decision about how best to protect water quality. The CWA has a maximum of a one-year review

American Fisheries Society ·Association for the Sciences of Limnologists and Oceanographers · Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation · North American Lake Management Society · Phycological Society of America · Society for Freshwater Science · Society of Wetland Scientists July 26, 2021 The Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20500 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Minority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy: The undersigned aquatic science societies write today to urge your leadership and commitment to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As you consider legislative action on infrastructure, we would like to make you aware of (1) the global consensus of the aquatic science societies on the effects of climate change on fisheries and other aquatic resources, (2) the urgency of reducing carbon emissions, and (3) steps that can be taken to help mitigate the effects of climate change on fisheries in the interim. Statement of Global Aquatic Science Societies The undersigned professional societies represent nearly 17,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We support the development and use of the best-available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. Last fall, the undersigned organizations and 104 other science societies representing 80,000 scientists across the world called for urgent action to reduce emissions to avoid catastrophic impacts to commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, human health, and global economies. Attached please find the statement that details the irreversible impacts to freshwater and marine ecosystems, fish, and fisheries from climate change that are projected to occur without swift and resolute action to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. We must act now to safeguard our drinking water, food supplies, and human health and well-being. Urgency of Carbon Emission Reductions Scientists are already observing significant changes to freshwater and marine species as a result of climate change. Today, forty percent of all freshwater fish species in North America are imperiled as a result of pollution, habitat loss, water withdrawals, and invasive species. Highly valued fisheries will be further stressed by climate change as it accelerates and intensifies water pollution, species range reductions, species extinctions, and facilitates invasive species introduction to the detriment of native species. Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, and streams and altering precipitation patterns throughout America, reducing habitat availability for fish, particularly for coldwater species such as trout, which provide highly valuable recreational fisheries across much of the country. Climate change is also altering marine and coastal ecosystems with significant implications for wild capture fisheries and marine economies. Projected increases in ocean temperature are expected to reduce the maximum catch potential in most areas in the U.S. Many harvested stocks are already and will continue to shift from one area to another, or even across international boundaries with implications for seafood supply, ports, and associated businesses. Loss of habitat from sea level rise will lead to declines in the vast majority of commercially and recreationally harvested marine finfish and shellfish that are dependent on estuaries and coastal systems for some stage of their life cycle. Increased carbon dioxide absorption is changing ocean chemistry, rendering some waters too acidic for marine organisms with calcium-based shells, such as oysters and clams, and threatening the base of the marine food web. In the U.S., commercial and recreational fishing support more than 1.74 million jobs and results in more than $244 billion in sales per year. The economic and environmental value of the ecosystem services provided by our nation’s aquatic resources is also of great importance and must be safeguarded from the damaging effects of climate change. Any plan to address climate change must include significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions to avoid catastrophic impacts to our nations’ freshwater and marine aquatic resources. Mitigation and Research to Help Protect Aquatic Resources As part of any climate solution, we urge you to also protect the integrity of our healthy aquatic ecosystems and work to restore degraded systems in order to maintain their crucial storage of carbon as part of halting and eventually reversing the effects of climate change. Land and water-based conservation solutions are critical to capture carbon and to make our rivers, lakes and streams, forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal systems more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Additional investments should be made in already existing conservation programs and activities with established funding delivery systems, partner and volunteer networks, and demonstrated track records for implementation and effectiveness. In other cases, new programs and funding streams will need to be developed in order to capture the full extent and utility of our natural systems to sequester carbon, build climate resiliency, and adapt to climate change. To the extent possible, we must mitigate the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries and plan for adaptation required to ensure the long-term health of our freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems and the many economies that depend upon them. We must also address the regulatory changes over the last four years that put the U.S. on the wrong course to deal with the very real and significant impacts to our fish and aquatic resources from climate change. Again, we urge your leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting and restoring our nation’s aquatic resources. We look forward to working together on this critically important issue. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Association for the Sciences of Limnologists and Oceanographers Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation North American Lake Management Society Phycological Society of America Society for Freshwater Science Society of Wetland Scientists

April 27, 2021 Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee John Boozman, Ranking Member U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee David Scott, Chairman U.S. House Agriculture Committee Glenn Thompson, Ranking Member U.S. House Agriculture Committee Dear Chairwoman Stabenow, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Boozman, and Ranking Member Thompson: Thank you for your ongoing bipartisan efforts to ensure that agriculture is part of the solution to climate change. As you consider the role of agriculture in the upcoming infrastructure conversations in Congress, the undersigned groups urge you to support a robust investment into USDA agriculture conservation programs and conservation technical assistance in the next climate and infrastructure package. We were pleased to see that President Biden’s American Jobs Plan places a priority on “positioning the U.S. agricultural sector to lead the shift to net-zero emissions while providing new economic opportunities for farmers.” Increasing funding for USDA’s popular and effective Farm Bill conservation programs is one of the quickest and most practical ways to directly equip farmers and ranchers, energize rural economies, improve climate resilience, and ensure that agriculture is part of the solution to climate change. The full suite of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs administered by USDA enables farmers, ranchers, and forest owners to adopt practices that build soil health, sequester carbon, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving surface and ground water quality, increasing water efficiency, and creating habitat for fish and wildlife. Unfortunately, however, Farm Bill conservation programs are routinely oversubscribed. Demand for conservation on 13.8 million acres goes unmet because of inadequate funding every year. Additionally, our current programs meet only a fraction of the need for voluntary conservation on the landscape. That’s why we are urging Congress to double the investment in Farm Bill conservation programs and to ramp up conservation technical assistance funding in a corresponding manner. As funds for conservation programs increase, it is vital for conservation technical assistance to keep pace. This assistance is essential for the delivery of conservation funding and provides on the ground support for farmers, ranchers, and forest owners as they adopt conservation practices on their lands. Increasing baseline funding for the Farm Bill conservation programs and ramping up conservation technical assistance on the ground will enable landowners to mitigate the impacts of drought and flood, improve habitat, improve soil health and long-term food security, create new job opportunities for rural economies, and galvanize the agriculture sector to lead the charge in our fight against climate change. We believe farmers, ranchers, and foresters are ready to move agriculture toward net zero emissions if they are provided the tools and resources to make that goal a reality. Action this year on the climate and infrastructure bill represents the best opportunity in decades to meet farmer demand for conservation programs. We look forward to working with your committee to build out these priorities that will energize the American economy and put Americans back to work. Sincerely, National and Regional Groups: American Farmland Trust American Fisheries Society American Grassfed Association Appalachian Trail Conservancy Association of State Floodplain Managers Carbon180 Center for Rural Affairs Defenders of Wildlife Delta Waterfowl E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs) Earthjustice Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Working Group Food Animal Concerns Trust Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Izaak Walton League of America Land Trust Alliance League of Conservation Voters National Association of Conservation Districts National Audubon Society National Center for Appropriate Technology National Deer Association National Farmers Union National Organic Coalition National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition National Wildlife Federation National Young Farmers Coalition NatureServe North American Grouse Partnership Natural Resources Defense Council Organic Farmers Association Organic Farming Research Foundation Pesticide Action Network Pollinator Partnership Rural Coalition Sierra Club Slow Food USA Soil and Water Conservation Society The Conservation Fund The Nature Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Union of Concerned Scientists Western Landowners Alliance Wild Farm Alliance Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Regional, State and Local Groups: Alliance for the Great Lakes Arkansas Wildlife Federation Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Blue Ridge Land Conservancy California Climate and Agriculture Network California Farmers Union Capital Region Land Conservancy Carolina Farm Stewardship Association Chesapeake Bay Foundation Chesapeake Conservancy Clean Fairfax Climate Land Leaders Coastal Enterprises, LLC Colorado Wildlife Federation Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma Delaware Nature Society Delaware Valley Ornithological Club Environmental Law & Policy Center Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Food and Agriculture Committee, Sierra Club, Atlantic Chapter Foodshed Capital Friends of the Mississippi River Gallatin Valley Land Trust Georgia Wildlife Federation Goose Creek Association Harpeth Conservancy Hawaii Farmers Union United Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Healthy Gulf Heart of the Rockies Initiative Idaho Wildlife Federation Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited Indiana Wildlife Federation Iowa Environmental Council Iowa Wildlife Federation Kalmiopsis Audubon Society Kansas Wildlife Federation Land For Good Louisiana Wildlife Federation Maine Farmland Trust Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association Maryland Bird Conservation Partnership Maryland Ornithological Society Mass Audubon Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Michigan Farmers Union Minnesota Conservation Federation Minnesota Farmers Union Mississippi River Trust Mississippi Wildlife Federation Missouri Farmers Union Montana Organic Association Montana Wildlife Federation Nebraska Farmers Union Nebraska Wildlife Federation Neighboring Food Co-op Association Nevada Wildlife Federation New England Farmers Union North Dakota Farmers Union North Dakota Wildlife Federation Northeast Organic Farming Association-Interstate Council Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Northwest Farmers Union Ohio Conservation Federation Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association Oregon Climate and Agriculture Network Pasa Sustainable Agriculture PennFuture Prairie Rivers Network Quivira Coalition Rockbridge Area Conservation Council Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Salem Audubon Society Savanna Institute Saving Birds Thru Habitat Sociedad Ornitologica Puertorriquena South Carolina Wildlife Federation South Dakota Wildlife Federation Texas Conservation Alliance Unitarian Universalist Church of Roanoke Utah Wildlife Federation Virginia Association for Biological Farming Virginia Conservation Network Waterkeepers Chesapeake Wildlife Mississippi Wisconsin Farmers Union Wyoming Wildlife Federation

June 30, 2021 The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro Chair, Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable Kay Granger Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Dear Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger, Our organizations support the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Program and we ask that you allocate at least $27 million to the program for fiscal year 2022 to provide for the much-needed expansion of the program with two new units in Michigan and Indiana. The USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) are highly productive, cost-effective, and reputable sources of scientific information that further fish and wildlife management and conservation. Their work directly assists decision-makers in addressing the nation’s greatest natural resource challenges, including climate change, disease, invasive species, and at-risk fish and wildlife. Through a unique cooperative partnership of federal agencies, academic institutions, state fish and wildlife agencies, and non-governmental organizations (PL. 86-686), the CRU program provides actionable science and technical support for state and federal fish and wildlife managers. They uniquely address the applied science needs of management agencies while training diverse students to be the next generation of natural resource and conservation leaders. CRU graduates often go on to work directly for natural resource management agencies, further advancing the nation’s conservation efforts. Currently, there are 40 CRUs across 38 states embedded in major research universities that bridge the gap between science and natural resource decisions. CRU scientists produce credible, applied science that meets the direct needs of cooperators and empowers the front lines of fish and wildlife conservation. Their research yields both very specific, short-term information and long-term state-of-the-art research on complex, longer-term questions to inform critical conservation work. A CRU budget of at least $27 million for FY2022 is $2 million above last year’s appropriation and provides for two important and highly needed new CRUs to be established at universities—Michigan State University and Purdue University. These two new units will address a major gap in the CRU program in the Great Lakes region and provide critical fish and wildlife science to advance regional conservation actions. Furthermore, we support an additional $5 million in each of the next 5 years for the CRU program to complete the Wildlife Migration Corridors Project for Big Game Species. This effort will leverage USGS science and collaboration capacity to comprehensively map migration corridors throughout the western states, aiding on-the-ground efforts to manage and conserve important species migration paths in the face of climate change, development, and other challenges. We appreciated the support for the program in FY21 and we urge the Appropriations Committee to appropriate at least $27 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Program in Fiscal Year 2022. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. American Fisheries Society Carol Chambers, Ph.D. The Wildlife Society AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The Society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. www.fisheries.org The Wildlife Society and its network of affiliated chapters and sections represent professional wildlife biologists, managers, and educators dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship. The Society’s mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitat through science based management and conservation. www.wildlife.org

June 28, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden, As your Administration seeks to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) urges you to consider the benefits of a robust marine aquaculture industry in the U.S. in achieving your climate goals. An offshore aquaculture industry in the U.S. can help to reduce our carbon footprint from imported seafood, increase domestic seafood supplies, relieve pressures on wild stocks from increased demand, while increasing the resiliency of our food systems in the face of climate change. The AFS is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. Founded in 1870, the mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals, a monthly magazine, in-house book publishing with over 200 titles, and the world’s largest fisheries science conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world. We support and promote the use of best-available science in policy-making. Today, half of the seafood Americans consume is farm raised and 60-90% is imported, leaving a sizeable carbon footprint as that seafood travels around the world before it ends up our plates. The demand for fish and shellfish is expected to increase by roughly 30 million tons in the next decade, driven by increases in both population and per capita seafood consumption. Yet, capture fisheries landings have not increased appreciably for 30 years and it is unlikely that they can sustainably accommodate increased harvest pressure to meet this demand, particularly in the face of climate change. Climate change is already altering marine and coastal ecosystems with significant implications for wild capture fisheries and marine economies. Projected increases in ocean temperature are expected to reduce the maximum catch potential in most areas in the U.S. Many harvested stocks will shift from one area to another, or even across international boundaries with implications for seafood supply, ports, and associated businesses. Loss of habitat from sea level rise will lead to declines in the vast majority of commercially and recreationally harvested marine finfish and shellfish that are dependent on estuaries and coastal systems for some stage of their life cycle. Changing ocean chemistry is rendering some waters too acidic for marine organisms with calcified shells, such as oysters and clams, and threatening the base of the marine food web. With your leadership and support for U.S. offshore aquaculture, the U.S. can reduce its overreliance on seafood imports and improve seafood security with wholesome, domestically farmed seafood with minimal environmental impact on our marine habitat and resources. Improvements in technology and implementation of best practices has already reduced environmental impacts of aquaculture from reduced use of fish meal and oil in feeds, to strict veterinary oversight of vaccinations and medications, and use of siting tools to minimize user conflicts and effects on water quality. Advances in science and technology fueled by investments in research can further reduce impacts. Well-managed aquaculture, including offshore aquaculture in marine waters, can also mitigate the environmental impacts of land-based animal protein production, such as energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use and biodiversity impacts. We applaud your commitment to critically important goal of achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in fighting the climate crisis. We ask for your leadership in supporting a clear and predictable legal and regulatory structure for marine aquaculture in the U.S., to allow this industry to achieve the benefits outlined here. Healthy wild fisheries and responsible marine aquaculture can and must coexist if we are to feed ourselves and still fulfill our commitment to wild fish and wild places. Thank for your consideration. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director

June 28, 2021 The Honorable Maria Cantwell Chair Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Rodger Wicker Ranking Member Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Peter DeFazio Chair Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Sam Graves Ranking Member Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515   Dear Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, Chairman DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, The undersigned organizations write to express our support and appreciation for advancing much-needed modernization of the nation’s culverts as part of Surface Transportation reauthorization legislation. As you know, investment benefits of our nation’s infrastructure are far reaching. A well performing infrastructure network delivers a multi-decadal return on investment – this is particularly true for culvert modernization and the ancillary benefits related to improved conditions that support healthy fisheries. Our nation’s waterways have become increasingly fragmented by in-stream manmade structures, such as culverts, that frequently restrict or completely block fish passage. Retrofitting or replacing these structures is a high priority for restoring habitat connectivity for native fishes and other aquatic organisms, such as salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon. Due to the ubiquitous geographic distribution of these problematic stream-road crossings, federal investment for their modernization must be prioritized. It has been estimated that efforts to restore fish passage may ultimately cost hundreds of millions just on federal lands in Oregon and Washington alone and will take decades to accomplish (1). Because of these extreme time and cost estimates, there is a great need to ensure best the allocation of resources. We strongly believe that the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program legislation you have championed would provide much needed funding and prioritization of these structures. Once again, thank you for your leadership and support for advancing this landmark grant program to ensure federal investment is prioritized for the much-needed modernization of culverts nationwide. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Congressional Sportsmen Foundation Great Lakes Fishery Commission Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation International Game Fish Association Kenai River Sportfishing Association National Marine Manufacturers Association National Professional Anglers Association Recreational Fishing Alliance The Nature Conservancy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Wildlife Forever Cc: Representative Kilmer and McMorris-Rodgers (1) GAO Report, Restoring Fish Passage Through Culverts on Forest Service and BLM Lands in Oregon and Washington Could Take Decades. Accessed https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-136.pdf.

Note: A similar letter was also sent to the Senate. April 13th, 2021 The Honorable Chellie Pingree Chair House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 2007 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable David Joyce Ranking Member House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 1016 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chair Pingree and Ranking Member Joyce, On behalf of the undersigned hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation organizations, we are writing to request your support for watershed and habitat restoration on U.S. Forest Service lands by appropriating $100 million in funding for the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) Remediation program in the Fiscal Year 2022 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. The Forest Service manages over 191 million acres of public land that are jointly owned by all Americans. These lands provide essential habitat for a wide range of North American fish and game species. Rivers and streams on Forest Service lands provide critical habitat for trout, salmon and other aquatic species. Across the country, from the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia to the Coleville National Forest in Washington, LRT-funded projects have made major contributions to improve water quality and aquatic habitat while making USFS roads and trails more durable. The program’s targeted activities create important recreation and conservation jobs across the nation and save America’s taxpayers millions in road maintenance costs. These activities include: Maintaining and/or storm-proofing thousands of miles of roads to protect habitat, water quality and downstream communities; Reclaiming thousands of miles of unneeded roads to prevent erosion from damaging streams, many of which supply drinking water to rural and urban towns and cities; Replacing over one thousand culverts to restore fish passage, aiding the recovery of fish species important to restoration goals, tribal communities and sportfishing enthusiasts; Improving over five thousand miles of trails, driving the $842.2 billion outdoor recreation economy. The Legacy Roads and Trails program works because it is targeted and results oriented. Over half of the money used for fish passage and culvert projects came from external partners amplifying the effect of the Legacy Roads and Trails seed funds. The collaborative stewardship of the LRT program has made fishing and hunting better, while providing high-paying family wage jobs in rural communities. These investments on our public lands have helped to improve drinking water, and to increase flood resiliency in the face of increasingly unpredictable and intense weather events. Research has consistently shown that big game species need big wild country, uninterrupted by motorized disturbance. The LRT program helps address this wildlife need by removing and restoring unused tertiary motorized routes. These efforts help provide security habitat for sensitive species like elk and mule deer, while also providing hunters opportunities to experience the solitude, challenge and reward that hunting wild public lands provide. The program is uniquely positioned to help the Forest Service address its historic maintenance backlog. USFS has identified a backlog of over $3.5 billion in deferred maintenance for roads, close to 400 high priority culvert projects requiring nearly $110M just for one year, and $675M for priority watershed restoration projects in just a portion of the watersheds nationwide. With its proven track record and broad bipartisan support, the LRT program is ideally shaped to begin addressing these needs once again. We ask for your support of the program by reinstating Legacy Roads and Trails as a separate line item in the FY 2022 Interior-Environment Appropriations Bill with a $100M allocation including salary, expenses and project investments. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association American Woodcock Society Angler Action Foundation Archery Trade Association Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Backcountry Hunters and Anglers The Billfish Foundation Fly Fishers International Izaak Walton League of America National Deer Association National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation North American Grouse Partnership Orion: The Hunter’s Institute Ruffed Grouse Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited Wild Salmon Center

March 24, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Vice President Kamala D. Harris The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden and Vice President Harris: We the undersigned are writing in response to your January 27th Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (herein “the EO”). As conservationists for climate solutions, our coalition represents organizations – 32 of which have joined this letter – aligned to advance comprehensive climate strategies through bipartisan policy and legislative solutions. We appreciate your new administration’s science-based approach to carbon mitigation, climate adaptation, resilience, and interest in working with our community to identify pathways forward for climate solutions to benefit fish and wildlife, the habitats that support them, and the people and communities that depend upon healthy ecosystems. Our organizations represent millions of hunters, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, land stewards, scientists, and natural resource professionals who together comprise the centerpiece of a powerful economic engine and have helped to place the United States as the world leader in conservation. Sportsmen and women, landowners and managers, and outdoor enthusiasts are on the front lines of climate change, often witnessing declines in landscape health and resiliency as well as impacts on our nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Shifting climate conditions are leading to more frequent and extreme weather events, high intensity fires, expansion of invasive species, and prolonged drought. We are witnessing changes in fish and wildlife migration patterns, altered breeding seasons, loss of habitat, and even loss of trail and road access due to extreme weather events such as flooding. These changes fundamentally affect our outdoor heritage and the annual $200 billion hunting and fishing economy and $788 billion outdoor recreation economy. In July 2020, we released the Sportsmen & Sportswomen Climate Statement detailing key areas of focus where our community has expertise in advancing nature-based climate solutions. We also urged Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation to address the impacts of climate change. While our community recognizes that any comprehensive national strategy to address climate change must include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we also believe this strategy will need to include land and water-based solutions that harness the power of our natural systems. In the months ahead, our coalition will be working to develop comprehensive policy and legislative recommendations that deliver land- and water-based climate solutions and economic growth. Our recommendations focus on protection, restoration, and management in the following main areas: Agriculture; Forests, Rangelands, and Grasslands; Oceans; Rivers, Lakes, and Streams; Wetlands; Coastal Resilience; and Adaptation. There is broad overlap between our work and the EO and we look forward to working closely with National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy and her team, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and departmental and agency-based climate liaisons to advance shared interests in these key issue areas. The EO presents several opportunities for our coalition to engage with and provide input to the newly formed National Climate Task Force and federal departments and agencies charged with specific tasks. Some immediate opportunities for engagement are highlighted below. USE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUYING POWER AND REAL PROPERTY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT The emphasis on aligning the management of public lands and waters to support robust action on climate change while also protecting our natural resources, preparing adaptation strategies, restoring degraded habitats, and creating jobs is particularly important to us. Federal policy can help by connecting climate adaptation efforts with existing conservation programs and investing in new policies, programs, and projects that leverage nature-based solutions to sequester carbon and build climate resilience. More specifically, as the administration moves forward with policies that shape the leasing and subsequent development of domestic energy resources, both conventional and renewable, we encourage you to strike the appropriate balance to protect critical fish and wildlife habitats and important scenic and recreation areas. Integrating science on fish and wildlife habitat use including migration corridors will help inform the development and implementation of these policies. Also, rethinking operations at federal facilities, including Bureau of Reclamation and US Army Corps of Engineers dams, for example, can improve habitat as well as watersheds’ drought and flood resilience. EMPOWERING WORKERS THROUGH: REBUILDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE; ADVANCING CONSERVATION, AGRICULTURE AND RESTORATION; AND REVITALIZING ENERGY COMMUNITIES With an effective land- and water-based strategy that leverages market and incentive-based approaches, the U.S. could mitigate a third of its carbon emissions through natural solutions alone. This is equivalent to removing emissions from all cars and trucks on U.S. roads today and would stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Moreover, these actions will: strengthen rural communities and their economies; benefit fish and wildlife; improve air quality, soil health, water quality and quantity; strengthen the outdoor recreation economy; and create more resiliency for fish and wildlife, land stewards, and communities facing the impacts of a changing climate. We encourage the administration to work with Congress to: implement existing and increase future conservation funding in the Farm Bill; improve the resilience of our nation’s transportation infrastructure and our forests, grasslands, rangelands, and wetlands; invest in pre-disaster mitigation; and support strong funding for the full complement of federal conservation programs, including those that restore degraded landscapes and watersheds. We also encourage the Task Force to identify opportunities through upcoming economic recovery and infrastructure legislation to advance new authorities and funding streams for natural infrastructure and nature-based solutions. These investments can help our nation recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic, while also spurring conservation. Finally, the Executive Order details a process for developing recommendations around achieving the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030. The success of this 30×30 goal will depend upon hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationists, private landowners, scientists, states, tribes, and other stakeholders having a seat at the table, and working collectively to advance conservation objectives for the nation’s public and private lands and freshwater and marine resources. SECURING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SPURRING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists March 18, 2021 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden: Thank you for your commitment to reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that was finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in April 2020 and became effective in June 2020.1 This rule established a very narrow definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that resulted in the loss of protections for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands, including five types of isolated wetlands with ecological value disproportionate to their area. These losses have led to dire consequences for fish, fisheries, wildlife, watersheds, water quality and supply, flood control, as well as the people and economies that rely on them. In the face of climate change, it has never been more important to protect streams and wetlands that store carbon, provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, provide flood storage, and maintain downstream water quality and quantity.2, 3, 4, 5 The NWPR significantly deviates from previous interpretations of the CWA and largely ignores and oversimplifies science.6 We greatly appreciate your recent Executive Order 13990 establishing your Administration’s policy to “listen to the science.” With that in mind, we urge you to quickly re-establish a science-based definition of WOTUS that will allow the CWA to fulfill its mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We support the development and use of the best-available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. CASS is on the record as strongly opposing the NWPR as inconsistent with more than a half century of scientific research that demonstrates that the integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depends on ephemeral (i.e., flow only after precipitation events), intermittent (i.e., flow seasonally), and perennial (flow year-round) streams, as well as on wetlands located both within (i.e., floodplain wetlands) and outside (i.e., non-floodplain or geographically isolated wetlands) of floodplains.7 CASS fully supports the definition of WOTUS in the 2015 Clean Water Rule (CWR),8 which was overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed science. The comprehensive Environmental Protection Agency scientific report that accompanied the 2015 CWR, “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence,”9 synthesized more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications. Along with input from 49 experts and a 25-member panel of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), this report provided the technical basis for the 2015 CWR. Substantial additional literature has emerged that reaffirms the report and the 2015 CWR.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 We stand by this science. The loss of protections for our nation’s waters under the NWPR threatens fish, fisheries, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, and the human populations that rely on them and places the highly valued ecosystem services that are derived from these systems in great peril.11, 17 Unlike the 2015 definition of WOTUS that established protection based on the connectivity of waters, the NWPR defines a WOTUS in terms of its direct, consistent surface flows with traditionally navigable waters. This is inconsistent with the full mandate of the CWA and is a critical shortcoming of the NWPR since many waters that play an important part in maintaining ecological integrity flow ephemerally or intermittently and fluctuate substantially throughout any typical year. Rather than protecting our waters’ integrity, the NWPR intensifies their vulnerability to climate change and extensive and intensive land uses such as agriculture, livestock grazing, forestry, mining, and urbanization.6, 17 Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands and significantly altering precipitation patterns (both increasing and decreasing precipitation depending on season and location) throughout America and is accelerating and intensifying water-quality problems, altering the functions of aquatic ecosystems, and impacting species’ ranges and survival.18 These impacts to our nation’s waters extend from small lakes and streams to large rivers like the once perennial Gila, lower Colorado, and Río Grande rivers. These changes are not just theoretical; scientists are already seeing massive shifts in seasonal flows, stream length, and surface flows from climate change and land use shifts, water withdrawal, and groundwater pumping.5, 11 By length, approximately half of stream channels in the conterminous United States are ephemeral, and 50% of these are no longer protected under the NWPR; thus, at least 25% of the nation’s stream channels have now lost protection.19 Removing previous protections from millions of miles of these ephemeral headwater streams will only exacerbate the transformation of historically perennial streams and rivers into highly vulnerable intermittent and ephemeral streams and rivers. The NWPR reduces protections across the nation, with some of the strongest impacts in arid areas of the country, such as in many states in the Southwest and Southern Plains. As such, the loss of CWA protections will be most acute where water quantity and quality issues already threaten the sustainability of watersheds and communities. The NWPR also abandons the bipartisan and long-standing “No Net Loss of Wetlands” national policy, first established by President George H. W. Bush, by excluding nonfloodplain wetlands, or wetlands that are not connected at the surface to navigable waters, from CWA protection. Relying on a surface connection of a wetland to navigable waters to establish CWA jurisdiction ignores the important biological and chemical connections with navigable waters that allow these wetlands to play

January 26, 2021 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Biden: We write today to urge your continued leadership and commitment to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We applaud your plan to restore U.S. leadership on this issue at the global level, the commitment to driving federal legislative solutions to address greenhouse gas reductions, and your efforts to appoint climate-focused personnel across federal government agencies. We would like to make you aware of (1) the global consensus of the aquatic science societies on the effects of climate change on fisheries and other aquatic resources, (2) the urgency of reducing carbon emissions, and (3) steps that can be taken to help mitigate the effects of climate change on fisheries in the interim. Statement of Global Aquatic Science Societies Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals, a monthly magazine, in-house book publishing with over 200 titles, and the world’s largest fisheries science conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world. We support and promote the use of best-available science in policy-making. Last fall, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and 111 other science societies representing 80,000 scientists across the world called for urgent action to reduce emissions to avoid catastrophic impacts to commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, human health, and global economies. Attached please find the statement that details the irreversible impacts to freshwater and marine ecosystems, fish, and fisheries from climate change that are projected to occur without swift and resolute action to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. We must act now to safeguard our drinking water, food supplies, and human health and well-being. Urgency of Carbon Emission Reductions Scientists are already observing significant changes to freshwater and marine species as a result of climate change. Today, forty percent of all freshwater fish species in North America are imperiled as a result of pollution, habitat loss, water withdrawals, and invasive species. Highly valued fisheries will be further stressed by climate change as it accelerates and intensifies water pollution, species range reductions, species extinctions, and facilitates invasive species introduction at the detriment of native species. Climate change is warming rivers, lakes, and streams and altering precipitation patterns throughout America, reducing habitat availability for fish, particularly for coldwater species such as trout which provide valuable recreational fisheries across much of the country. Climate change is also altering marine and coastal ecosystems with significant implications for wild capture fisheries and marine economies. Projected increases in ocean temperature are expected to reduce the maximum catch potential in most areas in the U.S. Many harvested stocks are already and will continue to shift from one area to another, or even across international boundaries with implications for seafood supply, ports, and associated businesses. Loss of habitat from sea level rise will lead to declines in the vast majority of commercially and recreationally harvested marine finfish and shellfish that are dependent on estuaries and coastal systems for some stage of their life cycle. Increased carbon dioxide absorption is changing ocean chemistry, rendering some waters too acidic for marine organisms with calcium-based shells, such as oysters and clams, and threatening the base of the marine food web. In the U.S., commercial and recreational fishing support more than 1.74 million jobs and results in more than $244 billion in sales per year. The economic and environmental value of the ecosystem services provided by our nation’s aquatic resources is also of great importance and must be safeguarded. Mitigation and Research to Help Protect Aquatic Resources As part of any climate solution, we urge you to protect the integrity of our healthy aquatic ecosystems and work to restore degraded systems in order to maintain their crucial storage of carbon as part of halting and eventually reversing the effects of climate change. Land and water-based conservation solutions are critical to capture carbon and to make our rivers, lakes and streams, forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal systems more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Additional investments should be made in already existing conservation programs and activities with established funding delivery systems, partner and volunteer networks, and demonstrated track records for implementation and effectiveness. In other cases, new programs and funding streams will need to be developed in order to capture the full extent and utility of our natural systems to sequester carbon, build climate resiliency, and adapt to climate change. To the extent possible, we must mitigate the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries and plan for adaptation required to ensure the long-term health of our freshwater, coastal, and marine ecosystems and the many economies that depend upon them. We must also address the regulatory changes over the last four years that put the U.S. on the wrong course to deal with the very real and significant impacts to our fish and aquatic resources from climate change. Over the last year, world-renowned scientific experts within AFS have been evaluating the most promising opportunities and solutions to provide resiliency for fish and aquatic ecosystems in the face of climate change. We look forward to sharing this information with you as it becomes available. AFS Policy Director Drue Winters (dwinters@fisheries.org) and I will be requesting meetings with your climate change and natural resources leaders over the coming months to share these solutions and develop innovative new approaches. Thank you again for your commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting and restoring our nation’s aquatic resources. We look forward to working together on this critically important issue. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director

September 4, 2020 Gary Frazer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 Samuel D. Rauch III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Via regulations.gov Re: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat; Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2020-0047. Dear Mr. Frazer and Mr. Rauch: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the proposed rule, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat; Docket Number FWS-HQ-ES-2020-0047, published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2020. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS supports and promotes the use of best available science in policy-making efforts. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above referenced rulemaking regarding the proposed definition of habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Given the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. FWS, 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) which requires that an area must be ‘habitat’ in order to be designated as ‘critical habitat,’ we support the concept of including a regulatory definition of habitat for the ESA. As Congress recognized in explaining the purpose of passing the ESA, listed species depend upon ecosystems. Indeed, many ESA petitions and listings have identified the loss of useable habitat or access to habitat in ecosystems as the reasons for the decline in species. Increases in water temperature, lack of water in streams and rivers, poor water quality, invasive species, and habitat degradation have imperiled forty percent of all freshwater species. The immense challenges of climate change for fish and aquatic resources will undoubtedly lead to additional declines. Therefore, based on the knowledge of imperiled species experts within our membership, we believe that any definition of habitat within the ESA regulations needs to be broad and flexible enough to account for a wide variety of situations to ensure that the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend are conserved. Such situations may include a species expansion into habitats not currently utilized, through processes such as, but not limited to, colonization from source populations, response to climate change, habitat restoration, and species reintroductions. AFS recommends that the definition of habitat take into account areas that may not ‘house’ the species but are important for flow of energy and resources. Examples of this in practice could include the karst topography that is critically important for species like the Alabama Cavefish and Ozark Cavefish, the upstream spring inputs that are important to species like Pygmy Sculpin, salmonids, springfish, and pupfish, or the headwater habitats necessary for imperiled species downstream like the Truckee River flows for the Cui-ui and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout in Pyramid Lake, NV. The breadth of a definition of habitat is important for fisheries management because conservation efforts for species protection and recovery are moving toward holistic watershed approaches (e.g., Native Fish Conservation Areas like the Little Tennessee River). Here, we explain our concerns with the two proposed definitions. In the first definition proposed by FWS/NMFS, the statement “Habitat includes areas with existing attributes that have the capacity to support individuals of the species” is restrictive for restoring degraded or destroyed habitat, especially as the definition does not mention what habitat excludes. For example, before parts of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge were restored, those areas wouldn’t have provided existing attributes that had the capacity to support individuals. No one would argue that the human altered Ash Meadows spring seeps weren’t critically important for the pupfish, killifish, and dace endemic to that small geographic area. But, if the drained and altered springs couldn’t support those species at present, then that area could not have been included as critical habitat under this proposed definition which just ensures status quo and nothing better. That wouldn’t make sense from a management perspective for species recovery or the legislative perspective intended by Congress in enacting the ESA. Indeed, if a similar definition was used for polluted waters in the U.S. under the Clean Water Act, we would never have improved water quality by installing treatment systems to remove pollutants, as the definition leaves the only condition as status quo. Those springs were species habitat that needed to be restored to allow these species to be self-sustaining. A similar argument could be made for listed species whose habitat has been altered by dams (salmon, sturgeon, minnows, darters) and for wetland-dependent species. In the second definition, the statement “Habitat includes areas where individuals of the species do not presently exist but have the capacity to support such individuals, only where the necessary attributes to support the species presently exist” could be restrictive to management for species that need to be moved outside of known historic ranges such as to mitigate for climate change or land use change. This definition leaves the status quo as the desired state for species conservation without any direction that many areas will need to be rehabilitated to allow reintroduction of species back into their native range. The use of the word “presently” is problematic for adaptive management under environmental change because it could be used to imply that the species had to exist in that location in the past. The second part of the second definition is also problematic. Many species are listed because the necessary attributes to support the species do not exist in habitat that was suitable in the past and part of their historic distribution. For example, to delist the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, populations are required in the Pecos River and the Big Bend National Park reach of the Rio Grande, which are part of its historic range. However, these reaches do not have environmental conditions at

The Honorable John Barrasso Chairman Committee on Environment & Public Works United States Senate 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Thomas Carper Ranking Member Committee on Environment & Public Works United States Senate 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Peter DeFazio Chairman Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure United States House of Representatives 2164 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Sam Graves Ranking Member Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure United States House of Representatives 2164 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 August 14, 2020 Chairman Barrasso, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Carper, and Ranking Member Graves: We appreciate your hard work in crafting the Water Resources Development Act of 2020. As Congress works to move a WRDA bill into the conference process and ultimately pass a bipartisan bill in 2020, we submit the following comments on the House and Senate Water Resources Development Act bills. We support the following provisions in the House WRDA bill: Section 109: This section directs the Army Corps to issue final agency procedures for the Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G). These new guidelines would serve as the basis for the Corps’ evaluation of project benefits and costs. We strongly support the section’s requirement that the Army Corps carry out a public comment period prior to the release of PR&G guidelines and review its PR&G guidelines every five years. Section 110: This provision amends the Corps’ Floodplain Management Service program to provide more robust technical assistance, including assistance that would help to avoid repetitive flooding impacts. The provision also prioritizes technical assistance to economically disadvantaged communities. Assistance rendered by the Corps’ Floodplain Management Service program would be provided at full federal expense. We strongly support this provision’s ability to increase the resiliency of communities. Section 112: This provision directs the Corps to update its sea level rise planning guidance and ensure future scenarios are based on the best available science and included in any feasibility study. We strongly support utilizing best-available science to ensure sea level rise is integrated into our planning and investments. Section 114: This provision would ensure consistency in cost-sharing requirements for natural infrastructure projects. The non-federal cost share for nonstructural flood projects is currently 35% of total project costs, including the costs of all lands, easements, rights of way, and disposal sites (LERRDs). However, the current non-federal cost share for natural infrastructure projects can be as high as 50% of total project costs. This update to the cost-share for natural infrastructure projects proposed by the House bill would be consistent with federal law, Army Corps practice, and is widely supported by the conservation, hunting, angling, and environmental communities. Section 115: This provision requires each feasibility study for a flood or storm damage reduction project to include a summary of any nature-based features considered, and an explanation if nature-based features are not recommended. We support this requirement to encourage a more complete evaluation of nature-based features as part of a feasibility study, given that these measures can provide sustainable and less costly protections to communities while also improving public health and well-being. Section 119: Section 119 establishes a pilot program to produce 10 feasibility studies at full federal expense for flood risk reduction in economically disadvantaged communities. We support Section 119, which would provide critical assistance to communities suffering from flooding events and in need of a solution, but without the resources to meet the required non-federal cost-share. Section 122: The section directs the Government Accountability Office to submit a report to Congress on the Corps’ use of natural and nature-based features, including a review of Corps’ guidance for natural infrastructure projects, an evaluation of the benefits and costs of natural approaches, barriers to the use of natural infrastructure, and recommendations for policy changes related to the use of these methods. We support this effort to increase the understanding of the Corps’ use of natural infrastructure and the benefits of such approaches. Section 125: Section 125 renews the Congressional commitment to beneficial use of dredged material (BUDM) obtained from Corps projects by establishing a “national policy” on BUDM that a) expands the BUDM pilot program from WRDA 2016 (Sec. 1122), b) requires the Federal Standard to be calculated with consideration of the full economic value of dredged sediment, and c) requires five year dredged material management plans from all USACE districts. This section corresponds with sections 1012, 1019, and 1080 of the Senate bill. We support this unified approach by the House bill to increase and improve the use of dredged material for coastal restoration and natural infrastructure risk reduction projects. However, we encourage the committees to expand the BUDM pilot projects to 40 and to include an explicit requirement to support 10 thin layer placement pilot projects (as was included in Section 1012 of the Senate bill) in the final bill. We support the following provisions in the Senate WRDA bill: Section 1073: Many critical reports from recent WRDA bills remain unfinished and we appreciate the authorization of $50 million in funding for incomplete reports under WRDA 2014, 2016, or 2018, as well as the upcoming WRDA bill. Section 1095: This section explicitly allows for the beneficial use of dredged material at federal expense if the incremental costs are reasonable based upon consideration of the environmental and flood risk reduction benefits of such use. This encourages local communities and Corps districts to consider how to align dredging and sediment placement projects, and will benefit natural infrastructure projects. We encourage the committee to include it in an overarching section on BUDM (such as House bill Section 125). Section 1098 (and the corresponding Section 113 of the House WRDA Bill): Section 1098 of the Senate WRDA bill and Section 113 of the House WRDA bill would both allow for natural or nature-based infrastructure projects to be considered for funding under the Section 205 continuing authorities program. This would help communities meet their flood control needs while also providing them with substantial co-benefits such

July 22, 2020 Chairman Roger Wicker U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 512 Dirksen Senate Building Washington DC, 20510 Ranking Member Maria Cantwell U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 420 A Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell: Thank you for your leadership in introducing legislation to re-authorize the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (SFRBTF). The American Fisheries Society (AFS) strongly supports reauthorization of the program, a critical funding source for fisheries management, science, and aquatic conservation. We are pleased that legislation to re-authorize the program through 2024 passed the committee today. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The Society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS supports and promotes the use of best available science in policymaking. The SFRBTF is the backbone of fisheries conservation in the U.S. Nearly $650 million is distributed annually to state fish and wildlife agencies for a wide variety of projects, including on-the-ground fisheries science and management, fish population assessment, habitat conservation and rehabilitation, fishing access projects, hatchery operations, aquatic education, and public outreach. Habitat conservation and rehabilitation funded through the Sport Fish Restoration program helps to safeguard clean water and ensure high quality outdoor recreation, benefitting fish populations and providing Americans with healthy activities out on the water at a time when re-connecting with nature is so important. The benefits of this popular “user pays-public benefits” program are far reaching, directly supporting fish and wildlife conservation. This, in turn, enhances human health and well-being and supports an important component of our nation’s economy. Healthy fish and wildlife populations are critical to supporting the $646 billion outdoor recreation economy and its 6.1 million jobs. The 90 million people who participate in wildlife-related recreation alone spend $145 billion annually. The program has a long successful track record and AFS strongly supports re-authorization to ensure the quality of our fisheries and aquatic resources for future generations. Moving forward, we must also look to additional sources of funding to fill the gap between fisheries conservation needs and the available funding. Increases in water temperature, lack of water in streams and rivers, poor water quality, invasive species, and habitat degradation have imperiled forty percent of all freshwater species and a changing climate means the situation will only get worse. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact AFS Policy Director, Drue Winters at dwinters@fisheries.org if we can provide you with additional information. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D. Executive Director, American Fisheries Society

June 11, 2020 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Capitol, H-232 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Mitch McConnell Majority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Capitol, H-204 Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Charles Schumer Minority Leader U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, Leader McConnell, and Leader Schumer, As this Congress continues to address the enormous economic and public health crisis facing our country due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our coalition of diverse organizations, businesses, professional societies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and tribal nations request that the bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R. 3742) be included in a future economic recovery package, because it represents a smart, future focused investment that will create immediate and significant numbers of direct jobs, will help restart the outdoor economy, and will support key sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, and ranching. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will put Americans back to work expanding our recreational infrastructure, restoring our natural resources, and investing in on-the-ground projects in every state, territory, and tribal lands. This common-sense, fiscally responsible solution has brought 181 Members of Congress together as cosponsors and received strong bipartisan support when it was reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 26-6. Our nation’s $778 billion outdoor economy—an economy that provides 5.2 million jobs, and represents 2.2 percent of the national gross domestic product—depends upon the restoration and conservation of our nation’s wildlife, lands, and waters. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, this industry boasts an annual growth of 3.9 percent, which outpaces the 2.4 percent annual growth of the national economy. The outdoor recreation economy historically shows higher increases in real gross output, compensation, and employment than the national economy. Every million dollars invested in species and habitat restoration creates 17 to 24 jobs (some estimates as high as 33 per million). Passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act has the potential to create between 23,800 and 33,600 jobs every year, while adding 3.36 billion of national economic output. All of this would lead to a net positive gain of $1.96 billion annually to the Gross Domestic Product. Importantly, this legislation will also provide $97.5 million annually to Tribal nations for on-the-ground conservation projects that create jobs. Tribal nations are exceptional stewards of conservation, and many Tribes’ cultures, traditions, communities, foods, and economies depend upon diverse and healthy natural resources and wildlife populations. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would be the only federal conservation program that guarantees sustained funding to Tribal governments to continue this work. Currently, these projects are primarily being carried out one project at a time, which does not allow for continued growth and job creation. Investment in Tribal communities and expertise is essential and crucial, especially as these nations feel the economic impacts of COVID-19. Finally, this legislation will save taxpayers money in the long run because it is based on the simple premise that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Rather than defaulting to regulation and litigation, this bill saves America’s imperiled wildlife through collaboration and constructive partnerships in every state, territory, and tribal lands. If we invest proactively now, we can prevent more and more of the 12,000 Species of Greatest Conservation Need from requiring listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Doing so will save American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars compared to if all those species had to be listed (estimated at a minimum of $6.7 billion annually). Creating jobs immediately and reducing long-term costs by enacting the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will bring together Americans from East to West and the Members of Congress that represent these diverse constituencies– at a time when we really need it. More and more Americans have turned to the outdoors for a respite during this pandemic. We now have an opportunity to accelerate our national economic recovery by creating jobs restoring these important places and building upon the incredible legacy our country has of uniting during difficult times of economic uncertainty. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Menunkatuck Audubon Society Michigan Bow Hunters Association Michigan Resource Stewards Michigan United Conservation Clubs Middletown March for Science Minnesota Chapter of The Wildlife Society Minnesota Conservation Federation Mississippi Wildlife Federation Mojave Desert Land Trust Montana Audubon Montana Wildlife Federation Montmorency County Conservation Club National Aquarium National Association of Forest Service Retirees National Audubon Society National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative National Professional Anglers Association National ShootingSports Foundation National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation Native American Fish and Wildlife Society Native Plant Conservation Campaign Natural Resources Conservation Academy National Aquarium Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife Nebraska Chapter of The Wildlife Society Nebraska Wildlife Federation Nevada Wildlife Federation New Hampshire Audubon New Hartford Conservation Commission New Jersey Audubon New Mexico Wildlife Federation North America Falconry Association North America Grouse Partnership North American Falconers Association North Carolina Wildlife Federation North Dakota Natural Resources Trust Northwest Avian Resources LLC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association NW Guides and Anglers Association NW Guides and Anglers Fisheries Restoration Initiative Ohio Conservation Federation Oneida Nation Oregon Association of Conservation Districts Oregon chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society Oregon Conservation and Recreation Advisory Committee Oregon Wildlife Foundation Oregon Zoo Foundation Orion: the Hunter’s Institute Orono Land Trust Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association PDXWildlife Pheasants Forever Pines and Prairies Land Trust Pope and Young Club Prairie Rivers Network Protect Animal Migration Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Zuni Pyramid Lake Fisheries, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Quail Forever Quality Deer Management Association Quileute Tribe Red Lake Nation REI Co-op Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation Rogue Basin Partnership Ruffed Grouse Society Salem (OR) Audubon Society Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Inc. South Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society South Dakota Wildlife Federation Sports Angler Straits Area Sportsmen’s Club SUNY ESF Roosevelt

The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) opposed EPA’s proposed supplemental rule, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” on the grounds that it would undermine the agency’s ability to use the best available science in its policy-making process and thus impede EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. The proposed rule would diminish the pivotal role that scientific evidence plays in making critical decisions that directly impact the health of Americans by undermining the ability of the EPA to use the best available science in setting policies and regulations. The effect of the rule would be to weaken the scientific underpinnings of federal policy with the predictable result that environmental and public health would be compromised. Read the comments.

Seventeen states filed suit challenging the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting that the NWPR is contrary to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and arbitrary and capricious, in part, because of the EPA’s and the Army Corps’ disregard of scientific evidence. The plaintiff’s asked the court to issue a nationwide injunction to prevent the Rule from going into effect. AFS, along with 11 science societies, filed an amicus brief with the court highlighting available data and a scientific tool that were part of the rulemaking record and demonstrate the negative impact the 2020 Rule would have on the nation’s waters. Last month, the finalized NWPR largely ignored the scientific understanding of how streams and wetlands contribute to the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters. The agencies failed to quantify the number of waters that the Rule would remove from Clean Water Act protection and made no effort to estimate the reductions in water quality and ecosystem services. Read the brief here.

April 13, 2020 Bill Northey Undersecretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250 Richard Fordyce Administrator Farm Service Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20250 Dear Undersecretary Northey and Administrator Fordyce, We the undersigned, representing a broad swath of the sportsmen’s and conservation communities, write regarding implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). We were encouraged to see that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has accepted 3.4 million acres of lands during the recent general signup period. Enrolling these lands will not only improve soil, water, and habitat health, but also improve the economic and environmental resiliency of agricultural operations and rural communities nationwide. The 2018 Farm Bill made several changes to CRP in order to accommodate landowner interest in the program, including raising the acreage cap to 27 million by Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. In addition to this increased cap, contracts on 12.4 million acres are set to expire between now and FY2022. This presents a significant opportunity for landowners and rural communities alike to enroll more acres into this highly successful program. It also presents a significant risk of ending up far below the cap. Now more than ever it is critical that CRP be administered to maximize enrollment in the program and ensure the benefits of CRP will continue for years to come. To that end, our organizations urge FSA to consider the following recommendations prior to the next general signup: Allow adjustments for soil productivity both above and below the county soil rental rate. The 2018 Farm Bill limits CRP soil rental rates for general CRP to 85% of the estimated NASS rental rates for the county, but still allows for “adjustments relating to specific practices, wellhead protection, or soil productivity.” Despite this, FSA made the discretionary decision to cap soil productivity factors at 1.0, which has had a negative impact on landowner interest under recent signups. Fully restoring rate adjustments would alleviate concerns surrounding rental rates that have been repeatedly raised since the CRP interim rule was published, while still keeping with the intent of Congress to reduce rental rates to avoid CRP-driven market distortions. Restore cost-share for mid-contract management activities. In authorizing grazing as a mid-contract management (MCM) activity, the 2018 Farm Bill stipulates that it would not be eligible for the mid-contract management cost-share. The interim rule, however, interprets the statutory language as eliminating the cost-share entirely. Doing so serves to disincentivize the quality management of conservation practices and lessens landowner interest in enrolling or reenrolling in the program. Publish a public timeline of expected CRP signup periods. Making such information publicly available well ahead of time will allow farmers and landowners to be best suited to make informed decisions about land use and planting. It will also allow non-governmental partners and organizations with an interest in the program to better assist USDA in program delivery and outreach to landowners. We believe the acceptance of 3.4 million acres into CRP during this recent signup period is a significant step in the right direction for maximizing enrollment in the program, which is a stated goal of Secretary Perdue. With 5.4 million acres expiring this coming fall, however, we recognize that there is much work to be done between now and October. Without further significant enrollment in the program, we are concerned that dwindling acreage will result in future funding reductions and a decrease in the effectiveness of CRP. We believe the above recommendations, as well as previously stated recommendations including increasing incentive payments under continuous signups, are critical steps that must be taken in order to achieve the shared goal of full CRP enrollment. Again, we greatly appreciate the faithful work of FSA staff in implementing the significant changes made to CRP under the 2018 Farm Bill. We look forward to continuing to work with the agency to ensure the future success of CRP and stand ready to help in any way possible to achieve that goal. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Boone and Crockett Club California Waterfowl Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Izaak Walton League of America National Alliance of Forest Owners National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative National Deer Alliance National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation North American Grouse Partnership Pheasants Forever Quail Forever The Nature Conservancy The Wildlife Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Western Landowners Alliance Wildlife Management Institute Wildlife Mississippi

AFS and other organizations garnered support from members of Congress for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program with letters of support to relevant House and Senate subcommittees.  The program, slated for deep cuts in the President’s FY2021 budget is critical for addressing species before they become endangered. The chronic underfunding and the proposed budget cuts to this program underscore the need for dedicated funding to match the scale of the problem, such as proposed in in the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Read the Senate letter below and the House letter here. March 23, 2020 The Honorable Lisa Murkowski The Honorable Tom Udall Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations 131 Dirksen Senate Office Building 125 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: We are writing to express our support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. We appreciate your past support and hope that you will make funding for this program a priority. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program provides a critical investment that is necessary to sustain our nation’s most vulnerable fish and wildlife. In FY2020, $67.7 million was appropriated through apportionments and competitive grants to all 56 states, territories and the District of Columbia and Indian tribes. These funds leveraged tens of millions in state and private funds. We ask that you provide the most robust funding possible for the program in FY 2021. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the nation’s core program to prevent fish and wildlife from becoming endangered. The program has funded conservation work that prevented endangered species listings for species like the New England cottontail and arctic graying and has helped recover numerous fish and wildlife such as the Louisiana Black Bear and Lake Erie water snake. The program is saving taxpayer dollars and reducing the burden on business and private landowners by cutting down on endangered species controversies. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program funds on-the-ground conservation such as invasive species control, habitat management, species reintroduction, disease abatement and research and monitoring that helps fish and wildlife biologists understand and assess declining populations of at-risk species before it’s too late. It is the only federal grant program for states, territories, the District of Columbia and tribes to conserve over 12,000 animals identified as Species in Greatest Conservation Need in State Wildlife Action Plans. These plans were developed by each state, territory and the District of Columbia using the best available science and with input from farmers, ranchers, business-owners and other publics. Additionally, the program directly benefits over 100 million citizens who depend on healthy fish and wildlife and habitat for hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, hiking and other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation. The program aids the $427 billion outdoor recreation economy and helps states meet their statutory responsibility for sustaining fish and wildlife for future generations. Again, we appreciate the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies past support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program and encourage you to make funding a priority in FY 2021. Stronger funding for the program will allow fish and wildlife conservation work to expand to a greater number of the 12,000+ Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Mike Crapo U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse U.S. Senator James E. Risch U.S. Senator Joe Manchin III U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich U.S. Senator Angus S. King, Jr. U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris U.S. Senator Jack Reed U.S. Senator Ron Wyden U.S. Senator Cory A. Booker U.S. Senator Tina Smith U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders U.S. Senator Tim Kaine U.S. Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley U.S. Senator Martha McSally U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein U.S. Senator Brian Schatz U.S. Senator Margaret Wood Hassan U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe U.S. Senator Christopher S. Murphy U.S. Senator Susan M. Collins U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley U.S. Senator Jon Tester U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen U.S. Senator Christopher A. Coons U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin U.S. Senator Gary Peters U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth U.S. Senator Richard Durbin U.S. Senator Christopher A. Murphy U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin U.S. Senator Robert Menendez U.S. Senator Ed Markey U.S. Senator Mike Rounds U.S. Senator

American Fisheries Society ● Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Ecological Society of America ● Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society International Association for Great Lakes Research ● North American Lake Management Society Phycological Society of America ● Society for Freshwater Science Society of Wetland Scientists ● The Wildlife Society 10 March 2020 U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Pl NW Washington, DC 20506 RE: Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act [CEQ-2019-0003] On behalf of the undersigned professional science societies, we respectfully submit the following comments on the proposed rulemaking updating the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. Our societies collectively represent more than 35,000 individuals with diverse expertise in natural resource sciences. Our members work in the private sector, academia, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We support science-based policy making, and work to advance healthy ecosystems that are critical to maintaining fish and wildlife. Natural resource professionals play an integral role in all aspects of the NEPA process including the development of NEPA documents, direct and indirect consultation, and drafting of public and agency comment. The experience and subject-based knowledge they bring to the environmental review process is substantial. In response to increasing public concern about the effects of human activity on the environment, the National Environmental Policy Act established a procedural framework obligating all federal agencies to consider environmental impacts prior to taking any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” For fifty years, NEPA’s implementing regulations have ensured federal agencies make decisions with an understanding of the environmental consequences of those actions and disclose these effects to the public. Unfortunately, the proposed changes to the regulations implementing NEPA would dismantle one of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws by undermining these fundamental tenets. The proposed revisions would reduce the range of alternatives evaluated, exclude the consideration of critical types of impacts, place arbitrary time and page limits on NEPA documents, and reduce public opportunities to review and comment on proposed projects. It is essential that the Act’s core tenets of ensuring proposed federal actions thoroughly consider and relay possible environmental impacts remain intact. Revisions to the Purpose and Function of the Act In establishing the National Environmental Policy Act, Congress’ stated purpose was to “declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation” (42 USC §4321). Existing Council on Environmental Quality regulation reflects these goals, providing that “NEPA is our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” In this proposal, CEQ aims to remove all mention of environmental protection and instead focus on the procedural nature of NEPA in supporting agency decisions. Modifying NEPA guidelines to be devoid of a link to the ultimate objective of improving environmental outcomes of agency action is in stark contrast to the Congressional intent of the legislation. The original purpose of the Act must be preserved if future decisions are to reflect current scientific natural resource management that prioritizes a vetting of alternatives. Definition of “effects or impacts” As reflected in the Congressional intent of this legislation, humans operate within connected ecological systems. Rivers cross not only state lines, but international borders. Ducks and other waterfowl use the North American flyways to migrate between Mexico, the United States, and Canada every year. Fish swim not only in large navigable waters, but their tributaries, including ones that are small, intermittent or even ephemeral; some fish, in early life stages, live in wetlands. In accordance with these connected systems, NEPA reviews have historically considered a variety of effects of a proposed federal action, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Indirect effects are generally those caused by a project, but separated by time or space. Cumulative effects can be described as the combined effects of incremental direct and indirect effects of the project, the effects of other actions, and effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Council on Environmental Quality’s proposal to change the definition of “effects or impacts” to no longer include indirect effects or impacts, as well as the elimination of the requirement to analyze cumulative effects of an action, would have long-lasting repercussions on the ability of natural resource professionals to plan and mitigate for system-level changes that a project may put into motion. Agencies would no longer be required to look beyond their jurisdictional boundaries when undergoing the NEPA process, causing them to consider impacts in a vacuum. Examples of effects that may no longer be considered include: A project resulting in conditions that displace large carnivores from their home range: Large carnivores such as grizzly bears, wolverines, and Canada lynx often require large home ranges and do not tolerate the presence of others of their own species. If a project displaced an individual or caused a reduction in habitat, bears, wolverines, and other large carnivores may migrate into an already occupied area. This increased competition for space in an area removed from the footprint of the project could affect a carnivore’s access to resources, but would not be subject to analysis under the proposed changes. A project resulting in conditions that extend the migration time of a spawning fish: Migratory fish may be impacted by a project creating a physical barrier or resulting in conditions that fish avoid during migration. This may result in lower spawning success or inability to spawn. If the project was not present, no migratory delay would occur. However, the spawning site may be well beyond the project’s narrow geographic scope, and any reduction in spawning rate may not be noticeable for several years. Under the proposed modifications, neither of these factors would be subject to NEPA review. In addition, by eliminating a cumulative impacts analysis, NEPA becomes a

  March 6, 2020 The Honorable Betty McCollum Chair House Committee on Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies The Honorable David Joyce Ranking Member House Committee on Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Dear Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Joyce, and Honorable Committee Members: Improving the future health and sustainability of the nation’s forests, grasslands, and aquatic systems requires a strong investment in USDA Forest Service Research and Development (R&D). Offering vital benefits to forests, wildlife, and fish, the undersigned organizations and professional societies urge you to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D to a minimum of $315 million in FY 2021 including all necessary increase for the Forest Inventory and Analysis program and at least $232 million for the remaining Forest and Rangeland Research program areas. We thank you for supporting a funding increase in FY 2020, but we are deeply concerned by the administration’s proposal to cut R&D by 25%, eliminate the wildlife and fish research program, close two research facilities, and reduce other important research activities. We urge you to reject these proposals and include report language underscoring the value of Forest Service R&D in providing foundational information and innovative solutions to improve the health of the nation’s forests, grasslands, and aquatic systems. Notable recent Forest Service R&D contributions include: Avoiding Endangered Species Act Listings and Saving Taxpayer Dollars Forest Service fish and wildlife researchers are leading scientists in their fields and specialize in providing applied research to natural resource managers and decision-makers in state and federal government and the private sector. Forest Service research informs conservation efforts that have helped to avoid Endangered Species Act listings for several forest and rangeland wildlife species. For example, Forest Service scientists used molecular techniques to determine that the Arapahoe Snowfly, a species petitioned for protection, was not actually a distinct species but rather a hybrid. This type of robust science is a perfect example of researchers providing the best available science to inform management actions. Improving Wildfire Management Forest Service R&D initiatives are working to strengthen the link between research and wildfire suppression operations, including decision support systems to examine tradeoffs among investments in preparedness, large fire suppression costs, and hazardous fuel treatments at multiple scales. New tools will support spatial fire management planning, track and monitor fire and fire-related resources, increase efficiency, and reduce overall impacts and costs of wildfire incidents. Guiding Drought Management Response Drought affects local and regional economies through its effects on water resources for agriculture, ranching, and forestry operations and the supply of clean drinking water. Drought also leads to more devastating wildfires, resulting in loss of life and property, reduced economic activity, degraded wildlife habitat, and greater wildlife suppression costs. Forest Service R&D has been a leader in reviewing impacts of drought on US forests and rangelands to better manage for resiliency and adaptation. Agency drought assessments and guidance have helped federal, tribal, state, and private stakeholders devise and implement strategies to sustain healthy, resilient ecosystems. Revolutionizing Monitoring for Invasive Species and Species at Risk Land managers and regulatory agencies are using environmental DNA (eDNA), a non-invasive genetic sampling technique, to locate invasive species as well as rare and sensitive species in need of special management considerations. For example, water sampling can reveal Forest Service R&D has leveraged its own investments in this path-breaking technology to receive additional funding through partnerships with national forests and other agencies. Future research will continue to lower the cost and improve the efficiency of eDNA sampling, which is twice as likely as traditional sampling to detect species in low abundance at less than half the cost. Broad-scale implementation could save natural resources management agencies millions of dollars in sampling costs annually. Creating and Expanding Markets for Forest Products Forest Service R&D is driving innovation and working to build and expand markets for forest products. For example, work at the Forest Products Laboratory on woody biofuels, advanced composites and wood structures, and value-added wood products promotes healthy forest ecosystems and economies by creating, enhancing, and protecting markets for forest products. In partnership with universities and private industry, R&D scientists to explore and demonstrate the strength, safety, cost-effectiveness, and other benefits of building with cross-laminated timber (CLT). Further actions are needed, working on building codes and wood utilization models, to accelerate adoption of CLT and create new markets. Valuing Urban Forests and Trees Forest Service scientists have devised alternatives to grey infrastructure and helped communities calculate the economic, environmental, and social value of new and existing trees—including property value increases, energy savings, air pollutant uptake, and stormwater reduction. In addition, R&D research also encourages clean watersheds by analyzing the impacts of people, vegetation, and infrastructure on urban water, and supports urban watershed restoration projects that revitalize neighborhoods. Responding to Changing Conditions Silviculture research forms the scientific foundation for forest management and conservation. Forest Service silviculture researchers study how to regenerate forest trees and other plants, how trees grow over time, and how stands of trees interact with the environment, wildlife, diseases, and insects. R&D research creates, quantifies, and integrates knowledge about tree growth, soils, plant physiology, and genetics. The conditions of today’s forests are due, in part, to Forest Service silviculture research in the past. Future forest conditions will depend on today’s investments in silviculture research to help respond to a changing climate and other disturbances. Balancing Fish Habitat and Resource Needs R&D fisheries biologists are developing better approaches to managing forested landscapes that provide habitat for native salmon and trout in high elevation lakes and streams across the Rockies. Critical to developing comprehensive restoration strategies, this science has not only helped create more resilient forests but also the conditions and prey essential for healthy, native fish populations. Recent successes include innovative protocols for monitoring fish populations and habitat quality in addition to strategies for meeting growing demands for water, energy, and other forest-based commodities while ensuring the sustainability, diversity, and integrity of aquatic species. Quantifying the Role of Forests in Providing Clean Air and Water Research directly

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) sharply criticized the agency’s recent decision to narrow the definition of the Waters of the US (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act in a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on February 27. “In summary, current scientific understanding of the connectivity of surface and ground water, which has been reviewed by the SAB previously, is not reflected in the proposed Rule,” SAB concluded. “Specifically, the proposed definition of WOTUS excludes ground water, ephemeral streams, and wetlands which connect to navigable waters below the surface. The proposed Rule does not present new science to support this definition, thus the SAB finds that the proposed Rule lacks a scientific justification, while potentially introducing new risks to human and environmental health.” Read the full letter here.

February 24, 2020 The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Capitol, H-204 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy, As organizations collectively representing millions of Americans who enjoy the outdoors through hunting, fishing, birding, hiking, paddling, and gardening, as well as the state fish and wildlife agencies and other natural resource professionals charged with stewarding our nation’s wildlife, we write to express our strong support for the bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R. 3742) and urge you to advance it to the House floor for a vote. This legislation provides a comprehensive strategy to protect our wildlife heritage by assuring sufficient funding for on-the-ground activities that support states’ most urgent wildlife conservation priorities. This proactive approach to solving the ever-increasing challenges facing our nation’s fish and wildlife has brought over 170 Members of Congress together as cosponsors of this legislation. Just two months ago, the bill received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House Committee on Natural Resources and was reported out by a 26-6 vote, with a majority of Republican committee members present voting in favor. The momentum and increasingly bipartisan support building behind this bill underscore the urgency of advancing it to the floor. With more than one-third of all U.S. species at increased risk of extinction, we can’t afford not to take swift action. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will help recover and conserve species at risk by dedicating $1.3 billion for state-level conservation and $97.5 million to Tribal nations for on-the-ground conservation projects. The legislation funds the implementation of the congressionally-mandated State Wildlife Action Plans, which outline specific conservation actions necessary to recover and sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations, while also accelerating the recovery of species already listed under the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, tribal nations will expand conservation efforts on their lands, which provide vital habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, including more than 500 species listed as threatened or endangered. This bill also allocates more funding for wildlife conservation in the territories, as recent natural disasters have exacerbated pressures on native species. The premise of this bill is simple: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We can save wildlife and save money in the long run by investing in collaborative solutions before species require more restrictive and expensive “emergency room” measures under the Endangered Species Act. This approach will save federal taxpayers tens of billions of dollars by ensuring more regulatory certainty for farmers, businesses, and industry while also growing our continuously expanding $887 billion outdoor economy that supports more than 7.6 million jobs. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act builds upon the incredible legacy of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, which brought iconic fish and wildlife species back from the brink of extinction through cooperative, science-driven wildlife management, supported by reliable funding. It will take a similar vision and effort to address the escalating problems facing our fish and wildlife in the 21st century, and this bill presents a solution that meets the magnitude of the challenge. Passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act is unequivocally the most important thing this Congress can do to protect our nation’s outdoor heritage. We look forward to working with you to bring this legislation to the House floor in the coming weeks. Sincerely, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Allegan Conservation District American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Anglers United Arizona Antelope Foundation Arizona Bass Federation Nation Arizona Big Game Super Raffle Arizona Bowhunters Association Arizona Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation Arizona Chapter Safari Club International Arizona Deer Association Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society Arizona Elk Society Arizona Flycasters Club Arizona Houndsmen’s Association Arizona Outdoor Adventures Arizona Outdoor Sports Arizona Predator Callers Arizona Shooting Sports Education Foundation Arizona State Council of Trout Unlimited Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation Arizona Wildlife Federation Arkansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Arkansas Chapter of The Wildlife Society Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission Arkansas Watertrail Partnership Association of Northwest Steelheaders Atlantic Salmon Federation Audubon Arizona Audubon Minnesota Audubon Pennsylvania Audubon Society of Lincoln City, Oregon Audubon Texas Audubon Washington Austin Science Advocates Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Texas Chapter Barry Conservation District Barry County Drain Commissioner Bass Pro Shops Bat Conservation International Baxter State Park Bayou Land Conservancy Bexar Audubon Society Big Thicket Association Biodiversity Research Institute Biological Conservation Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Bucks County Audubon Society Buffalo Creek Watershed Association Burns Paiute Tribe Cabela’s California Invasive Plant Council Cedar Run Decoy Company Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation of Montana Christian Hunters of America Cibolo Conservancy Land Trust Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed Colorado Chapter of the Wildlife Society Confluence Consulting, LLC Connecticut Forest & Park Association Connecticut Ornithological Association Conservation Council for Hawaii Conservation Federation of Missouri Conservation InSight Conservation Northwest Conservation Resource Management Cornell Lab of Ornithology Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports Crow Nation Delaware Valley University Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island Downeast Salmon Federation Downeast Trout Unlimited Ducks Unlimited Environment Council of Rhode Island Environmental Collaborative Of Ohio Environmental League of Massachusetts First Light Wildlife Habitats Flathead Audubon Society Forest Society of Maine Fort Worth Zoo Four Townships Water Resources Franciscan Earth Literacy Center Freeport Wild Bird Supply Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Friends of Stewart B McKinney NWR Friends of the Fort Worth Nature Center & Refuge Galveston Bay Foundation Georges River Chapter, Trout Unlimited Grand Prairie Friends Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Gulf Coast Bird Observatory Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Hill Country Alliance Houston Safari Club Houston Wilderness Indiana Chapter of The Wildlife Society Indiana Wildlife Federation Ingham Conservation District Innovative Wildlife Management Services, LLC Institute for Natural Resources – Portland, Oregon Iowa Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever Izaak Walton League of America Jo Daviess Conservation Foundation Kahuna’s Kids Kalamazoo Nature Center Kalamazoo River Watershed Council Katy Prairie Conservancy Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited Kentucky Waterways Alliance Klamath Watershed Partnership Lake

The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality recently released plans to substantially revise the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of the most important U.S. environmental laws. AFS and other science societies requested an extension of the comment period for these revisions. Comments can be submitted by March 10, 2020 at https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=CEQ-2019-0003-0001. American Fisheries Society · American Institute of Biological Sciences · Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography · Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation · Ecological Society of America · Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society · International Association for Great Lakes Research · North American Lake Management Society · Society for Ecological Restoration · Society for Freshwater Science · Society of American Foresters · Society of Wetland Scientists · The Wildlife Society February 11, 2020 Ms. Mary Neumayr Chair Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20503 Mr. Edward A. Boling Associate Director for the National Environmental Policy Act Council on Environmental Quality 730 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20503 Via regulations.gov Re: Request for 120-day Comment Period on Update to the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003 Dear Ms. Neumayr and Mr. Boling: On behalf of the undersigned scientific societies, we respectfully urge you to extend the period during which you will accept public comment on the proposed changes for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003, published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2020. At a minimum, a 120-day comment period for a rulemaking of this nature is called for due to the complexity and importance of the proposed rule. The undersigned scientific societies represent more than 200,000 individuals with diverse areas of expertise in natural resource sciences and work in the private sector, academia, and various tribal, state and federal agencies. We support science-based policy making, and work to advance healthy ecosystems for the critical maintenance of wildlife, fisheries, ecosystem services, and biodiversity. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559) does not specify a minimum period for solicitation of comments, the duration of a comment period often varies with the complexity of the proposed rule. The proposed changes to NEPA’s implementation guidelines are widely viewed as a regulatory overhaul to this landmark environmental law. This rule represents a significant shift in policy and the development of new language, interpretations, requirements, and procedures that will affect fish, wildlife, and forests. Narrowing the scope of environmental review for federal actions will have far-reaching implications for natural resources, including wildlife, fish, aquatic animals, forests, and ecosystems on which we all depend. In order to properly understand and meaningfully respond to the major changes contemplated, a minimum of a 120-day comment period is warranted for an appropriate review. Thank you for considering this request. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Drue Banta Winters by email at dwinters@fisheries.org or telephone at 301-897-8616. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Institute of Biological Sciences Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Ecological Society of America Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society International Association for Great Lakes Research North American Lake Management Society Society for Ecological Restoration Society for Freshwater Science Society of American Foresters Society of Wetland Scientists The Wildlife Society

January 23, 2020 The Honorable John Barrasso Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Thomas R. Carper Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: Thank you for holding a hearing on the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) Nonpoint Source Management Program. The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. The Society seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. We write to express support for the Nonpoint Source (Section 319) Program, share our concern for water quality in light of the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Rule released today, and urge you to consider how climate change will exacerbate our nation’s water quality challenges. Why Federal Leadership in Nonpoint Pollution Control is Needed Section 319 is an essential program for several reasons. Nationwide, diffuse pollutants, particularly nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and fine sediments continue to degrade the structure and function of our nation’s aquatic resources. Land use remains the major stressor to water quality (Hughes et al. 2019; IPBES 2019). Weakly regulated pollutants associated with agricultural land use are a major contributor to losses in aquatic ecosystem condition. For instance, the USEPA (2016) reported that the Nation’s streams and rivers are burdened by excessive and damaging levels of phosphorus (476,000 miles or 40% of stream miles), nitrogen (329,000 miles; 28%;), riparian vegetation disturbance (284,000 miles; 24%), and sedimentation (177,000 miles; 15%;). Streams and rivers under these conditions support less diverse and impaired aquatic biota, including fish assemblages critical to productive fisheries (Colvin et al. 2019). These national trends can be observed even more starkly at a local or regional scale. For example, in the Willamette Valley; agriculture has been closely linked with negative biological effects on streams and lakes in the upper Mississippi River basin (Deweber et al. 2019); Tennessee-Mississippi basins (Perkin et al. 2019); Kansas River basin (Bruckerhoff and Gido 2019); and Northern Forests, Eastern Temperate Forests, and Great Plains ecoregions (Jacobson et al. 2019). Because water pollution does not respect political boundaries, it is critically important to continue federal leadership and funding to help states, tribes, and territories to reduce and mitigate diffuse pollution. Section 319 helps focus state, tribal, territorial, and local efforts on reducing nonpoint source pollution through grant money for technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific diffuse source implementation projects. Impact of the New WOTUS Definition However, the Section 319 program can only be successful if the CWA, in its entirety, can achieve its mandate “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The newly finalized redefinition of “Waters of the US” removes protection for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands that maintain watershed integrity and keep waters and watersheds healthy. This new definition makes it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the objectives of the CWA (Sullivan et al. 2019). Polluted and degraded aquatic ecosystems have strong effects on fisheries, water-based recreation, and the economy. America’s anglers are estimated to spend $49.8 billion per year in retail sales associated with their sport. With a total annual economic impact of $125 billion, fishing supports more than 800,000 jobs and generates $38 billion in wages and $16 billion in federal, state and local taxes. (ASA 2018). Blue-ribbon trout streams in two Idaho and Wyoming river basins yielded $12 million and $29 million in county income and 341 and 851 jobs in 2004, respectively—markedly more income and jobs than that provided by agriculture, mining, or fossil fuel extraction in those counties (Hughes 2015). The loss of protections for our nation’s most vulnerable waters will have far-reaching implications for fish, wildlife, and their habitats. The new WOTUS rule is simply inconsistent with the best-available science (Sullivan et al. 2019). By failing to recognize chemical and biological connectivity (and the full scope of hydrological connectivity) in the re-definition of WOTUS, valuable ecosystem services including protecting water quality, recharging aquifers, transporting and cycling of organic material, and maintaining habitats for endangered species are in great peril. These and other ecosystem services depend on watershed and waterbody connectivity. It is particularly concerning that the new WOTUS rule eliminates protections from many headwater streams and wetlands across the country. Headwater aquatic ecosystems act as a conveyor of nutrients, a path for migrating fish and wildlife, and a drainage and storage system for floodwaters. Most diffuse pollutants enter headwaters because of the extent of headwaters and their close connections with landscapes and land uses (Colvin et al. 2019). It is critically important to protect headwaters from the effects of land mismanagement and intensive and extensive land uses such as agriculture, livestock grazing, silviculture, mining, and urbanization to maintain water quality. Climate change and land use intensification has already shifted waters that were permanent to intermittent and intermittent to ephemeral. Under the revised WOTUS, more waters will lose protection, thus severely undermining our nation’s water quality and fisheries. Such changes have, and will increasingly, hinder effective Section 319 protections and increase the need for even more funding to avoid massive degradation of surface and ground waters. Climate Change Exacerbates Waterway Impairment Natural resilience mechanisms that maintain aquatic ecosystem condition and diverse native fish assemblages and highly valued fisheries will be further stressed by climate change. Climate change is accelerating and intensifying water pollution, species range reductions and species extinctions. Funding for programs that strengthen high water quality in its multiple forms (chemical, biological, and physical) and support ecosystem resilience will be necessary to address these challenges. Tried and true practices such as erosion control, wetland preservation and rehabilitation, preserving headwater catchments, improved and expanded riparian vegetation buffers, no-till and low-till agriculture, fallowing, reforestation, and naturalized

American Fisheries Society ● Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation ● Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society International Association for Great Lakes Research ● North American Lake Management Society Phycological Society of America ●  Society for Freshwater Science ● Society of Wetland Scientists   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 23, 2020 Contact: Drue Winters dwinters@fisheries.org (301) 897-8616 x202 AQUATIC SCIENTISTS CRITICIZE REVISED DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE U.S. (Bethesda, Md.) January 23, 2020 — The U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have redefined the extent of protection for the nation’s freshwater resources. The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies, a group of nine professional societies with a total of more than 20,000 member scientists, strongly criticized the new definition of the “Waters of the United States (WOTUS).” The redefinition is inconsistent with the best-available science. It removes protection for millions of stream miles and acres of wetlands that keep waters and watersheds healthy. The Clean Water Act’s mandate is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The new rule eliminates protection for waters that otherwise maintain watershed integrity, thus rendering the objectives of the Clean Water Act unattainable. Impairment of headwaters and wetlands affects water quality and flow for entire watersheds. The rule threatens critical headwater and wetland ecosystem services, like water quality protection, aquifer recharge, organic material transport, safeguarding habitats for endangered species, and support for recreational and commercial fishing economies. Climate change and land use intensification have already shifted waters that were permanent to intermittent and intermittent to ephemeral. Under the revised WOTUS, more waters will lose protection, thus severely undermining our nation’s water quality and fisheries. “The published science demonstrates that the loss of protections for our nation’s most vulnerable waters will have far-reaching implications for fish, wildlife, and their habitats,” said American Fisheries Society Executive Director Doug Austen, Ph.D. “The Trump administration’s new rule is a blatant disregard for science. Over a thousand peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated the connectivity of inland waters. The well-being of our nation is dependent on the health of our waterbodies,” said Mike Pace, President of the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. “The new rule rolls back protections that have been in place for decades and will cause irreparable harm to our inland waters.” “We have a clear understanding of the critical functions provided by our wetlands, including maintenance of clean water.  We should be seeking ways to preserve and strengthen these benefits.  Instead, the proposed new rule, which flies in the face of good science, will weaken protection for headwater streams and associated wetlands, systems that are key to safeguarding healthy watersheds,”  said Loretta Battaglia, Ph.D., President-Elect of the Society of Wetland Scientists. Our nation’s estuaries and coastal waters are vital to our economic prosperity and sustainability. The health of these waters is influenced not just by the flow of streams and rivers, but also through groundwater connections to wetlands, dammed and diked areas, and ditches in coastal watersheds. “The proposed new rule will weaken protection of the water quality and biological integrity for these vital ecosystems,” said James Fourqurean, Ph.D., President of The Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation. Perry Thomas, Ph.D., President of the North American Lake Management Society, said, “Even our highest quality lakes are threatened by erosion and other degradation in their watersheds. If we are going to protect these incredibly valuable water bodies we need to manage stormwater and address erosion in these lake watersheds but that would be essentially lost under the proposed WOTUS definition that excludes many headwater streams and wetlands.” “Not only are the excluded headwaters and wetlands critical for the ecological integrity of our rivers and streams, they also are the required habitats for unique species and natural communities.  Removal of protections will make all our aquatic natural heritage more vulnerable to future development and climate change impacts,” said Braven Beaty, Ph.D., co-chair of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Environmental Quality and Affairs Committee. “The science on the connectivity between headwater streams, wetlands, and ecosystem services like clean water is undisputed,” asserts Amy Rosemond, Ph.D., President of the Society for Freshwater Science, “however, the EPA has chosen to ignore this science. This includes ignoring the conclusions of EPA’s own staff scientists and science advisory board. The new rule is simply not scientifically defensible and the decision to ignore the science was arbitrary and capricious.  The logical outcome of today’s rule will be a degradation in water quality and increasing threats to human health.” For more information on the Waters of the United States, see https://fisheries.org/policy-media/wotus/.   # # #

PDF version October 21, 2019 Administrator Andrew Wheeler Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Submitted via regulations.gov RE: Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0405 Dear Administrator Wheeler, On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation groups write in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to make changes to the rules governing states’ and tribes’ Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification process. We oppose the proposed rule both because it would negatively harm fish and wildlife habitat and because it creates enormous barriers for states and tribes to use 401 certification conditions to protect their important water resources. These barriers shift power that Congress deliberately gave to states away from state agencies to the EPA as well as other federal agencies, some of which have no Clean Water Act authority. We ask that your agency withdraw this damaging proposal immediately and instead uphold the longstanding cooperative federalism approach that allows states, tribes, and the federal government to work together to protect our shared water resources and the fish, wildlife, and outdoor pursuits that depend on access to healthy wetlands and streams. The Need for Section 401 of the Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is one of our country’s bedrock environmental laws, passed to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Section 401 is an integral part of the Act. It established an important federal-state partnership, providing states with the opportunity to ensure Clean Water Act protected waterways and wetlands are safeguarded from the adverse effects of activities that need federal permits, such as the construction of dams, diversions, housing and commercial development, roads, bridges, mines, hydropower plants, and pipelines. While outright denials of certification are rare, states do use their Section 401 authority to condition projects that would harm fish and wildlife habitat. Conditions can allow a project to proceed, albeit with requirements to avoid decreased stream flows, blocked fish passage, increased sedimentation, and/or elevated stream temperatures. For example, in 1986, Washington state stated it would grant a Section 401 permit for a new dam, provided the permittee maintained a minimum in-stream flow below the dam to protect an important fishery along the Dosewallips River near Olympic National Park. The state required these conditions because the impacted waterway was an important spawning and rearing habitat for coho and chinook salmon as well as cutthroat trout. The permittee challenged the state’s decision to require the minimum instream flows; however, in a 1994 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could impose conditions based not only on Clean Water Act water quality standards, but also, as the statute said, on “any other appropriate requirement of State law.” (PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology) Additionally, the recent steps the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have taken – to repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule with a rule that has a much narrower scope – make maintaining Section 401 state authority even more important. Under the EPA and Army Corps’ new proposed definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), roughly 50 percent of wetlands and 18 percent of the country’s stream miles would lose Clean Water Act protections. The Administration’s proposed WOTUS rewrite would threaten waters that provide habitat for more than half of North American migratory waterfowl, serve as critical spawning grounds for salmon and trout, and provide drinking water for millions of Americans. If the agencies finalize their replacement rule, the EPA’s proposed changes to Section 401 will dramatically undermine the ability of states to protect their streams and wetlands that the Clean Water Act would no longer cover. In its proposed redefinition of WOTUS, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers repeatedly cite Section 101(b), which highlights Congress’ intention that states have a primary responsibility to “prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources.” Actions taken by the EPA to limit states’ ability to protect their waterways using Section 401 of the Clean Water Act does not support Congress’ approach to cooperative federalism or its recognition that states will often have a better understanding of how to protect their waterways. We question why EPA does not cite Section 101(b) even once in this new proposal to severely limit state 401 certification authority. Proposed Rule Takes Away States’ Power to Protect Important Waters by Limiting Time Frame for Review The proposed rule significantly harms states’ ability to protect their critical waterways by limiting the amount of time states have to review permit applications. The proposed rule would limit the “reasonable time” for state certification to a hard stop one-year maximum, even when an applicant has not provided the state with the information it needs to assess the activity. The proposal would treat a state’s failure to act within one year as a waiver of certification. This may mean that states are forced to provide permits for a project not only without technical information about how the proposed activity would affect a fishery, but also before other critical reviews, such as NEPA, have been completed. Furthermore, the EPA proposes a 30-day limit following when an application is submitted for the state certifying agency to request additional information from the applicant. These limitations could not only force a state to rush certification, or deny the certification entirely, but also encourage applicants not to cooperate with states that request additional information. These proposed changes could significantly harm fish and wildlife habitat. While states certify most projects in less than a year, in order to do a responsible job, states may need more time to gather information so they can understand the full impact of many large-scale construction projects, such as roads, bridges, mines, and pipelines. Additionally, if applicants refuse to provide enough information for the permitting agency to make a decision, under the proposed rule,

PDF version of letter October 21, 2019 Mr. Andrew R. Wheeler Acting Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Via regulations.gov Re: Submission of Comments to EPA regarding the proposed rule “Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification” (84 FR 44080; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0405-0025) Dear Administrator Wheeler: On behalf of the undersigned science societies, we respectfully submit the following comments in response to the proposed Rule “Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification” (proposed Rule) (84 FR 44080; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0405-0025), published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2019. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to this proposed rule. The undersigned scientific societies represent more than 200,000 individuals with diverse areas of expertise in the aquatic, ecological, hydrologic, biogeochemical, biological and ecological restoration sciences. Our members have deep subject matter expertise and a commitment to independent objectivity and peer-review of science and work in the private sector, academia, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. We promote the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage and restore our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources for the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. Cooperative federalism is at the core of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Water Quality Certification (WQC) process serves as a successful model of cooperative federalism under the act. The CWA requires that federal agencies and actions respect state authority and control over water quality within their respective state boundaries. New rulemaking is of immense importance to the states and tribes that rely on Section 401 as a means of protecting the quality of surface waters within their boundaries and to the citizens of the states and tribes. The proposed Rule threatens the partnership between the states and the federal government in administering the law and undermines the ability of both to uphold the mandate of the CWA, which is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. We respectfully request that any changes made to Section 401 maintain existing state and tribal authority, as established by Congress and the United States Constitution, to review and approve permits through the Section 401 WQC process. In the absence of any rigorous analysis, restriction of a state’s or tribe’s ability to administer a Section 401 WQC program in a manner that the state/tribe deems appropriate can be viewed as an arbitrary and capricious limitation of the cooperative federalism goals of the CWA. Indeed, Justice Stevens, concurring with the 7 – 2 majority opinion in PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), stated, “Not a single sentence, phrase, or word in the CWA purports to place any constraint on a State’s power to regulate the quality of its own waters more stringently than federal law might require. In fact, the Act explicitly recognizes the States’ ability to impose stricter standards.” As justification for the proposed Rule, EPA claims that state regulations and/or processes for water quality certifications are hindering infrastructure development and asserts that there is confusion and uncertainty around the Section 401 certification process. Yet no published data exists regarding the annual number of Section 401 WQC denials or delays on a national basis. In the absence of relevant data, any attempt to develop a new rule is unwarranted. A revision based on a faulty premise would lead to unintended consequences and would undermine the successful model that protects the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation’s waters. While there are complex elements of the WQC process that could be improved or streamlined, none of those improvements require rulemaking that entails a reduction in the states’ authority to review permits, develop conditions suitable to their respective standards, and issue certifications. To this end, we recommend that no changes be made to the scope of WQC review and that no restrictions be placed on the conditions or requests for information that states or tribes may judge to be reasonably appropriate to include in a certification. We oppose any revision of guidance or rulemaking that would reduce the states’ role and their authority to complete adequate review of federal permits, and we oppose the proposed Rule’s provisions that would allow federal agencies to limit the states’ and tribes’ decision-making timeframes, limit their scope of review, and overrule state water quality decisions at federal discretion. In addition, we submit to the record the following specific comments for consideration: Section II.D. Guidance Document The June 7, 2019 Guidance Document1 cannot provide guidance for a rule that has not yet been promulgated. To contemplate that the guidance document in question be retained after promulgation of the final rule implies that it has been pre-determined as to what the final rule will entail, despite an ongoing and open public comment period. In addition to being akin to manipulating the data to fit the preferred conclusion, the proposed process is clearly contrary to the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act,2 which requires the EPA to consider public comment in the rulemaking process. We recommend that the June 7, 2019 Guidance Document be immediately rescinded or superseded by new guidance that reflects the contents of the new rule upon its promulgation. Furthermore, we suggest that EPA work with state regulators and professional organizations to update Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification: A Water Quality Protection Tool for States and Tribes (2010), as this document has served as an excellent resource (albeit not formal guidance) for state regulators working in Section 401 WQC. Section III.A. When Section 401 Certification Is Required We recommend that the words “may result” be retained in the sentence “Any applicant for a license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in a discharge shall provide the Federal agency a certification from the certifying authority in accordance with this part.” The EPA should place emphasis on the words “may result” to avoid situations

October 17, 2019 The Honorable Jared Huffman Chairman Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee 1522 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Tom McClintock Ranking Member Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee 1522 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock and the Members of the Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources: The undersigned organizations and businesses write to express our full support of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R.3742), and respectfully request that you support and advance this important piece of legislation through the House Committee on Natural Resources to help conserve America’s most vulnerable fish and wildlife. Collectively, we represent millions of Americans who enjoy the great outdoors and value fish and wildlife. One-third of the fish and wildlife species in the United States are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered. The crisis facing our nation’s fish and wildlife is daunting, but this legislation provides a solution. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will provide state fish and wildlife agencies and Indian Tribes with dedicated resources to address more than 12,000 species in need of proactive, voluntary conservation. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will help recover and conserve species at risk by dedicating $1.3 billion annually for state-led conservation and $97.5 million to Indian Tribes for on-the-ground conservation projects. The legislation funds the implementation of the congressionally-mandated State Wildlife Action Plans, which outline specific, science-based conservation actions necessary to recover and sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations. Similarly, Tribes will expand conservation efforts on their lands, which provide vital habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, including more than 500 species that are listed as threatened or endangered. Taking measures to restore species before they are on the brink of extinction and ensuring healthy populations will help prevent these species from needing costly “emergency room” measures under the Endangered Species Act. Further, ensuring healthy populations of species will also allow businesses and landowners to operate with more regulatory certainty and reduced risk. This collaborative approach to conservation is good for wildlife, good for taxpayers, good for landowners, and good for business. Our nation has a remarkable history of coming together to bring species back from the brink of extinction by funding professional, science-driven fish and wildlife management through partnerships. Eighty years ago, prized game species like elk, wood ducks, wild turkeys, and trout were at the cusp of being lost forever. Instead, hunters and anglers came together to leverage user fees for game species conservation because they understood that preserving wildlife takes a coordinated, consistent investment in collaborative conservation. Today those species are thriving because of that foresight and commitment. Passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will represent the largest investment in conservation funding in more than a generation. This groundbreaking legislation will help ensure that future generations can enjoy the same abundant fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation opportunities that we have today and maybe even more. We appreciate your consideration of our request to support and advance this bill in the 116th Congress. We ask that you join Congresswoman Dingell (D-MI) and Congressman Fortenberry (R-NE) and the 138 bipartisan cosponsors in supporting the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Audubon Audubon Connecticut Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Barry Conservation District Bass Pro Shops Bat Conservation International Big Game Conservation Association Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Bucks County Audubon Society Cabela’s The Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Connecticut Falconers Association Connecticut Ornithological Association Connecticut Waterfowlers Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation The Conservation Fund Cornell Lab of Ornithology Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Fisheries Advisory Council Flathead Audubon Society Forest Landowners Association Frankfort Audubon Society Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Grand Valley State University, Department of Biology Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Hess Corporation Houston Safari Club Foundation Huron Pines I DO AMERICA International Raptor & Falconry Center Izaak Walton League of America Jacklin Rod and Gun Club, Inc. QuietKat, Inc. Kalamazoo Nature Center Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Foundation Kemp Design Services Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Lake Erie Islands Conservancy Maine Audubon Mattabeseck Audubon Society Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation Mojave Desert Land Trust Montana Audubon National Alliance of Forest Owners National Association of State Foresters National Marine Manufacturers Association National Shooting Sports Foundation National Wild Turkey Federation National Wildlife Federation Native American Fish and Wildlife Society Nebraska Land Trust North Dakota Natural Resources Trust Oregon Zoo Outdoor Industry Association Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever Playa Lake Joint Venture Pure Fishing Put-in-Bay Township Park District Quality Deer Management Association Ravenswood Outdoors REI Co-op Richard Childress Racing Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society Seven Mountains Audubon Shell Stocking Savvy Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Toyota Trout Unlimited Village of Middleville, MI White River Marine Group Wildlife Ecology Institute Wildlife Habitat Council Wildlife Management Institute The Wildlife Society World Wildlife Fund Yellowstone River Parks Association cc: Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, Ranking Member Rob Bishop

The American Fisheries Society, the Western Division of AFS, and the AFS Alaska Chapter submitted a joint comment letter this week to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Pebble Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments note that impacts and risks to fish and their habitats are underestimated and are not supported by the data or analysis provided, and that critical information is missing. PDF of joint comment letter June 13, 2019 Program Manager US Army Corps of Engineers 645 G Street, Suite 100-921 Anchorage, AK 99501 Via drafteis@comments.pebbleprojecteis.com Re: Pebble Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the members of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the Western Division of AFS, and the Alaska Chapter of AFS, we respectfully submit the following comments in response to the Pebble Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for public comment on March 1, 2019. AFS represents over 7,500 professional fishery scientists and resource managers who work in the private sector, in academic institutions, and in Tribal, state, and federal agencies. Our common mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. The American Fisheries Society, the Western Division, and Alaska Chapter seek to ensure the best available science is considered throughout the environmental review and permitting for Pebble Mine. Because of the scope of the proposed Pebble Mine, its probable expansion into a larger mine and mining district (Chambers et al. 2012), and the uniqueness of the Bristol Bay region (Woody 2018), AFS and the Western Division of AFS provided comments in 20141 and do so again with the Alaska Chapter of AFS. Bristol Bay is extraordinary because it produces about half of the world’s wild Sockeye Salmon supply with runs averaging 37.5 million fish per year (Chambers et al. 2012; USEPA 2014; Woody 2018). The wild salmon fishery in Bristol Bay has been managed in a sustainable manner since 1884 and was valued at $1.5 billion in 2010. In addition to Sockeye Salmon, Bristol Bay and the watershed support one of the world’s largest remaining wild Chinook Salmon runs and healthy Coho, Chum, and Pink Salmon runs (Johnson and Blossom 2018). These salmon, as well as resident trout, sustain lucrative commercial and recreational fisheries and provide jobs and food security to 25 rural Alaska Native villages and thousands of people. The high salmon production brings huge levels of marine-derived nutrients to the watersheds in which salmon spawn, fueling sustainable populations of grizzly bears, moose, estuarine birds, and indigenous Yup’ik and Dena’ina peoples. The latter peoples represent two of the planet’s last salmon-based subsistence cultures, which were once widespread along the entire North American Pacific Coast. These wilderness-compatible economic sectors support 14,000 workers, including 11,500 in commercial fisheries, 850 in sport fisheries, and 1,800 in sport hunting and recreation (Chambers et al. 2012; USEPA 2014; Woody 2018). Based on our review of the DEIS, we find it fails to meet basic standards of scientific rigor in a region that clearly demands the highest level of scrutiny and thoroughness. The DEIS is an inadequate assessment of the potential impacts of the project. Specifically, as described below, we find the DEIS is deficient because 1) impacts and risks to fish and their habitats are underestimated; 2) many conclusions are not supported by the data or analysis provided; and 3) critical information is missing. 1. Impacts and risks to fish and their habitats are underestimated. Mine Footprint: We have serious concerns about the limited scope of the DEIS. An environmental impact statement is expected to fully disclose the risks and options for safely advancing or altering a proposed project. The limited scope considered for the mine footprint in the DEIS vastly underestimates the threats to fish, fisheries, and the human populations that rely on them. It is misleading to constrain the DEIS to a mining plan that only extracts 12% of the known resource and to ignore Pebble Limited Partnership’s planned expansion and stated purpose to make the mine commercially viable (Chambers et al. 2012). The DEIS acknowledges that the Pebble Project Expansion—a 55% of known resource mine, which would need additional tailings storage, additional water storage, new waste rock storage facilities, a concentrate pipeline, and a deep-water loading facility—is reasonably foreseeable (Table 4.1-1). This profitable mining plan appears to be a 78 to 98-year mine prior to closure as opposed to the 20-year mine prior to closure covered in the DEIS (Chambers et al. 2012). Further, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Pebble Project Expansion would begin within the timeframe of the proposed 20-year mine. The DEIS relegates the expansion to “possible future action” status rather than considering it a practicable alternative. As a consequence, this more likely profitable scenario with its much larger mining footprint is not evaluated for direct or indirect effects but more narrowly for cumulative effects only, thus underestimating the impacts on fish, fish habitat, and humans. Since the Pebble Project Expansion would be 1) dependent on the approval of this initial permit, 2) could not proceed unless this permit is approved previously, and 3) is classified as an “expansion” or an interdependent part of the larger Pebble Mine action and thus depends on the larger action for its justification; it should be evaluated as a potential connected action in the indirect impacts analysis (40 CFR 1508.25 (a)(1)(i-iii).) Diversity of Life History Strategies: The Bristol Bay watershed is pristine with exceptionally high-water quality and habitat diversity, closely connected surface-ground water systems, and an absence of channel fragmentation by roads, pipelines, or dams (Woody 2018). These factors lead to extremely high levels of genetic diversity among hundreds of locally adapted unique salmonid populations, which in turn support high levels of salmon production and system-wide stability. Because of this portfolio effect, there is remarkable annual productivity regionally despite considerable fluctuation in any single river system or any

The American Fisheries Society, National Wildlife Federation, and the Wildlife Society submitted a letter for Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member McClintock on the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife as well as a comprehensive report about the necessities of biodiversity protection and the upcoming Recovering America’s Wildlife Act to be re-introduced.

News for Immediate Release April 15, 2019 Contact: Kristyn Brady, 617-501-6352, kbrady@trcp.org Hunting and Fishing Groups File Final Comments Opposing Clean Water Rollback 14 national groups and 70 local affiliate chapters oppose the proposed weakening of clean water standards that would threaten fish and wildlife habitat (Washington, D.C.) — Today, dozens of national, regional, and local hunting and fishing groups submitted final comments on the EPA’s proposed rollback of Clean Water Act protections for 50 percent of wetlands and 18 percent of stream miles in the U.S. Their comments underscore the potential economic consequences for rural communities and outdoor recreation businesses and the species that stand to lose habitat if clean water standards are weakened. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has also mobilized more than 3,500 individual sportsmen and women to submit comments opposing the rollback during the brief comment period. “At every step of the EPA’s rule replacement process on what waters qualify for Clean Water Act protections, hunters and anglers have been clear about their support for safeguards on headwaters and wetlands,” says Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “The science supports protecting these habitats as interconnected to larger water systems, the economics of defending outdoor recreation opportunities and businesses makes sense, and Americans will continue to stand up for clean water to power their outdoor pursuits.” The groups write that the proposed rule represents a “wholesale gutting of the Clean Water Act’s 47 years of protection for our nation’s waters,” with habitat that supports trout, salmon, pintails, mallards, teal, and snow geese in the crosshairs. Read the detailed comments here. Fourteen national groups and 70 state and local affiliate chapters signed in support. Source: TRCP press release

April 10, 2019 Mr. R.D. James Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20314 Via regulations.gov: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149 Re: Scientific Societies Comments on Proposed Rule – Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” (84 FR 4154; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149) CC: Michael McDavit, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, Office of Water, EPA Jennifer A. Moyer, Regulatory Community of Practice, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dear Administrator Wheeler and Assistant Secretary James: On behalf of the undersigned science societies, we respectfully submit the following comments in response to the proposed Rule “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States” (proposed Rule) (84 FR 4154; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149), published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2019. The undersigned scientific societies represent more than 200,000 individuals with diverse areas of expertise in the aquatic, ecological, hydrologic, biogeochemical, biological and ecological restoration sciences. Our members have deep subject matter expertise and a commitment to independent objectivity and peer-review of science and work in the private sector, academia, and various tribal, state and federal agencies. We support wetland, aquatic, and ecological resource research, education, restoration and sustainable management. We promote the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage and restore our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources for the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. The undersigned societies strongly oppose the proposed Rule and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Agencies) decision to re-write and rescind the science-based definitions contained in the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 CWR). By redefining waters of the United States (WOTUS), and related terms, the Agencies have cast aside the “significant nexus” standard from the 2015 CWR, based on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), in favor of a much narrower standard based on Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rapanos. The proposed Rule is not based on sound science or the best-available peer-reviewed information and will, as a result, exclude numerous waters and wetlands that directly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of primary waters making it impossible to achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA). We fully support the definition of WOTUS in the 2015 CWR, which was overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed science. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development prepared a comprehensive scientific report to accompany the 2015 CWR, the “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence” (herein the “Connectivity Report” but which was described in the 2015 CWR as the “Science Report”). The intent of the CWA is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This can only be achieved if the definition of WOTUS is grounded in sound science and recognizes all five parameters of connectivity (hydrologic, chemical, physical, biological, ecological), as documented in the Connectivity Report (EPA 2015). The Connectivity Report synthesized more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications and provided the technical basis for the 2015 CWR. The 2015 CWR also underwent an extensive stakeholder review process. Since the completion of the Connectivity Report, substantial additional literature has emerged that reaffirms the report and the 2015 CWR (e.g., Cohen et al. 2016, Rains, et al. 2016, Fritz et al. 2018, Harvey et al. 2018, Leibowitz et al. 2018, Schofield et al. 2018, Colvin et al. 2019.) We oppose1 the proposed Rule because it is unsupported by peer-reviewed science. It has not been developed using the critical scientific analysis that supported the 2015 CWR rulemaking process, and it has not been subjected to a rigorous independent scientific review process. The proposed Rule only recognizes a limited subset of connectivity. Its reliance on flow permanence and physical abutment as measures of jurisdiction arbitrarily ignores other aspects of physical connectivity such as bed, banks, and high-water marks, as well as chemical, biological and ecological connectivity. In contrast, the 2015 CWR is built upon a scientific basis that incorporates these elements. The 2015 CWR reflects the best available science regarding connectivity. In essence, what happens to the waters and wetlands in the upper reaches of a watershed, including ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams, will affect downstream waters and wetlands. That is, they are hydrologically, chemically, physically, biologically and ecologically connected to what happens downstream. Aquatic ecosystems cannot function properly without functional biological and chemical connectivity, as well as physical connectivity, and therefore cannot provide essential ecosystem services without it. The functioning of the circulatory system in the human body is a useful metaphor to demonstrate the importance of watershed connectivity. Introduction of toxins, such as cigarette smoke, to the smallest capillaries in the lungs ultimately delivers those toxins to the larger blood vessels and the main organs. The heart itself can ultimately be damaged beyond repair by the cumulative effect of toxins introduced at the peripheries of the circulatory system. The health of the whole organism cannot be preserved without consideration of the smaller features. Watersheds function in a similar way. Pollutants introduced into ephemeral waters and wetlands ultimately make their way to the largest waterways and water bodies with deleterious effects on the functioning of downstream ecosystems. Eliminating protections for smaller, intermittent, non-floodplain, geographically isolated and/or ephemeral waters degrades the large downstream waters in the same way that introduction of toxins to small blood vessels jeopardizes the health of the human body if the toxins are potent enough and in large enough quantities. Restoring and maintaining the structural and functional integrity of the Nation’s waters is only possible if the ephemeral and headwater aquatic systems are protected. Many of the definitions and terms in the proposed Rule lack clarity, are not based in science or the criteria for determining jurisdiction are not based in science. Particularly problematic are the definitions for “adjacent”, “intermittent”, and “tributary” as discussed below. Adjacent: The Agencies have proposed a significant re-definition of “adjacent” that strays from the

Highway Bill Presents Golden Opportunity to Support Conservation and Outdoor Recreation 43 groups offer input as lawmakers craft infrastructure legislation (Washington D.C.) — “A paradigm shift.” That’s what 43 hunting, fishing, and conservation groups are calling for as lawmakers begin drafting infrastructure legislation. With the current Highway Bill expiring in 2020, these organizations are asking Congress to invest in natural infrastructure, recreational access, improved permitting, and fish and wildlife habitat connectivity as lawmakers address resilient highway systems and federal roads. “Improvements to our road systems can benefit wildlife habitat and hunting and fishing access, rather than detract from them,” said Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “And now is the perfect time for Congress to invest in lasting solutions for our fish, wildlife, and outdoor way of life. Hunters and anglers are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with lawmakers to draft legislation that takes a wholistic approach to infrastructure.” “The Association is supportive of this legislation that is offering states the opportunity to increase their conservation efforts of fish and wildlife,” said Ron Regan, executive director for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. “The next Highway Bill will reauthorize funds that are the backbone of great fisheries management and conservation work, as well as access for boating and fishing that is provided by state fish and wildlife agencies across the country.” “Collisions with vehicles and severed migratory movements are two key issues impacting mule deer and other big game species that need to be addressed in the next transportation bill,” said Miles Moretti, president and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation. “The states need dedicated funding to ensure wildlife crossings are a priority in the future and not simply a ‘nice to have’ project if extra funds are available.” “Conservation of our lands, waters, and wildlife is essential to our economy and well-being, so decisions about how to answer challenges like our highway infrastructure should include nature-based solutions,” said Kameran Onley, director of U.S. government relations at The Nature Conservancy. “For example, enlarging culverts to allow for increased flow of water during extreme rain events not only saves money by preventing future road and bridge damage, but also enhances wildlife and fish habitat. Solutions like these are cost-effective investments that generate impressive returns for all Americans, and we urge Congress to make those investments in the upcoming highway bill.” “Forest roads are essential to get us to the places we like to fish, but if they’re not properly designed and maintained, they can harm fisheries by causing sedimentation and habitat fragmentation,” said Steve Moyer, vice president for government affairs at Trout Unlimited. “That’s why the transportation bill and programs like Legacy Roads and Trails are so important to anglers. National forests provide some of our best trout habitat, and Legacy Roads and Trails has provided funds that can be leveraged with other sources to right-size our road system and reconnect hundreds of miles of trout streams.” “Transportation infrastructure on the National Wildlife Refuge System, including roads, trails, and bridges, is critical to providing the American people with safe access to their public lands and waters,” said Geoffrey Haskett, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. “The 2020 Transportation Bill’s inclusion of funding for the Refuge System to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure is critical to the 53 million annual refuge visitors and their recreational needs. Creating proper wildlife crossings and signage will also protect people and wildlife from vehicular collisions.” “We welcome Congress’s steadfast commitment to passing a robust highway reauthorization bill in 2020 and encourage them to seize the opportunity by including a ‘Recreation Title’ in a comprehensive infrastructure package this year,” said Nicole Vasilaros, senior vice president of government and legal affairs for the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “Outdoor recreation is a significant part of the U.S. economy—contributing 2.2 percent of the U.S. GDP and supporting 4.5 million American jobs—and it behooves lawmakers to put our industry front and center in any infrastructure-related debate.” “Conservation lands—and the stewards of those lands—are impacted by transportation and public works projects in profound and often overlooked ways,” said Ben Jones, president and CEO of the Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society. “We appreciate the attention of our conservation partners and leaders in Congress to address such issues as promoting nature-based, resilient transportation systems and taking a needs-based assessment to funding road maintenance for our national forests and other lands.” “As we continue to learn more about big game migration corridors and related barriers, it is imperative that we better integrate infrastructure planning with our wildlife connectivity needs,” said Dan Forster, vice president and chief conservation officer of the Archery Trade Association. “We are very excited to see improved integration efforts manifest themselves through these ongoing efforts.” “Transportation systems are important in many ways to our human qualities of life, as are the natural landscapes through which these corridors occur,” said Tom Logan, chairman of the Board for Fly Fishers International. “Both values can only be assured, though, if future transportation planning considers the biological function and value of the nation’s land, water, fish, and wildlife. The 2020 transportation bill provides an excellent opportunity to establish smart environmental planning as the standard for protecting our public lands and waters, while maintaining our nation’s transportation systems.” “Lack of habitat connectivity and water quality are two of the largest problems impacting fish species right now, and this includes popular recreational species and imperiled species alike,” said Doug Austen, executive director of the American Fisheries Society. “However, small investments in better road design can pay big dividends for both fish and people by providing better flood prevention, reconnected stream habitats, and improved durability for extreme weather events, especially for road-stream crossings.” The groups’ letter to Senate lawmakers can be found HERE. Source: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership press release

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists February 22, 2019 Mr. Andrew R. Wheeler Acting Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Mr. R.D. James Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20314 Via regulations.gov: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149 Re: Request for 200-day Comment Period and Additional Public Hearings on Proposed Rule – Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” (84 FR 4154; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149) Dear Administrator Wheeler and Assistant Secretary James: On behalf of the undersigned organizations representing 20,000 wetland and aquatic science professionals, we respectfully request that EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers extend the public comment period from 60 days to a minimum of 200 days in length for the proposed rule “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” (84 FR 4154; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149). We also request that EPA hold additional public hearings in different geographic locations to gather sufficient and extensive input on the proposed rule. For example, over 400 meetings were held with a wide range of stakeholders during the process of developing the 2015 Clean Water Rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559) does not specify a minimum or maximum period for a comment period to remain open, the duration of a comment period often varies with the complexity of the proposed rule. In this regard, the Agencies provided a 6-month comment period for the 2015 Clean Water Rule. Over one million comments were submitted regarding the 2015 Clean Water Rule, and it seems likely that a similar level of interest and engagement will attend the proposed “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’”, which inarguably has the potential to profoundly affect implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), one of the nation’s landmark and most comprehensive environmental laws. Because of this potential, EPA should provide sufficient time and resources to the stakeholder community, including the wetland and aquatic science professionals represented by the undersigned organizations for their review of the proposed rule, and in acknowledgement of the benefits that will be provided based on this community’s collective knowledge and expertise. The risk of unintended consequences and adverse long-term effects resulting from such a sweeping rule must be addressed with diligence and caution. As addressed in EPA’s own statements to the press, this risk is further complicated by the unavailability of quality data to complete rigorous analyses in a short timeframe. Therefore, 60 days is not sufficient to allow for an adequate, scientifically defensible review, as called for by the complexity and scope of the proposed rule. Additionally, a robust and geographically extensive public meeting program on a par with that of the 2015 Clean Water Rule is important in order to ensure that stakeholder concerns are identified and addressed, and that there is sufficient time for the public to conduct a thorough and science-based review of the proposed rule. Wetlands and headwater streams provide essential services to communities, such as protection of drinking water quality and quantity, provision of flood storage, storm damage prevention, resilience against sea level rise and drought, and essential fish, shellfish, waterfowl and wildlife habitat. The economic value of these services is inestimable and is increasing as we face increasing risks from storms, drought, wildfires and rising seas. Wetlands occupy a small portion of the landscape yet deliver outsized benefits and economic value to society. Many of our members participated in preparation of the EPA’s 2013 “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence”1 report that documents the connectivity of wetlands and headwaters to downstream waters and would appreciate the opportunity to contribute their scientific expertise to a public comment process of sufficient length to allow for meaningful input from stakeholders. CASS is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Those members work in the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. CASS represents professional scientists and managers with deep subject matter expertise, a commitment to independent objectivity, and the critical review of environmental information. We support the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. Thank you for considering this extension request. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Drue Banta Winters by email at dwinters@fisheries.org or telephone at 301-897-8616. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society International Association for Great Lakes Research North American Lake Management Society Phycological Society of America Society for Freshwater Science Society of Wetland Scientists CC: Michael McDavit, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, Office of Water, EPA Jennifer A. Moyer, Regulatory Community of Practice, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2013 Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-11/098B. Docket # EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149

December 21, 2018 Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 R.D. James Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Department of the Army 108 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20310-0108 Email delivery to: OW-Docket@epa.gov RE: Request for Extension to Comment on Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0149 Dear Acting Administrator Wheeler and Assistant Secretary James: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation groups respectfully urge your agencies to extend the period during which you will accept citizen input on the comment period for the above-referenced docket to ensure at least a 200-day comment period to address the agencies’ proposal to replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The planned 60-day comment period minimizes the input of the more than one million people who participated in the development of the 2015 Rule and more than 685,000 people who submitted comments during the initial attempt to repeal the Rule. It is also an inadequate amount of time for stakeholders to engage meaningfully in this rulemaking process. Many of our members and supporters are currently out pursuing their hunting passions, and a shortened comment period leaves them with little time to voice their opinions about a rulemaking that will greatly affect their way of life. EPA and the Army Corps adopted the 2015 Clean Water Rule to clarify longstanding confusion over which water bodies were protected under the Clean Water Act. The Rule was also based upon well-established legal interpretations of the Clean Water Act, closely tracking Justice Kennedy’s pivotal “significant nexus” standard for determining the “waters of the U.S.” With this rulemaking, the agencies propose to remove Clean Water Act protections for streams that only flow following rainfall, as well as wetlands that are not physically connected to larger waterways. Based on the Army Corps and EPA’s own analysis, at least 18 percent of stream miles and 51% of wetlands nationwide would lose Clean Water Act protections, irreversibly harming the habitat for fish and wildlife that hunters and anglers rely on. Given the agencies’ numerous requests for detailed feedback during this comment period and the length of the comment period for the 2015 Rule, a minimum of a 200-day comment period should be required. Replacing the 2015 Clean Water Rule would have significant ramifications our nation’s waters and for the effective and efficient implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. For a rule of this nature, the agencies must provide an opportunity for “meaningful and informed” comment. S. Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, Case # 2:18 cv 00330-DCN, D. Ct. (S. Car.) (8/16/18). That court found the abbreviated public comment period for the administration’s attempt to delay the effective date of the 2015 Clean Water Rule an important factor in its ruling that the delay rulemaking was invalid under the Administrative Procedures Act. This proposed rulemaking must be subject to the same rigorous review applied to the 2015 Clean Water Rule, developed over four years during which the agencies held 400 meetings with a variety of stakeholders including small business owners, farmers, energy companies, states, counties, municipalities, other federal agencies, sportsmen and conservation groups, and environmental organizations. Additionally, the agencies allowed for more than 200 days of public comment that generated over one million comments, and supported the 2015 rulemaking with a 408-page scientific justification. Yet the Army Corps and the EPA propose to replace the Rule with virtually no public process aside from an informal request for recommendations. In view of the significant ramifications of proposed Rule and the fact that the agencies have provided no scientific basis for changing the existing rule, the public comment period for this proposal should be at least 200 days from the publication of the proposal in the federal register and the public posting of all relevant supporting documents. Respectfully submitted, American Fisheries Society American Woodcock Society Angler Action Foundation Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) Colorado Trout Unlimited Fly Fishers International Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation Izaak Walton League of America Montana Trout Unlimited National Deer Alliance National Wildlife Federation Pheasants Forever Pope & Young Club Quail Forever Ruffed Grouse Society Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited

News for Immediate Release December 11, 2018 Contact: Kristyn Brady, 617-501-6352, kbrady@trcp.org Replacing Clean Water Rule Would Threaten Fish, Waterfowl, and Outdoor Recreation Economy The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proceeds with rolling back Clean Water Act protections for headwater streams and wetlands—harming trout, waterfowl, and outdoor recreation businesses.  WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers took the next step to replace an Obama-era rule that benefited headwater streams and wetlands across the country. The new rule would redefine which waters are eligible for Clean Water Act protections and leave important habitat for fish and waterfowl vulnerable to pollution and destruction. The rule proposed today would remove Clean Water Act protections for ephemeral streams, which only flow in response to rainfall, and likely excludes intermittent streams, which only flow during wet seasons. These waters are important for fish and wildlife, especially in the West. Under the new rule, adjacent wetlands will only receive protection if they are physically connected to other jurisdictional waters. This disregards the EPA’s own research that shows wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent streams, even those that lack surface connection, provide important biological and chemical functions that affect downstream waters. “No matter which party holds the power in Washington, the needs of America’s hunters and anglers have not changed since we supported the 2015 Clean Water Rule—all streams and wetlands are crucial to supporting healthy fish and waterfowl populations that power our sports, and an entire swath of these important habitats does not deserve to be overlooked or written off on a technicality,” says Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “Sportsmen and women will remain engaged in the public process of creating a new rule for how our smaller streams and wetlands are regulated, because our quintessentially American traditions in the outdoors depend on it.” “The agencies’ refusal to consider the science is detrimental to the integrity and security of our fish and wildlife resources,” says Doug Austen, executive director of the American Fisheries Society. “Headwater streams are key to the sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters. Now, species that are already in trouble will be harder to recover, and more species will be at risk of becoming imperiled. Loss of protections for these waters will have grave ecological consequences for fish and fisheries—and ultimately the communities across the U.S. will lose the economic, social, and cultural benefits that are derived from headwater streams.” “This proposal is fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: It focuses on the wrong criteria—continuous flow of water—rather than protecting water quality in our rivers, lakes, and drinking water reservoirs,” says Scott Kovarovics, executive director of the Izaak Walton League of America. “This misguided approach is completely unsupported by science and common sense, and it not only jeopardizes public health, it will undermine the $887-billion outdoor recreation economy.” The Obama administration finalized its Clean Water Rule in 2015 and clarified that the Clean Water Act protects smaller streams and wetlands. The Trump administration’s rule embraces the minority opinion written by late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on what constitutes the “Waters of the U.S.” Scalia’s definition was not adopted by the Supreme Court and is not supported by hunters and anglers. In fact, 80 percent of sportsmen and women in a 2018 poll said Clean Water Act protections should apply to headwater streams and wetlands. Additionally, 92 percent believe that we should strengthen or maintain current clean water standards, not relax them. “The administration’s new proposal turns its back on the importance of small headwater streams to healthy waterways and sportfishing recreation,” says Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “Small headwater streams are like the roots of our trees, the capillaries of our arteries. Sportsmen and women know that all the benefits of our larger streams, rivers, and bays downstream are dependent on the health of our small streams.” Today’s proposed rulemaking would roll back protections on diverse wetland habitats, including prairie potholes in the Great Plains region. Also known as America’s duck factory, these wetlands support more than 50 percent of our country’s migratory waterfowl. Since the Supreme Court created confusion about the application of the Clean Water Act in the 2000s, America has experienced accelerated wetlands loss—only 40 to 50 percent of the original prairie potholes remain. “From wetlands in the prairie potholes region to the riparian areas that are critical to 80 percent of all wildlife—including big game—our hunting and fishing traditions can’t exist without clean water,” says Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Hunters and anglers will not stand for shortsighted policies that weaken protections and threaten the integrity of fish and wildlife habitats currently safeguarded by bedrock conservation laws like the Clean Water Act.” The new rulemaking could also threaten America’s outdoor recreation businesses and communities that rely on tourism spending related to hunting and fishing. “No one who loves the outdoors wants to fish a lake covered in toxic algae, duck hunt near a bulldozed wetland, or pitch a tent next to sewage ditch,” says Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Yet more water pollution is exactly what will happen if the administration dismantles clean water protections. It’s bad for wildlife, and it’s bad for the nearly 8 million jobs powered by the outdoor recreation economy.” Today’s proposal will be published in the Federal Register here. At that time, the public will have 60 days to comment.

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists Aquatic Scientists Push Back Against Narrow WOTUS Rule The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) is deeply concerned with the proposed rule issued today by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule (Waters of the United States Rule or WOTUS). We urge the agencies to consider the far-reaching implications to our nation’s fish and aquatic resources, wildlife and communities from a narrower rule and call for any re-definition of ”Waters of the United States” to be informed by science. More than a half century of scientific research has unequivocally demonstrated that the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depend on ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial headwater streams, as well as the myriad associated lakes, wetlands, and off-channel habitats. Research specifically shows that downstream waters rely on headwaters and their associated wetland habitats for: uptake, retention, transformation and transport of nutrients and contaminants; control of runoff, streamflow and floodwaters moderation of water temperature and sediment delivery; food, thermal refuges, spawning sites, nursery areas and essential habitat for unique plants and animals, including numerous threatened and endangered species as well as recreationally and commercially important species. Dr. Arnold van der Valk, Immediate Past President, Society of Wetland Scientists and a professor at Iowa State University, decried the decision by the Trump administration to replace the current WOTUS rule and noted, “It will result in the loss of many of the nation’s wetlands. This decision is short-sighted and counterproductive. It will significantly reduce the multitude of ecosystem services that these wetlands currently provide us at no cost.  As a result the taxpayers will have to pay to build elaborate and expensive infrastructure to replace these free ecosystem services, such as flood reduction and cleaning up polluted water.” Dr. Robert Twilley, Past President of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation and a professor at Louisiana State University, said: “Estuaries and coastal waters rely on clean water from upland watersheds to support productive, commercially, and recreationally valuable fisheries of the United States.  The definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ was a joint effort of industry, private landowners, and government that recognized the importance of headland and other wetlands in providing the water quality that supports downstream economies.” Dr. Douglas Austen, Executive Director of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), noted that “the 2015 Clean Water Rule provided a scientifically sound definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ The move to replace the rule puts America’s headwater streams and wetlands at greater risk of being destroyed or polluted and imperils fish and aquatic resources.” CASS is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Those members work in the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. CASS represents professional scientists and managers with deep subject matter expertise, a commitment to independent objectivity, and the critical review of environmental information. We support the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. For more information, please contact: Ms. Drue Banta Winters dwinters@fisheries.org PH 301/897-8616 x202

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing on the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act entitled, “Examining Funding Needs for Wildlife Conservation, Recovery, and Management” on Thursday, November 15 at 10 a.m. Is your senator on the commiteee? If so, you and/or your Chapter should call to your Senator’s office to express your support for the bill and ask them to attend the hearing and speak in favor of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Letter regarding the hearing sent by the Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife: November 8, 2018 The Honorable Thomas Carper Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, The United States is facing an historic fish and wildlife conservation crisis that could alter future Americans’ opportunities to benefit from our natural heritage. However, this challenge also presents an opportunity to address the dramatic decline of so many species of fish and wildlife and the habitats they depend on. Without much needed investments in proactive conservation, we could see widespread impacts on the fundamental life benefits provided by nature such as water purification and aquifer recharge, flood abatement, pollination, recreation and food and fiber production that are essential to human health. These species declines threaten Americans’ quality of life, and our economy, and create regulatory uncertainty for businesses and industries, further impacting jobs and the health of our communities. Fortunately, solutions exist to reverse this decline and bolster our economy. We write to respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) hold a hearing and markup to advance the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S.3223), introduced in July by Senators Risch, Manchin, Alexander and Heitkamp. We believe this legislation is a key part of a critical solution towards addressing the imminent challenges facing America’s fish and wildlife. Many of us came together to serve on the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources, consisting of members representing the outdoor recreation industry, retail and manufacturing sector, energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, hunters and anglers, other conservation groups, and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. Together, our industries represent more than a trillion dollars of economic impact, millions of non-exportable jobs, and tens of millions of members, consumers and constituents across the country, all who rely on healthy fish and wildlife populations. Today we remain united in support of legislation implementing the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations as the Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will help recover species at risk by authorizing $1.3 billion annually from existing royalty revenues generated by the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters. The funds will be apportioned to state fish and wildlife agencies (state agencies) to implement proactive conservation programs. Specifically, S. 3223 would direct funds to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration subaccount that was established pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937. The funds will be leveraged using a twenty-five percent nonfederal match and will also be utilized by new and existing public/private partnerships, many of which are already producing positive outcomes to conserve more fish, wildlife and habitat on the ground. Doing so will arm state agencies with the resources needed to assist in the restoration and recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species like the Wood Bison, Red Knot and the Gopher Tortoise, while also preventing other species from being listed. Furthermore, this legislation will provide more certainty to landowners, sportsmen and women, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, retail businesses, the energy and manufacturing industries and many other stakeholder groups. We further urge Congress to enact the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act with mandatory funding, which would ensure financial certainty to states, and allow them to plan and implement multi-year conservation projects. The House version of this bill, H.R. 4647, includes a dedicated funding mechanism currently. We applaud the leadership of this committee in your pursuit of solutions to our most pressing conservation challenges in a way that does not place an additional burden on taxpayers. This legislation utilizes an innovative approach to the conservation of our treasured natural resources while simultaneously strengthening our economy and saving federal dollars in the long-run. During a recent hearing in your committee on the Successful State Conservation, Recovery, and Management of Wildlife, there was a mention of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act as a path forward to securing the necessary resources to empower our state managers to get ahead of the endangered species backlog that may occur if adequate and sustained funding is not dedicated to this pressing problem. To continue this important discussion, we encourage your committee to hold a hearing and markup on S.3223. Our nation has a proud history of addressing massive conservation challenges, including bringing species back from the brink of extinction by helping fund professional fish and wildlife management. This legislation presents the opportunity for Congress to provide future generations of Americans the same opportunities that we have had in our lifetimes to enjoy our treasured natural resources. Together we can build a brighter economic future that includes conservation of our fish and wildlife and helps sustain our communities. We the undersigned appreciate your consideration of our request for action on this important legislation. cc: Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Schumer Sincerely, Members of the Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife: American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Audubon Audubon Connecticut Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Barry Conservation District Bass Pro Shops Bat Conservation International Big Game Conservation Association Cabela’s The Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Connecticut Falconers Association Connecticut Ornithological Association Connecticut Waterfowlers Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation The Conservation Fund Cornell Lab of Ornithology Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Fisheries Advisory Council Forest Landowners Association Grand Valley State University, Department of Biology Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Hess Corporation Houston Safari Club Huron Pines Izaak Walton League of America Jacklin Rod and Gun Club, Inc. Kalamazoo Nature Center Kemp Design Services Lake Erie Islands Conservancy Mattabeseck Audubon Society Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation Montana Audubon National Alliance

AFS joined with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society in a letter to congressional appropriators to express support for the Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program at the U.S. Geological Survey as they finalize the FY2019 Interior Appropriations bills.  The organizations requested funding for the CRUs at the House-adopted level of $19.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million above the FY2018 appropriation to operate the program and fill critical staff vacancies. The program brings together scientists with universities, state and local natural resource agencies, and managers in the field in order to solve real-world natural resource management issues, while at the same time training the next generation of researchers and managers. The units work to address a host of real-world problems, ranging from diseases impacting wildlife and the marine aquaculture industry to minimizing the impacts of energy exploration on rare and declining species, to combatting the threats posed by invasive species, as well as many other concerns that directly impact our fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. Because the units have been so effective and productive, several states which currently do not have CRUs have expressed interest in creating new units. September 12, 2018 The Honorable Tom Udall Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Interior Committee on Appropriations U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Betty McCollum Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Interior Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairwoman Murkowski, Chairman Calvert, and Ranking Members Udall and McCollum: On behalf of the state fish and wildlife agencies and U.S. fish and wildlife conservation professionals, we are writing to express our appreciation for your support for the Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program at the U.S. Geological Survey in your respective FY2019 Interior Appropriations bills. We write to request your continued support for the program as the appropriations process moves forward. More specifically, we respectfully request that you fund the CRUs at the House-adopted level of $19.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million above the FY2018 appropriation. Both committees and chambers have recognized the importance of the CRU program by approving increases for it. As you know, the program truly is cooperative and collaborative in nature, bringing together scientists with universities, state and local natural resource agencies, and managers in the field in order to solve real-world natural resource management issues, while at the same time training the next generation of researchers and managers. The units work to address a host of real-world problems, ranging from diseases impacting wildlife and the marine aquaculture industry to minimizing the impacts of energy exploration on rare and declining species, to combatting the threats posed by invasive species, as well as many other concerns that directly impact our fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. All of this work is being performed while numerous CRU units around the country are facing staff vacancies. Both committees have noted this problem in their respective reports. While some units’ vacancy problems are more acute than others, there is a critical need to ensure that more personnel are hired for the currently existing vacant positions in the system. The House report notes, in part: “The Committee recognizes the value of the Cooperative Research Units (CRUs) program and rejects the proposed elimination of the program. The recommendation includes an additional $1,916,000 for the purposes of filling critical vacancies at research institutions as quickly as practicable.” In its report, the Senate committee states: “The Committee notes that USGS Cooperative Research Units [CRU] have served as a cooperative network with Interior partners to improve and increase youth involvement in science and resources management. The Committee recognizes the value of these programs in building the workforce of tomorrow and strongly encourages the Survey to develop a plan and address open research positions at research institutions and fill open positions at CRUs as quickly as practicable to support the educational pipeline.” In addition, because the units have been so effective and productive, several states which currently do not have CRUs have expressed interest in creating new units. We respectfully request that the conferees adopt the House-approved level of $19.3 million so that the critical work being performed by the CRUs can continue and be augmented by filling open vacancies and address the interest in creating new units in an appropriate manner. Sincerely, Virgil Moore, President Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Dr. Douglas Austen, Executive Director American Fisheries Society Dr. John E. McDonald, Jr., President The Wildlife Society Dr. Steven Williams, President Wildlife Management Institute

AFS joined with a number of organizations and professional societies in calling for support of the Forest Service’s Research and Development (R&D) program to improve the future health and sustainability of the nation’s forests and grasslands for the benefits to forests, wildlife, and fish.  In a letter to Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ranking Member Tom Udall (D-N.M.) of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, the organizations and professional societies urged Congress to increase funding for all Forest Service R&D to a minimum of $307 million in FY 2019.      Forest Service R&D programs inform policy and land-management decisions that improve health and use of the nation’s forests and rangelands, including aquatic systems. Using stream temperature and fish data, Forest Service R&D scientists are developing important tools to inform and enhance management and conservation of aquatic resources. Projects like Climate Shield produce spatially-precise and user-friendly digital maps to guide conservation efforts in key watersheds. This tool forecasts specific locations that are most likely to continue supporting native cutthroat trout and ESA-listed bull trout based on future temperature scenarios. AFS is proud to support the important work of fisheries scientists in the Forest Service’s Research and Development program. Read the letter here

45 Members of the Senate have signed a letter supporting “robust funding” for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program in the fiscal year 2019 federal budget.  The ‘Dear Colleagues’ letter was delivered to Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ranking Member Tom Udall (D-N.M.) of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant (STWG) program is slated to be cut in half by President Trump’s proposed budget for the Interior Department. STWG is the only federal program that directly assists state agencies in developing and executing state wildlife action plans. These plans are crucial to conservation of more than 12,000 species of greatest conservation need. This funding is more important than ever to fulfill the shared federal-state and tribal responsibility for sustaining our nation’s fish and wildlife. The proposed budget cuts underscores the need for a dedicated source of funding for proactive conservation of imperiled species, like the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act.  The STWG program is currently subject to annual appropriations and the funding is insufficient to meet the scale of the wildlife crisis in our country. The letter campaign was led by Senators Mike Crapo (R.-Idaho) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). The American Fisheries Society worked alongside the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Wildlife Society to encourage Senators to sign the letter. Read the letter here

UPDATE: The Pebble Limited Partnership has filed its permit application with the Corps of Engineers which has determined that it will conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with its NEPA review of the project. The lengthy process requires that a comprehensive “alternatives assessment” be undertaken to consider a broad range of development alternatives and an opportunity for public comment. The American Fisheries Society (AFS) submitted a letter in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to withdraw its July 2014 Clean Water Act 404(c) Proposed Determination to restrict the use of certain waters as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed. AFS objected to the withdrawal of the proposed determination and recommended that the EPA use its authority to prevent the elimination and/or impairment of waters and wetlands supporting the extraordinarily prolific, sustainable, all-wild Bristol Bay salmon fisheries. AFS expressed concern that EPA’s settlement agreement with the Pebble Limited Partnership would clear the way for a project whose impacts to fisheries and the watershed cannot be adequately reduced or mitigated. Bristol Bay’s unimpaired watersheds and wild, sustainable, commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries represent an extraordinarily rare resource of national and global importance.  The area boasts the world’s largest and most valuable wild salmon fisheries. AFS seeks to ensure the best available science is considered in a decision such as this that removes protections for the watershed and the fisheries resource that rely on it and asked the EPA to consider its own report, “An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.” AFS believes the report is an “indispensable resource to inform decision-makers of the costs, benefits, and risks to public salmon resources from proposed mining activities in Bristol Bay.” Read AFS’s letter to the EPA here. The public comment period closes October 17.  Stand up for Bristol Bay, submit your comments here.