[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 26, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-449 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Vice Chair Islands
George P. Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Grace F. Napolitano, California
Carolina Tom Udall, New Mexico
Chris Cannon, Utah Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Jim Costa, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Dan Boren, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Rick Renzi, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Jay Inslee, Washington
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Mark Udall, Colorado
Thelma Drake, Virginia Dennis Cardoza, California
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Carolina Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Thelma Drake, Virginia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 26, 2005........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from
Guam, Prepared statement of................................ 87
Letter from David T. Lotz, President, Guam Boonie
Stompers, submitted for the record..................... 89
Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement submitted for the record.... 94
List of National Wildlife Refuge System units closed to
the public submitted for the record.................... 95
Letter to Steven Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, submitted for the record............. 106
Response to letter from Steven Williams submitted for the
record................................................. 107
Letter to Steve Thompson, Operations Manager, California/
Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, submitted for the record...................... 111
Response from Steve Thompson submitted for the record.... 112
Statement of Witnesses:
Allphin, Robert C., Jr., Fair Access to Island Refuges....... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
D'Angelo, James M., M.D., President and Chairman,
International Midway Memorial Foundation................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Dudley, Dr. William S., Immediate Past Director of Naval
History, U.S. Department of the Navy, representing the
International Midway Memorial Foundation................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Farrell, Bradley A., Fair Access to Island Refuges........... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Hartwig, William, Assistant Director for the National
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 62
Hilding, Eric, Project NA-178, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 97
Letters submitted for the record......................... 100
Langelius, Robert, Sr., President, Eastern U.S. Free Flight
Conference................................................. 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Mathewson, Dave, District 2 Vice President, Academy of Model
Aeronautics................................................ 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Additional materials supplied:
Hirsche, Evan, President, National Wildlife Refuge
Association, Statement submitted for the record............ 103
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 118
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SYSTEM
----------
Thursday, May 26, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone, Duncan, Drake,
Kind, and Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be submitted
to the record.
We look forward to the testimony this morning on access to
U.S. wildlife refuges. We are here to understand those of you
who feel that access is not readily accessible. We are here to
understand what activities you feel are compatible with
wildlife in those refuges. We are also here to try to
understand the role of Fish and Wildlife in adhering to and
implementing the statutes that we pass here in Congress. We
want to blend all this information, to understand and know how
much money needs to be appropriated to accommodate all of these
activities.
I had a fascinating discussion last night with a Mike
Johnson on Sand Island at Midway. I had a discussion with one
of the Chugach employees who is a contractor on Sand Island. I
had to say they were a little surprised, and wondered whether
it was a crank call.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I also talked to a Barbara Maxwell and a
Jerry Leneky, in Honolulu, to have some understanding of what
is going on in Midway, the access that people have. There are
cruises, I understand, that go to Midway from Honolulu. There
is one that will dock there June the 1st, mostly World War II
veterans, to take tours of the battle area; to take tours of
Sand Island and Eastern Island; to look at the some 700,000 to
1 million albatross there and other wildlife.
So what we are going to try to do here this morning is to
ensure that the refuges, whether they are in New York or the
Caribbean or Midway or some other place in the United States,
are protected, restored to bring back the prodigious bounty of
nature that once abounded there; and to do as much as we can
for the taxpayer, for individuals--whether you are flying an
airplane, or whether you want to visit a national historic site
because you visited that site when you were 50 or 60 years
younger than you are today--and have access to that, because it
is your tax dollars that have created and maintained and
sustained all of these refuges.
So we are going to look into this deeply. This will be our
first hearing, but we will continue to pursue information so
that whatever is appropriate, we have the appropriate amount of
information to facilitate those activities.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming this
morning. We look forward to your testimony. I will yield now to
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans
Good morning, Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight
hearing on public access within the unique network of Federal lands
known as the National Wildlife Refuge System.
It is now 102 years since President Theodore Roosevelt established
the first wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. Since that time,
the Refuge System has grown to 545 units that comprise 97 million acres
of land and are located in every state and U.S. Territory.
Eight years ago, Congress enacted an historic organic act for the
Refuge System. One of the fundamental features of that law was the
establishment of six priority, but not exclusive, wildlife-dependent
recreational uses.
By all reports, the Refuge System is widely popular with the
American people. In fact, more than 39 million people visited one or
more refuges last year.
Nevertheless, over the past five years, this Subcommittee has heard
from a number of taxpayers who have been denied the opportunity to
visit or engage in a recreational activity that is not one of the six
priority uses.
The purpose of today's hearing is twofold. First, we want to get a
better idea why 88 National Wildlife Refuge units, which represent 16
percent of the System's total, are entirely closed to the public. In my
own district, the rapidly disappearing Susquehanna River National
Wildlife Refuge is off limits to visitors. And, secondly, why have
certain recreational activities been banned from units within the
System?
From my perspective, the most troubling closure is at the Midway
Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Later this year, we will celebrate the
60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in the Pacific.
There was no battle more important in that conflict than the Battle of
Midway. It was clearly the turning point of the war, and the last time
the Japanese were able to mount an offensive operation. In fact, in
testimony before this Committee in 1998, Admiral Thomas Moorer referred
to Midway as our battle of Trafalgar.
Yet, since January 2002, the visitors program at Midway Atoll has
been closed and it is now virtually impossible for World War II
veterans, naval historians and wildlife enthusiasts to visit the
island. There have been many questions raised about the Fish and
Wildlife Service's enthusiasm for visitors on Midway. I am looking
forward to being assured by the Service that once the airport
management issue has been resolved, every effort will be made to resume
the visitors program. This is the least we can do for those who
sacrificed so much for this great country.
I now recognize the Ranking Democratic Member, the Gentleman from
New Jersey, Congressman Frank Pallone.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say
good morning to our witnesses assembled here. I am eager to
begin this hearing, so that my comments, hopefully, will be
brief.
Not long ago, the National Wildlife Refuge System, our only
system of Federal lands dedicated exclusively for fish and
wildlife conservation, was commonly referred to as a hidden
jewel. But after reading through the background material and
testimony for today's hearing, I am afraid that this system may
be a victim of its own success.
Today, the refuge system faces public demand for expanded
opportunities to observe and enjoy the fish and wildlife
resources. This demand is perhaps best expressed by annual
public visitation that is close to 40 million visitors. And
while we should celebrate that our refuges are no longer
anonymous, increased public interest brings with it new
challenges and new conflicts.
To a certain extent, Congress anticipated this paradox
when, in 1997, it passed the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act and established a clear ``wildlife first''
mission for the refuge system. The Congress also specified that
wildlife-dependent recreational activities were to be the
priority, but not exclusive, public uses allowed within the
system.
It is also clear, however, that Congress intended the
refuge system to remain accessible for other types of outdoor
recreation, as required under the Refuge Recreation Act.
Otherwise, Congress would have repealed the requirements of
that Act.
Now, today we will hear described circumstances of three
unrelated situations at separate refuges. At each of these,
different proposals for non-wildlife-dependent recreation
activities were denied permits or access by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. These situations all raise legitimate policy
questions about access to remote areas, compatible use, health
and safety concerns, and management constraints caused by
shrinking operating budgets.
And we need to examine these circumstances carefully. While
we want our refuges to be open and accessible for recreational
use, these places must remain as safe havens for our Nation's
fish, birds, and other wildlife. The ``wildlife first'' mission
must remain the bedrock foundation to guide refuge management
now and in the future.
And in closing, just let me say that I am sympathetic to
the dilemma confronting refuge managers. Many managers do their
best to provide opportunities for public access. And if the
Congress can clarify policy to make their jobs easier, we
should consider doing so.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning to our
witnesses assembled here today. I am eager to begin this hearing so my
comments will be brief.
Not too long ago the National Wildlife Refuge System B our only
system of Federal lands dedicated exclusively for fish and wildlife
conservation B was commonly referred to as a ``hidden jewel.'' But
after reading through the background memo and testimony for today's
hearing, I am afraid that the System may be a victim of its own
success.
Today the Refuge System faces public demand for expanded
opportunities to observe and enjoy fish and wildlife resources. This
demand is perhaps best expressed by annual public visitation that is
close to 40 million visitors. And while we should celebrate that our
refuges are no longer anonymous, increased public interest brings with
it new challenges and new conflicts.
To a certain extent Congress anticipated this paradox when in 1997
it passed the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act and established
a clear ``Wildlife First'' mission for the Refuge System. The Congress
also specified that wildlife-dependent recreational activities were to
be the priority B but not exclusive B public uses allowed within the
System.
It is also clear, however, that Congress intended the Refuge System
to remain accessible for other types of outdoor recreation as required
under the Refuge Recreation Act. Otherwise, Congress would have
repealed the requirements of that Act.
Today, we will hear described circumstances of three unrelated
situations at separate refuges. At each refuge, different proposals for
non-wildlife dependent recreation activities were denied permits or
access by the Fish and Wildlife Service. These situations all raise
legitimate policy questions about access to remote areas, compatible
use, health and safety concerns, and management constraints caused by
shrinking operating budgets.
We need to examine these circumstances carefully. While we want our
refuges to be open and accessible for recreational use, these places
must remain as safe havens for our nation's fish, birds, and other
wildlife. The wildlife first mission must remain the bedrock foundation
to guide refuge management now and in the future.
In closing, allow me to say that I am sympathetic to the dilemma
confronting refuge managers. Many managers do their best to provide
opportunities for public access, and if the Congress can clarify policy
to make their jobs easier, we should consider doing so. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
And I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, can sit on the dais. And I will yield to
Mr. Duncan. Any opening statement?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
appreciate your letting me be here briefly today. I have a
markup in another committee and I have to leave shortly, but I
mainly wanted to come here today to commend Dr. Jim D'Angelo,
the President of the International Midway Memorial Foundation,
who has worked on this issue for many, many years. I don't
think there is anyone in this country who knows more about the
history, the significance, the importance of Midway, and the
strong feeling that many World War II veterans and others have
about this particular part of our world.
My office, particularly my Deputy Chief of Staff, Don
Walker, has worked with Dr. D'Angelo for many years. And we
introduced legislation to designate the Midway Atoll as a
national memorial over ten years ago. We worked for several
years with Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who was also
very interested in this legislation.
In 2000, both the House and Senate included language in the
Interior Appropriations Bill which designated Midway as a
national memorial. It took several years to do this and to come
up with this designation, because the Fish and Wildlife Service
apparently did not want to accommodate the additional visitors
that they felt they would have to deal with if that legislation
went through. There were some in the Fish and Wildlife Service
who apparently wanted to keep Midway as some sort of private
preserve for them and their employees.
In 2002, Midway Phoenix, which provided commercial air
service to the island, left, due to what they felt were
ridiculous environmental demands made by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Since that time, there has not been regular commercial
air service to the island.
In March of 2002, the Washington Times ran a story with a
headline that said, ``Historic Midway Shuts Down: Fish and
Wildlife Discourages Visits to World War II Site.'' Later that
year, the Times reported, ``The government refused to allow the
International Midway Memorial Foundation permission to erect a
flagpole because it was considered a strike hazard for birds.''
Placement of a memorial was also denied. Really, very
ridiculous rulings, in my opinion.
In February 2003, the contractor hired to manage the fuel
facilities at the island allowed 100,000 gallons of fuel to
spill. But then, unbelievably, the Fish and Wildlife Service
hired the same contractor to clean up its own spill; paying out
an exorbitant amount of money to have that done, especially
considering that it was paid to the company that did the spill.
Today, if you go to the Fish and Wildlife's website, there
is a statement which says, ``The Service is involved in the
consideration of legislation that would designate all or part
of the refuge as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway,''
as if they supported this all along, instead of opposing it.
If you go to another section of their website on Midway,
there is a detailed chronology of events dating back to 1859.
It is detailed enough to state that on June 30, 1997, the last
Navy personnel departed the island. However, this detailed
chronology of events fails to mention that Congress passed
legislation designating the island as a national memorial in
2000. This looks to me like they still have problems accepting
the designation of the island as a national memorial.
Beyond all this, the island services and emergency landing
strip for both commercial aviation and for our armed services.
So it is very important that we keep this air strip open.
I am looking forward to the hearing today. And I hope that
the Fish and Wildlife Service has a plan to keep this national
memorial open and accessible to the public. And I hope the
Subcommittee will pay great attention to the testimony of Dr.
D'Angelo, who has really made his life's mission to work on
this particular issue. And I thank you very much for letting me
give this statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John J. Duncan, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee
We have worked with Dr. Jim D'Angelo, the President of the
International Midway Memorial Foundation, on this issue for many years.
In 1994 or 1995, my office was originally approached about
introducing legislation to designate the Midway Atoll as a National
Memorial.
We worked with Senator Helms for a number of years on this bill.
In 2000, language was included in the Interior Appropriations bill
which designated Midway as a National Memorial.
It took approximately 5 or 6 years to designate one of, if not the
most important, battlefields as a national memorial because the Fish
and Wildlife Service did not want to accommodate the additional
visitors that they might have to deal with.
In 2002, Midway-Phoenix, which provided commercial air service to
the Island, left due to ridiculous environmental demands made by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Since that time there has not been regular
commercial air service to the Island.
In March of 2002, the Washington Times ran a story with the
headline: ``Historic Midway shuts down--Fish and Wildlife discourages
visits to WW II site.''
Later that year, the Washington Times reported:
``The government refused to allow the International Midway
Memorial Foundation permission to erect a flagpole because it
was considered a strike hazard for birds. Placement of a
memorial was also denied.''
In February 2003, the contractor hired to manage the fuel
facilities at the Island allowed 100,000 gallons of fuel to spill. We
were then told by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a meeting that they
paid that same contractor to clean up its own spill.
Today, if you go to the Fish and Wildlife's Website, there is part
of it which states:
``Legislation: The Service is involved in the consideration of
legislation that would designate all or part of the refuge as a
national memorial to the Battle of Midway.''
If you go to another section of their website on Midway there is a
detailed chronology of events dating back to 1859. It is so detailed it
states that on June 30, 1997 the last Navy personnel departed the
Island.
However, this detailed chronology of events fails to mention that
Congress passed legislation designating the Island as a National
Memorial in 2000.
This looks to me like they still have problems accepting the
designation of the Island as a National Memorial.
Beyond all this, the Island serves as an emergency landing strip
both for commercial aviation and for our Armed Services. So it is very
important that we keep this airstrip open.
I am looking forward to this hearing today, and I hope that the
Fish and Wildlife service has a plan to keep this National Memorial
open and accessible to the public.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. That is why we are
holding this hearing, because there is a mix of different
pieces of information. There is misinformation, from my
perspective, on what is going on in Midway. And we will try to
get through that today.
I do know, Jimmy, that there is a cruise ship that goes
from Honolulu. And the one docking near Midway is ``Pacific
Princess,'' with 600 people which will be offloaded and have a
tour of the Midway battlefield, and also have a tour of both
islands on the atoll.
The gentlelady from Virginia.
Mrs. Drake. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kind, any opening statement?
Mr. Kind. I will just be brief.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
very important, and very timely hearing, I might add. We are
blessed in Wisconsin to have five of the national wildlife
refuges located in our state, two in my congressional district.
And right now, we are all going through the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan process for these refuges. And they have just
embarked on the public hearing and public comment period back
home; having numerous public meetings, getting feedback from my
constituents and those interested in the refuge, and especially
the access issues in those refuges.
And right now, given a couple of the proposals that are out
there, there is some controversy surrounding the CCP in their
original version. But we are hoping that over the 120-day
period, with the comment from the people, that we will,
hopefully, end up with a good result. Because the key to any of
these comprehensive conservation plans will be community buy-in
and community acceptance, in order for it to ultimately work.
So I think it is a very timely hearing, very important. I
thank all the witnesses for coming and look forward to your
testimony, and yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today so
this Subcommittee can explore the questions on why certain refuges are
closed to the public and why certain activities are not permitted
within our National Wildlife Refuge.
Public access to our refuge system is of particular importance to
me. Since the first refuge was established in my home state in 1912,
the Wisconsin refuges have become an integral part of life for our
citizens. Our five wildlife refuges and two wetlands management
districts attract millions of visitors each year. They provide critical
habitat for our state's world-renowned wildlife resources as well as
opportunities for recreation and ground-breaking research.
In addition to the Necedah Wildlife Refuge, my district is also
home to the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
whose 240,000 acres extend 261 miles southwards from Wabasha, Minnesota
to just north of Rock Island, Illinois.
The Upper Mississippi Refuge lies at the heart of an area that
serves as a major migratory flyway for 40% of North America's
waterfowl. It provides habitat for some 292 species of birds, 57
species of mammals, 37 species of amphibians and reptiles, and 118
species of fish. Moreover, it is the most popular of all our National
Wildlife Refuges, attracting roughly 3.7 million visitors a year--more,
I am proud to note, than Yellowstone National Park. The Refuge provides
important social, cultural, and economic benefits to the people of our
region. Without question, the Upper Mississippi River Refuge is truly a
beautiful Refuge to visit and I commend my colleagues on this panel to
read the Sunday, May 22, 2005 Washington Post article entitled, Lolling
on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land, which paints a
wonderful portrait of its beauty.
This hearing, and the question of the appropriate level of public
access in refuges, is particularly timely in that my constituents are
currently weighing in on a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
the Upper Mississippi River Refuge.
As members of this Subcommittee know, the CCP is meant to establish
new planning requirements for each refuge and clarify the standards and
process used to regulate recreational and commercial uses. It requires
that the ``biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of
the system is maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun a series of 16 public
meetings on the draft CCP designed to help people understand what is in
the plan and weigh in on a preferred alternative. While it is early in
the process, one alternative currently identified as the Service's
preferred plan for the Upper Mississippi Refuge, does seek to limit
some public access and use, as a means to protect wildlife populations
and habitat.
For example, the preferred alternative would add six new no-hunting
zones, bringing the total to 13. The number of areas closed to
waterfowl hunting would go from 15 to 21; and overnight camping and
mooring of boats would be limited to islands and shorelines bordering
the Mississippi's main channel.
The proposed CCP, especially the preferred alternative that would
reduce some of these traditional and cherished activities in the Upper
Mississippi River Refuge, has created a strong turnout by the public
offering their feedback.
While developing the final CCP rule, every effort must be made to
maintain public access, while balancing the future viability of
wildlife and their habitat. As a sportsmen and avid user, I am a strong
proponent of the landmark National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997. As this Subcommittee knows, the Improvement Act reinforced the
importance of wildlife-dependent recreation in our Refuge system to
include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
These have been commonly referred to as the ``Big Six'' uses of our
refuges. This law further stated that these uses are to be given
priority consideration over other uses under new requirements for
comprehensive planning and determinations of compatibility. In
addition, this Subcommittee has heard complaints where individuals have
been denied the opportunity to undertake a certain activity in a Refuge
that is allowed on similar federal lands without any apparent adverse
impacts on existing wildlife resources. So, while we must act to ensure
the future viability of healthy populations of wildlife and their
habitat, we must be careful to balance those actions with unwarranted
restriction on the public's use.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Pallone, I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses today. I
look forward to hearing their thoughts on these important issues.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Kind.
Ms. Barbara Maxwell and Mr. Jerry Leneky, who are listening
to the hearing from Honolulu--it is about quarter after 5:00 in
the morning there--they said they would be up listening, with
doughnuts and coffee. We would like to accommodate everybody in
the room with doughnuts and coffee, but we didn't buy any this
morning.
But thank you all for coming. We look forward to your
testimony. The first two witnesses are Dr. William Dudley,
Immediate Past Director of Naval History, U.S. Department of
the Navy. Welcome, sir. And Dr. James M. D'Angelo, President
and Chairman, International Midway Memorial Foundation.
Dr. Dudley, you may begin, sir.
Dr. Dudley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify on behalf of the----
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize, but if we could just have a
very short interruption, I understand in the anteroom there is
a red-tailed hawk that would like to see the witnesses.
Mr. Kind. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I was just with--is it
``Keisha''?--``Keisha,'' just a moment ago. And this is Linda
Moore from the National Zoo. And ``Keisha'' is 14 years old. It
had a broken wing, and it was taken in; and doing remarkably
well right now. It hasn't had its breakfast yet, Mr. Chairman--
--
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh!
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kind. So you may want to keep a close eye on it.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that's why we don't have doughnuts.
Mr. Kind. What a beautiful bird; isn't it?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. Magnificent. Do you want to tell us
anything else about your red-tailed hawk?
Ms. Moore. Well, coffee and doughnuts definitely is not her
idea of a meal.
Mr. Gilchrest. Coffee and doughnuts, not her idea. I guess,
rodents.
Ms. Moore. Right. But this particular bird is a bird that
was injured in the wild. Red-tailed hawks as a species are
doing very well across the country. But unfortunately, there
are other species that aren't quite as adaptable and that need
some help. So refuges certainly are an important part of giving
those animals habitat.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they in competition with eagles or
osprey for territory?
Ms. Moore. The red-tails really aren't. They are a
completely different type of bird. During a lot of time,
spending time out doing banding and things like that, I see
eagles and red-tailed hawks flying around together quite a bit.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wow.
Ms. Moore. And it's obviously like a play type of thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Ms. Moore. But red-tails are a little more maneuverable
than those big eagles, so they can get away faster.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are the red-tails in any danger? I know they
are not endangered or anything, but do, let's say, turkey
buzzards or black vultures eat their eggs or the young chicks?
Is there any problem with that?
Ms. Moore. Not usually. Red-tails are pretty protective
around their nests. This particular female is a good sized red-
tail, and you can see she is pretty formidable in size.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Ms. Moore. She has got nice, big feet. And so, not too many
things are going to actually try to mess around with her at the
nest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Great.
Ms. Moore. She can be very territorial about her area.
Mr. Gilchrest. Any other questions from anybody while we
are here, about red-tailed hawks?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very, very much for coming
in.
Ms. Moore. Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Gilchrest. Tell Steve we said ``Hi.''
Ms. Moore. OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wow. I think now we can take the rest of the
day off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Dr. Dudley, thank you so much, sir, for
your patience. You may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. DUDLEY, IMMEDIATE PAST DIRECTOR OF
NAVAL HISTORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Dr. Dudley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to give testimony on behalf of the International
Midway Memorial Foundation.
Within approximately two years, the United States will
commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Midway. This
was a crucial battle for the U.S. Navy. It was a showdown
between the triumphant aggressor, the Japanese Imperial Navy,
and the U.S. Pacific Fleet. If Japan won this battle, the
United States could lose its control of the Hawaiian Islands,
probably the Aleutians, and the fleet would have to retreat to
the West Coast. The Panama Canal would be threatened, and so
would our western-most sates.
But there was even more at stake. If the United States were
unable to gain this victory over Japan in the Pacific, what
would happen in Europe? The Battle of Midway, as events were to
prove, would become the linchpin for Allied victory over the
Axis in World War II.
Less than four months after attacking Pearl Harbor, Admiral
Yamamoto, commander in chief of the combined fleet, decided to
lure the American fleet into battle in the Central Pacific, and
destroy it. The Japanese admiral planned to attack the
strategically located Midway Atoll by air, and seize it with
amphibious forces; thereby inducing a counter-move by Admiral
Nimitz's U.S. Pacific fleet. Yamamoto was convinced that he
could destroy the fighting power of the U.S. Navy in the
Pacific, attack the Hawaiian Islands again, and then resume the
South Pacific offensive.
On Midway Atoll, our thin defenses included the U.S.
Marines' Sixth Defense Battalion, a Marine air group of 22
long-range patrol planes. In addition, there were six Navy
torpedo planes, 11 PT boats, four torpedo-equipped B-26s, and
15 B-17s. For shore defense, the atoll had five tanks, eight
mortars, 14 surface guns, 32 anti-aircraft guns, and 3,632
defenders.
A key factor here was the Japanese commander was obsessed
with the need to destroy Midway's defenses before taking on the
United States fleet.
Thanks to American intelligence gathering, our weaker
forces gave a splendid account of themselves. We ambushed the
Japanese striking force at sea. Attackers from Midway kept the
Japanese ships constantly maneuvering to avoid hits. The
torpedo planes sacrificed themselves in head-on attacks. And
our carrier-based dive-bombers sank all four of the Japanese
carriers.
This so disheartened Admiral Yamamoto that he called off
the invasion and headed for home. By the end of the battle,
Japan suffered, in addition, one cruiser sunk, 325 aircraft
destroyed, and 2,500 men killed or missing.
American losses included one carrier, one destroyer, 163
aircraft, 307 men killed or missing. From this point on,
American forces went on the offensive.
How do we, as Americans, commemorate such a victory? It is
for this reason that I appear before you, to ask your
consideration of the reopening of Midway Atoll to public
visitation. Citizens of the United States should be welcome to
visit the ground where fellow American sailors and Marines gave
their lives for their country.
Congress has declared the atoll to be a U.S. national
memorial to the Battle of Midway. But the air strip is now all
but closed, and facing ruin. The historic buildings have been
allowed to decay, and may have been removed.
Under the Fish and Wildlife Service, almost all traces of
our once-proud presence have been eliminated. I say ``almost,''
because there is still, I hope, a remnant of the work
contributed by the International Midway Memorial Foundation
remaining on Midway, dating from 1995. It is a granite monument
dedicated to the personnel of all services who served in the
Battle of Midway. Its engravings and names record the great
military victory that was won there.
But what is a monument without visitors? And where is the
historical interpretation of the once-efficient airfield that
launched planes to attack the imperial fleet? Where are the
wayside markers to indicate where the dugouts, gun
emplacements, and communications buildings once stood? There is
little left of historic value. But this is not the way it
should be.
And I would urge this committee to think of how it could be
handled differently, by another agency, committed to both
wildlife conservation and preservation of a noble historic
tradition.
The Navy Department commemorates nationally only two events
each year. One is the Navy's birthday, October 13th, 1775. The
other is the Battle of Midway, June 4th, 1942. In a speech
given two years ago, former Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger provided the most eloquent reason for why we should
commemorate the Battle of Midway: ``Midway was far more than a
decisive naval victory. It was far more than the turning of the
tide in the Pacific war. In a strategic sense, Midway
represents one of the great turning points of world history.''
I leave you with this thought. If this event can be
considered so important, Americans should be able to recognize
and to commemorate it at the Battle of Midway National Memorial
on Midway Atoll.
Thank you for your kind attention and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dudley follows:]
Statement of William S. Dudley, Immediate Past Director of Naval
History, U.S. Department of the Navy, representing the International
Midway Memorial Foundation
the battle of midway: a global turning point
Within approximately two years, the United States will commemorate
the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Midway. This was a crucial battle
for the U.S. Navy; it was a showdown between the triumphant aggressor,
the Japanese Imperial Navy and the U.S. Pacific Fleet. This struggle
would determine the course of World War II. If Japan won this battle
and followed up its victory, the U.S. could lose its control of the
Hawaiian Islands, probably the Aleutians, and the fleet would have to
retreat to the West Coast. Not only that. The Panama Canal would be
threatened and so would our westernmost states. But, there was even
more at stake. If the United States were unable to gain this victory
over Japan in the Pacific, what would happen in Europe? The Battle of
Midway, as events were to prove, would become the lynchpin for Allied
victory over the Axis in World War II.
Two days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany declared
war on the United States. German armies had already over-run the
Poland, France, Belgium, and Holland. The British expeditionary army
might have been exterminated had not their evacuation from Dunkirk
enabled it to fight another day. During the Battle of Britain, the
Royal Air Force had beaten back the savage German air attacks that were
a premonition of invasion. In those dark days, the Anglo-American
alliance was just gathering steam. President Roosevelt, his
congressional allies, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had created a
``Europe First'' strategy that would deal with German military threat
across the Atlantic while defensively holding Japan at bay. Thus, the
onset of the Battle of Midway raised a global crisis.
The Pearl Harbor attack of 7 December 1941 awakened the United
States not only to the ruthlessness of the Japanese Empire but also to
the importance of carrier aviation in mid-20th century warfare. The
capital ship of World War II was to be the aircraft carrier, not the
battleship. A less heralded weapon was the American submarine, which
would also change the nature of warfare in the Pacific. Operating
independently for the most part, these dark, silent vessels would
eventually cut off Japan from its sources of supply.
The naval strategy pursued by Admirals Ernest King, Chief of Naval
Operations and COMINCH (Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet), and Chester W.
Nimitz, Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet, after Pearl Harbor was to
shove the Japanese off balance. At the same time, American naval
leaders worked to strengthen their forces on the line of communications
between the West Coast and Hawaii-Midway and that between California
and Australia via the island groups of the South Pacific. Japan had
fortified bases reaching into the Caroline, Marshall, and Gilbert
Islands, but not yet so far as the Solomons.
To protect U.S.-Australia line of communication, Nimitz established
a carrier covering and raiding strategy. By January Rear Admiral Frank
Jack Fletcher's Task Force 17, centered on the carrier Yorktown, sailed
into the southwest Pacific, escorting transports carrying troops
ordered to American Samoa. On 1 February carrier units raided the
islands of Wotje, Roi-Namur, and Kwajalein. Soon afterward, other task
forces launched raids against Lae and Salamaua, on the northern New
Guinea coast. This was a rude intrusion into the area that the Japanese
thought they controlled. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral William F. Halsey's
carrier group hit Wake and Marcus Islands, both located about 1,000
miles from Japan. This hit and run strategy reached its climax with the
dramatic and innovative Halsey-Doolittle raid.
In late March, sixteen B-25s were lifted on the flight deck of the
carrier Hornet in San Francisco. Departing in complete secrecy, this
unit rendezvoused with Halsey's battle group in the North Pacific. On
18 April, Halsey launched Doolittle's bombers launched Doolittle's
bombers, when Japanese vessels reported sighting the task force. While
the raid on Tokyo did little damage, it did cause embarrassment to the
Japanese high command, diverted Japanese defense forces into search
activity, and boosted American morale at a critical time. It also
hardened the Japanese decision to strike at Midway Atoll.
Meanwhile, Admiral King's cryptographers learned by deciphering the
Japanese naval code that the enemy was planning a major fleet
penetration of the Coral Sea and an attack on New Guinea's Port
Moresby. These forces would pose a grave threat to American bases at
Samoa and New Caledonia and the U.S. Australia line of communication.
U.S. intelligence also learned that the Japanese planned to establish
airfields at Tulagi in the Solomons. In response, Admiral Fletcher led
the Yorktown and Lexington carrier groups into the Coral Sea in search
of the enemy. On the morning of 7 May, the American and Japanese sent
their air units out. Each side made contact with and sank or damaged a
few ships. The following day, however, the Japanese put two bombs and
two torpedoes into Lexington, mortally wounding her, while hitting
Yorktown with one bomb. The U.S. lost 43 planes and the Japanese, 77,
in the Battle of the Coral Sea.
As a result, the Japanese did not press their naval advance toward
Australia. Even before the Coral Sea fight, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,
Commander in Chief of the Combined Fleet, decided to lure Nimitz's
fleet into battle in the Central Pacific and destroy it. This was to be
a major fleet battle in the Mahanian sense. The Japanese admiral
planned to attack Midway Atoll by air and seize it with amphibious
forces, thereby inducing a counter-move by Nimitz in force.
Simultaneously, other Japanese units attempted to divert American
attention by thrusting toward the Aleutian Islands in the North
Pacific. Thinking that Yorktown as well as Lexington had been sunk in
the Coral Sea battle, Yamamoto was convinced that he could destroy the
fighting power of the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, attack the Hawaiian
Islands again, and then resume the South Pacific offensive that
Fletcher had so rudely interrupted.
The U.S. fleet was outnumbered before Midway, but American
intelligence and the element of surprise evened the odds. Initially,
however, Nimitz's and King's cryptographers differed in their analysis
of Japanese moves. King's analysts thought the enemy planned to attack
south toward the American-Australian sea line of communications while
Nimitz's staff believed the Japanese intended to strike at Midway.
Fortunately for the Pacific Fleet, the latter interpretation held sway.
Anticipating when and where the Japanese fleet would arrive off Midway,
and in what strength, Nimitz sent three carriers under the overall
command of Admiral Fletcher to intercept. To command the Enterprise
task group, the hospitalized Halsey recommended Rear Admiral Raymond
Spruance, a ``black shoe'' sailor who had never served on board a
carrier but whose other qualities recommended him highly.
Yamamoto's fleet was truly formidable. It consisted of Vice Admiral
Nagumo's carrier striking force with four carriers, and 350 miles
behind, the Main Force centered on the battleship Yamato, five smaller
battleships, ten cruisers, twenty destroyers and two light carriers for
air defense. The Midway Occupation Force, made up of troop transports
(containing some 4,600 infantry), steamed in parallel hundreds of miles
south of the Main Body. To meet the Japanese, the American fleet was
comprised of two task forces, Task Force 16, under Rear Admiral
Spruance, including the carriers Enterprise and Hornet, screened by six
cruisers and eight destroyers, and accompanied by two oilers and their
two destroyer escorts. When Task Force 17, commanded by Fletcher in
Yorktown, sortied it had a screen of but two cruisers and five
destroyers. Fletcher, the senior and more battle-tested admiral, was in
overall command. The imbalance of these combatants was significant:
Japan had 86 surface fighting ships as compared with the American
force's 28, and as for aircraft, the Japanese carriers had 325 planes
as against the American carriers' 233. If one adds the Midway-based
aircraft, the American total swells to 348.
On Midway Atoll, our thin defenses included the Marine 6th Defense
Battalion and a Marine Air Group, armed with seven Grumman F4Fs, 16
obsolete Brewster Buffaloes, and 18 SBD bombers. For reconnaissance,
Midway had 22 PBY long-range patrol planes. In addition, there were six
Navy torpedo planes that had arrived too late at Pearl Harbor to depart
with USS Hornet. Eleven PT boats were ready in case the Japanese
invasion force came in close, and the Army Air Forces contributed four
torpedo-equipped B-26s and fifteen B-17s. For shore defense, the atoll
had five tanks, eight mortars, 14 surface guns, 32 anti-aircraft guns,
and 3,632 defenders. The Midway communications station was equipped
with underwater cable for secure message contact with headquarters at
Pearl Harbor.
After Navy cryptographers at Pearl Harbor had identified Midway as
the Japanese target and the intended attack date as 4 June, Nimitz's
planners prepared an ambush for Nagumo's carriers. The admiral paid a
visit to Midway on 2 May; he inspected the entire area, and interviewed
the Navy and Marine Corps commanders. During the next month he poured
reinforcements into Midway Atoll. It paid off. Between 0530 and 0545 on
4 June, Navy patrol planes reported contact with Admiral Nagumo's
carriers. As Japanese planes headed for Midway, Army, Marine Corps, and
Navy planes operating from Midway Atoll took off to strike at Nagumo's
carrier task force. While these attacks did not hurt the enemy, they
upset the timing of Nagumo's attack and caused him to order an
additional bombing strike against Midway. For the Japanese, it was the
land-based striking power of the forces on Midway that gave them pause.
Admiral Nagumo was obsessed with the need to obliterate the airfield on
Eastern Island and other defenses before the invasion of the atoll
could take place. He was initially unaware that the U.S. Pacific Fleet
carriers were within striking distance.
Enterprise and Hornet launched their aircraft, followed about an
hour later by Yorktown's. The torpedo planes from Hornet, Enterprise,
and Yorktown, flying low and under constant attack from ships and
planes, failed to hit any carriers while taking heavy losses. Their
attack, however, had drawn enemy fighters down virtually to sea level,
so when dive-bombers from Enterprise and Yorktown appeared over the
Japanese carriers and they faced little opposition from Japanese air
defense. Akagi, Kaga and Soryu soon were ablaze amid fuel and ordnance
explosions and all three would sink within 24 hours. Planes from Hiryu,
the last operative Japanese carrier, followed the American bombers back
to Yorktown and severely damaged her. A Japanese submarine later sank
her. The U.S. pilots soon found the sub and sent her to the bottom. The
only U.S. submarine near the battle was Nautilus whose tactics and
torpedo firings made its presence known. Despite a lack of hits,
Nautilus's presence distracted the enemy and contributed to his
confusion. By the end of the battle, Japanese suffered four carriers
sunk and one heavy cruiser sunk, 325 aircraft destroyed, and 2,500 men
killed or missing. Among these casualties, the Japanese Navy lost some
of its best naval aviators. Japanese industry could not easily replace
the carriers lost at Midway. American losses included one carrier, one
destroyer, 163 aircraft, and 307 men killed or missing.
The ``what-ifs'' of history stand out when one considers the
alternatives: what if Nimitz's intelligence appraisals had not been
followed; what if superb navigation had not brought the American
bombers over the Japanese task force simultaneously? What if, despite
having sunk the enemy carriers, Spruance had pursued westward into the
big guns of Yamamoto's Main Force battleships? What if we had lost our
carriers and the Japanese and had occupied Midway? Would it have put
the Hawaiian Islands in jeopardy and forced the American defense
perimeter back to the West coast? How would this have affected Allied
forces in Australia and Europe? To be sure, the war would have been
lengthened, and America's will to win would have been put to the test.
Fortunately, a combination of intelligence, skill, bravery, and
luck turned the tide. Although much vicious fighting remained ahead,
the Battle of Midway marked not only the major turning point in the
Pacific War, it was a watershed event for World War II because it freed
the United States from shifting to a ``Pacific First'' strategy in
order to protect the West Coast and our nearby Pacific Territories,
Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. This, in turn, allowed what historian
Samuel Eliot Morison called the ``Two-Ocean War'' to go forward. The
invasion of North Africa, the first stepping-stone for Allied landings
on the European mainland, was soon thereafter scheduled for November
1942.
Had we lost the Battle of Midway, despite Anglo-American entente
and sentimental attachment to England, the real threat to American
life, liberty, and property would have been seen as Japanese military
power close to our shores. Nothing less than a complete harnessing of
national will, blood, and treasure would have been mobilized to defeat
that threat. England would have been thrown back on the diminishing
resources of the British Empire; plans for a Second Front would have
been postponed, as well as our invasions of Africa, Sicily, and Italy.
The American victory at Midway made a huge difference in the way World
War II was fought, globally.
It is for these reasons that I appear before you, representing the
International Midway Memorial Foundation, to ask your consideration of
the reopening of Midway atoll to public visitation. Citizens of the
United States should be welcome to visit the ground where fellow
American Sailors and Marines gave their lives for their country. I
would also ask that you consider replacing Fish and Wildlife management
with that of another agency. For a while in the 1990s, Midway was open
to a limited number of visitors under the partnership of the Midway
Phoenix Corporation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While
Midway Phoenix was operating the Atoll, Midway Atoll was not a great
burden on the American taxpayers. But the Fish and Wildlife Service
reversed itself and made life and work difficult for Midway Phoenix,
discouraging visitors and effectively forcing Midway Phoenix out of
business on Midway. The airstrip is now all but closed and facing ruin
despite its strategic value for U.S. airline carriers. The historic
buildings have been allowed to decay and many have been removed.
Almost all traces of a once proud presence have been eliminated. I
say almost, because, there is still, I hope, a remnant of the work
contributed by IMMF remaining on Midway, dating from 1995. It is a
granite monument dedicated to the personnel of all services who worked
here during World War II. Its engravings and names record the great
work done was done there. But what is a monument without visitors, and
where is the historical interpretation of the once efficient airfield
that launched flights of U.S. Army Air Force B-17s, Marine Corps
fighters and bombers, and Navy torpedo planes and bombers? Where are
the wayside markers to indicate where the dugouts, gun emplacements,
and communications buildings once stood? There is almost nothing left
of historic value, and that has been, we believe, the intention of Fish
and Wildlife staffers since Midway Phoenix departed. This is not the
way it should be, and I would urge this committee to think of how it
could be handled differently by another agency, committed to both
wildlife conservation and the preservation of a noble historic
tradition. It could, I submit, with the right philosophy and the right
people under the direction of the Department of Interior.
The Navy Department today commemorates nationally only two events
each year. One is the Navy's Birthday, October 13, 1775. The other is
the Battle of Midway, on June 4, 1942. In a speech given two years ago,
former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger provided the most
eloquent reason for why we should commemorate the Battle of Midway:
``Midway was far more than a decisive naval victory. It was far more
than the turning of the tide in the Pacific war. In a strategic sense,
Midway represents one of the great turning points of world history.'' I
leave you with this thought. If this event can be considered so
important, Americans should be able to recognize and commemorate it at
the Battle of Midway National Memorial on Midway Atoll. Thank you for
your kind attention and consideration.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Sir, thank you very much.
Dr. D'Angelo.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. D'ANGELO, M.D., PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN,
INTERNATIONAL MIDWAY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
Dr. D'Angelo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity. I would like to introduce Jim Noon, our legal
counsel.
I am honored to be here today to represent the brave men
who fought in the Battle of Midway. And I feel that we are
again at the crossroads regarding the outcome of a new Battle
of Midway. The questions of the debate about public access to
Midway are these: one, whether a national memorial should be on
an equal footing with the wildlife refuge; and two, should the
Federal agency having jurisdiction over this memorial be
committed to it, as it is to the wildlife refuge? I believe the
answer----
Mr. Gilchrest. Excuse me. I didn't get that last sentence.
Dr. D'Angelo. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. Committed to--?
Dr. D'Angelo. And, two, should the Federal agency having
jurisdiction over the memorial be as committed to it as it is
to the wildlife refuge? And the word ``it'' obviously refers to
the memorial.
I believe the answer to both of these questions is ``Yes.''
Therefore, the problem of public access to the Midway memorial
can be resolved only when jurisdiction over Midway is shifted
to an agency with an inherent ability to equalize its treatment
of both historic and natural resources.
Despite attempts to show its interest in the memorial, Fish
and Wildlife Service consistently, as would be expected,
activated policies that put the needs of the refuge above that
of the memorial. Concerns about the fate of Midway's historic
sites are closely tied to the issue of public access to the
atoll.
In 1994, Fish and Wildlife wanted to bury the historic air
strip on Eastern Island, to return Midway to a pristine state.
The Service planned for the demolition of 24 Category 1 and 2
historic structures, and opposed the designation of the
historic air strip as a national historic landmark. The
National Park Service's history department maintained a map of
Eastern Island on which the air strip was crossed out and
marked ``Do not consider for historic landmark status.''
In 1996, President Clinton signed an Executive Order
affirming public access for Midway. In that same year, Fish and
Wildlife Service signed a cooperative agreement with the Midway
Phoenix Corporation to facilitate all the operations on Midway,
including eco-tourism, at no taxpayers' expense. Indeed, this
corporation donated $15 million to improve the infrastructure
of Midway. However, it became apparent that Fish and Wildlife
Service's continuing policies were detrimental to the success
of eco-tourism.
Finally, when the Midway Phoenix Corporation refused to pay
$2 million to Fish and Wildlife for fuel that the Service did
not pay for, Fish and Wildlife claimed breach of contract, and
the corporation was asked to leave Midway. The Midway Phoenix
Corporation closed operations on Midway on May 1st, 2002.
On November 17th, 1999, H.R. 3194 was passed, directing the
Secretary of Interior to designate the Midway Atoll a national
memorial, and to consult with the International Midway Memorial
Foundation on a regular basis. Two years later, these meetings
had not occurred, and the Fish and Wildlife Service resisted
attempts by the Foundation to host a ceremony on Midway for the
60th anniversary of the Battle of Midway.
Since Midway Phoenix Corporation departed, there was no
real attempt by the Service to restore eco-tourism. I presented
to the Department of Interior a plan based on Midway Phoenix's
records in operating Midway and in providing public access.
This plan provided a sound fiscal basis for all of the
operations on Midway, making it imperative that all of the
operations be under one cooperator. Its goal was to minimize
taxpayers' expense, while covering all of the multiple
operations of Midway, including eco-tourism. This plan was
rejected by the DOI.
My conclusion that Fish and Wildlife was not really
interested in the national memorial, nor public access,
resulted in the Foundation's efforts to encourage legislation
to direct the DOI to remove Fish and Wildlife's jurisdiction
over Midway. In 2003, bills were introduced in the House and
Senate to that end.
In summary, it is our position that the public should have
access to Midway, simply because it has been designated a
national memorial. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service
should be replaced by an agency that has the capability of
giving equal importance to the needs of the national memorial
and the wildlife refuge. This viewpoint is the linchpin for any
successful policy of public access.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to express the
Foundation's position on the issues involving the Midway Atoll.
[The prepared statement of Dr. D'Angelo follows:]
Statement of James M. D'Angelo, M.D., Founder, President and Chairman
of the Board of Directors, International Midway Memorial Foundation
I am honored today to represent the brave men who fought in the
Battle of Midway. It was their courage and blood that helped turn the
tide of World War II. Sixty-three years ago, the Japanese naval
juggernaut was leaving the waters of Japan and heading toward Midway.
Then, against overwhelming odds the U.S. Navy won the most decisive
naval battle in its history. It was a conflict that forever changed the
course of the war in the Pacific. Today, I feel that we are again at a
crossroads regarding the outcome of a new Battle of Midway.
Midway is much more than a wildlife refuge. The Midway Islands
represent America's and the U.S. Navy's finest hour of sacrifice for
liberty. It is a sacred place where Americans died in defense of their
country and in so doing helped save democracy for the Western world.
However, It is exactly the lack of appreciation of the significance of
the Battle of Midway that has created many of the problems on Midway.
(See Attachment A ``Under-appreciated Victory'' by former Secretary of
Defense, James R. Schlesinger in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,
October 2003.)
The issue of public access to Midway Atoll has a more profound
meaning than that which first meets the eye. The central questions of
this debate should be whether the Midway National Memorial should be on
an equal footing with a wildlife refuge; and should the federal agency
having jurisdiction over the Memorial be as committed to a national
memorial as it is to a wildlife refuge? If the answer to these
questions is yes, as I believe it should be, then the problems facing
Midway---including that of public access---will be resolved only when
jurisdiction over Midway is given to an agency with an inherent ability
to equalize its treatment of both historic and natural resources.
To validate the veracity of this statement, one must observe what I
perceive to be a conflict of interest that is created when a federal
agency, whose primary interest is wildlife, is asked to care for one of
America's greatest National Memorials. Despite attempts to show its
interest in the Memorial, the USFWS consistently, as it would be
expected to, activated policies that put the needs of the Refuge above
that of the Memorial.
The story begins in 1993 when the IMMF visited Midway Atoll with
Midway veterans. We were all anxious to visit the famous airstrip on
Eastern Island, which played such a prominent role in the outcome of
the Battle of Midway. Still under Navy jurisdiction, LCDR Michael
Driggers, USN was kind enough to take us there in his private boat. As
we disembarked, representatives of the USFWS, traveling in two
motorized rafts, angrily approached, shouting expletives, until they
discovered we were with the LCDR Driggers. After that they continued to
follow us as we toured the tiny island. This was my first experience
with the USFWS. During that visit, it became apparent to me that the
USFWS did not have the kind of interest that is necessary to preserve
the rich history of Midway.
Upon returning to the states, my concern was that the Navy's
departure would leave the historic sites on Midway vulnerable to
destruction. These concerns were validated when I learned from the
Acting Director of the USFWS that, if funds were available, the USFWS
would destroy the historic airstrip on Eastern Island with dynamite and
return Midway Atoll to a ``pristine state''. Equally as troubling was
my observation that while going across Midway documents in the National
Park Service's (NPS) History Department, I discovered a map of Eastern
Island on which the airstrip was crossed out and the words ``DO NOT
CONSIDER FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS (HLS)'' were written. I brought
this discovery to the attention of National Park Service but no
explanation was ever given to me. I was deeply troubled by the fact one
of the most significant historic sites on the Midway Atoll was being
excluded from Historic Landmark status.
This observation is further supported by a letter I received in
January 1994, in which the Acting Director of the USFWS (See Attachment
B) states that ``the subject airstrip, although cited in the NPS report
supporting designation of several sites, was not included as part of
the report.'' In fact, the four structures nominated for HLS by the NPS
were all on Sand Island and never did receive HLS.
In February 1994, the IMMF received the full support for from
Hawaii's State Historic Preservation Administrator to preserve all of
Midway's World War II sites, including the airfield on Eastern Island
(See Attachment C).
Further, in a letter dated August 1994 (See Attachment D), the
Acting Director of the USFWS stated ``...the Service opposes the
designation of the area as a National Historic Park because of the
presence of significant endangered, threatened and migratory species
resources [sic] and our responsibilities for protection and management
under the Endangered Species Act and other environmental mandates
[sic].''
In a return letter to the Acting Director by the IMMF dated
September 1994 (See Attachment E), I wrote ``The only endangered
species of terrestrial or bird life recorded at Midway Atoll are the
Short-tailed Albatross and Peregrine Falcon. One, perhaps two, of the
former have been annually observed using Sand Island. The latter is an
occasional `straggler' on the Atoll. Nothing planned by the IMMF would
interfere with their habitat. Further, there is no data to suggest that
Midway Atoll is the sole or primary habitat with regard to any
endangered or threatened species, whether they be marine, terrestrial
or bird...The IMMF fully supports the protection of these and any other
endangered or threatened species utilizing the Midway Atoll...In
conclusion then, IMMF does not support the proposal of USFWS to utilize
the Midway Atoll solely as a wildlife refuge administered by the
USFWS.''
In April 1994, the IMMF became a member of the U.S. Navy's NAF
Midway Reuse Committee and attended its first meeting in Pearl Harbor.
There we presented a requested proposal entitled ``Project NAS Midway''
(See Attachment F). The proposal was rejected by USFWS. The Foundation
was not asked to its next meeting until this turn of events came to the
attention of Senator Jesse Helms, at which point I was asked to the
Committee's third meeting.
Also in April 1994, the Foundation could not receive permission
from General Kicklighter (of the World War II Commemorative Committee)
to place and dedicate its Midway Memorial Monument on Midway. It was
only after the IMMF turned to an official in CincPacFleet that
permission was given to the IMMF to hold a ceremony on Midway in August
1995. That year, while under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy, the
Foundation dedicated a significant Midway Memorial Monument, which was
erected and dedicated by the IMMF on Sand Island with many Midway
veterans in attendance. The keynote speaker at this ceremony was
Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, USN, Chief of Naval Operations.
In May 1994, a document published by the USFWS revealed their
intention to totally subjugate Midway's great historic value to their
primary mission of caring for the wildlife refuge. In their Cultural
Resources Management Draft Plan Table 3: ``Historic Resources
Considered Physical Hazards to Wildlife Sand and Eastern Islands,
Midway Atoll'', USFWS listed 24 historic Category I and II structures
that were planned for demolition, including the historic Cable
Buildings, the Seaplane Hangar and Ramp and the Command Post. In
addition, the USFWS recommended plans for acceptance to bury the
airstrip on Eastern Island (See Attachments G and H). Upon receiving
this information, letters of protest were immediately sent by Senator
Jesse Helms and the IMMF (See Attachment I). Our concerns appeared to
be heeded at the time as many (but not all) of the historic structures
recommended for demolition by the USFWS were in the1996 edition of
their Cultural Resources Plan listed as ``secure or use'' (See
Attachment J).
During this time, the IMMF made every effort to work with the
USFWS. The Foundation had frequent meetings with the USFWS in Virginia.
Attempts were also made on Capitol Hill in 1996 to resolve the issue
without legislation. Discussions were held by all interested parties
and their legislative staffs on Capitol Hill regarding the designation
of the Midway Islands as an Historic Landmark and the creation of an
Advisory Committee for the historic aspects of the Islands.
However, a draft letter sent to Senator Helms in September 1996 by
the Acting Director of the USFWS made no mention of designating the
Midway Atoll as a National Historic Landmark (NHL) as had been
previously agreed to in our meetings. This letter prompted Senator
Helms to respond by stating in his return letter that in order to avoid
remedying this omission by legislation, he strongly urged the Director
to specifically commit to on making the Midway Islands a National
Historic Landmark (See Attachment K).
This request was not acted on by the USFWS. After more than one
year's time, Senate Bill S.940 was introduced by Senator Helms and was
unanimously passed in the Senate in November 1997.
In 1996, President Clinton signed an Executive Order affirming
public use for Midway (see attachment L (1). That same year, the
regional USFWS on Midway had signed a cooperative agreement with the
Midway Phoenix Corporation (MPC) regarding Midway beginning in August
1, 1996. In the cooperative agreement between the two parties, it is
stated,--In recognition of the outstanding wildlife and historic
resources of Midway Atoll and the existing infrastructure on the Atoll,
the Service determined that the resources should be made open to the
public.'' (See Attachment L).
This corporation had responsibility for all operations and
maintenance of the infrastructure, including those related to eco-
tourism. A Public Access Plan was developed by the USFWS. The plan
permitted up to 100 persons to visit the Atoll at one time. This number
was in addition to the 170 staff living on Midway (See Attachment M).
To its credit, MPC volunteered over 15 million dollars of its own funds
to upgrade the infrastructure of the Atoll, including the construction
of a new restaurant and beach pavilion. This infusion of funds for new
construction and upgrading went a long way to attract new visitors to
the Atoll. Indeed, they began to make a profit for the first time in
July 2001. However, it was becoming increasingly apparent to the MPC
that the USFWS' actions, such as lowering street signs and poisoning
the ironwood trees on Eastern Island, were not enhancing Midway Atoll's
image as a tourist destination. To make matters worse, the USFWS billed
MPC for two million dollars worth of fuel that was GIVEN to the USFWS
by the Department of Defense (See Attachment M).
At this point, the MPC decided that the $200,000 a year in the
cooperative agreement that MPC was asked to donate to the Service ``for
the sole purpose of supporting the Service's responsibilities under
this Agreement'' (See Attachment N) was not fair. When this amount was
not paid, the USFWS charged the MPC with a breach of contract and asked
the corporation to leave. The MPC departure occurred on May 1, 2002.
It is of interest that, stated in the June 1999 USFWS Midway Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge Historic Plan, was that ``At some point in the
future, it is possible that MPC will withdraw from the agreement. If
this occurs, and there is no other party interested in continuing the
services provided by MPC, then public use program would likely be
curtailed...Closing the refuge to public access and reducing staff to a
caretaker status would have an adverse effect on historic properties,
because the current program of reusing (maintaining) and securing
(preserving) Midway's historic properties would no longer be
economically feasible'' (See Attachment O).
In the meantime, and, after 5 years of effort, H.R. 3194 was passed
on November 17, 1999 directing the Secretary of Interior (DOI) to
designate the Midway Atoll a National Memorial and to consult with the
IMMF on a regular basis (See Attachment P (2)). President William
Clinton signed the bill into law in 2000. Later that year, Secretary of
Interior, Bruce Babbitt signed a Secretary's Order designating Midway
Atoll a National Memorial and directing the USFWS to establish a
planning committee to address its management. In addition, he stated in
a letter to the IMMF that the Service would continue to consult with
the IMMF on a regular basis regarding the interpretation and management
of the National Memorial, which is a part of the Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge (See Attachment P (1))
Over the next year, I repeatedly requested that the USFWS work
together in planning the 60th anniversary of Battle of Midway. I
stressed that an event of this magnitude required that we start
planning early. However, my recommendations were rejected, in spite of
the fact that without the Service's permission and commitment, the IMMF
could not formulate a plan that included Midway Atoll. During this time
there was no Midway Planning Committee nor did the Service consult with
the IMMF on a regular basis regarding the interpretation and management
of the National Memorial.
In January 2002, I was appointed by Secretary of Interior, Gale A.
Norton to be a member of the Battle of Midway National Memorial
Planning Committee (See Attachment Q). By April of 2002, the USFWS
still had not held a single meeting with the IMMF regarding a
commemoration ceremony on Midway for the 60th anniversary of the Battle
of Midway and denied us permission to hold the ceremony on Midway
because of the lack of time (See Attachment R). Phone conversations
revealed that USFWS refused to grant the IMMF permission to place a
flag pole on Midway which would fly the newly designed Midway National
Memorial flag; nor would the Service permit a complimentary 5x3 foot
National Memorial Monument at the site of the Foundation's present
monument. To my knowledge, there is no sign provided by the USFWS that
states that Midway is a National Memorial as there is that the Atoll is
a National Wildlife Refuge.
Just before I was leaving for Hawaii to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the Battle of Midway in late May 2002, I learned that
the first meeting of the Battle of Midway Planning Committee would be
conducted by telephone conference. Those recent events and those of the
past by the Service led me to resign my position on the Battle of
Midway Committee. I concluded that the goals of the Foundation would be
better served by acting as an advisor to the Secretary or Assistant
Secretary of Interior regarding Midway, as directed by Congress. I
stated so in my letter to the Secretary of Interior. No response to my
letter from the DOI was forth coming (See Attachment S (1)).
The newly appointed Assistant Secretary of Interior, Judge Craig
Manson felt it appropriate, even at this late date to hold a 60th
anniversary Battle of Midway commemoration ceremony on the Midway. I
was honored and accepted the invitation by Judge Manson to be a guest
speaker at this event.
Since MPC departed, there was no real attempt by the USFWS to
restore eco-tourism. The corporations that followed were only charged
with operations of the airport and the necessary infrastructure to
maintain that responsibility. As a result, I met with DOI and presented
a plan and analysis of sound fiscal policy for Midway, (see Attachment
S (2)), based on the records of the successful months of operation of
MPC's tenure. 1 This plan outlined a sound fiscal policy for
all the operations on Midway. The key to its success was the imperative
that ALL of the operations be under one cooperator, otherwise failure
would be ensured. It was my feeling, and that of Congressman John J.
Duncan (See Attachment S (3)), that this solution was well worth
trying. Its goal was to minimize taxpayers' expense and, at the same
time, cover all of the multiple operations of Midway, including eco-
tourism. Interestingly enough, though this plan would require far less
funding by the government for TOTAL operational service, it was
rejected by the DOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The IMMF wishes to stress that it has no financial relationship
with the MPC, nor has it ever received any donations from this
corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was becoming increasingly clear to me that the USFWS' attitude
toward eco-tourism was not dissimilar to its attitude toward Midway's
historic significance. With this conclusion in mind, the only realistic
solution to the problems confronting Midway is to remove the underlying
source of the conflict, namely the USFWS. The IMMF has encouraged
Congress to pass legislation to direct the DOI to remove the USFWS'
jurisdiction over Midway and replace it with an agency from within the
DOI. Subsequently, on February 26, 2003, H.R. 924 was introduced in the
House by Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. Later that year, Senator
Richard G. Lugar introduced S. 1574 (See Attachment T). Both of these
bills were supported by the Navy League, the Marine Corps Aviation
Association and Dr. William S. Dudley, then--Director of the Naval
Historic Center. In addition, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the
Association of Naval Aviation support public access to Midway (See
Attachment U).
In conclusion, it is the position of the International Midway
Memorial Foundation that the only long term solution to Midway's
problems is for the DOI to replace the USFWS with another agency: one
that has the capability of giving equal importance to the needs of the
National Memorial as it does to the Wildlife Refuge. This viewpoint is
the linchpin for any successful policy toward public access.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to express the
Foundation's position on the issues involving Midway.
Midway Photographs: (See Attachment V)
NOTE: Attachments to Dr. D'Angelo's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Dr. D'Angelo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. First of all, have either one of you been to
Midway?
Dr. D'Angelo. I have been there numerous times,
Congressman.
Mr. Gilchrest. And Dr. Dudley?
Dr. Dudley. I have been there once, in 1995.
Mr. Gilchrest. And how did you get to Midway in 1995?
Dr. Dudley. Well, in 1995, they had arranged a special
occasion for Midway veterans to visit immediately before--I
think it was one week before--the 50th anniversary of the
surrender. I was part of the party that went out there from the
IMMF.
Mr. Gilchrest. And who arranged the trip?
Dr. D'Angelo. We did.
Dr. Dudley. Dr. D'Angelo's foundation did. I was there as a
speaker.
Mr. Gilchrest. How did you get to Midway?
Dr. Dudley. We flew out on a charter jet.
Mr. Gilchrest. A charter jet to Hawaii?
Dr. Dudley. No, from Hawaii to Midway.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. And was the charter jet by Midway
Phoenix? Whose jet?
Dr. Dudley. It was Aloha Airlines.
Mr. Gilchrest. Aloha Airlines.
Dr. D'Angelo. The cooperative agreement, Congressman, had
not yet been signed between the Service and Midway Phoenix
Corporation.
Mr. Gilchrest. And how long did you stay on Midway? A
couple of days, or just one day?
Dr. Dudley. Just one day, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. At that time, in 1995, did the Navy
still operate Midway?
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. They did?
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. And were there tours out there at that time?
Dr. D'Angelo. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. There wasn't? So the veterans, or people who
wanted to see Midway, basically didn't have access to Midway
while the Navy operated the facility there?
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes, that is true, Mr. Congressman. But I
think it is also fair to say that at that time Midway was not
designated a national memorial.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. But did the Navy have visits
occasionally there for people that wanted to see Midway,
whether they wanted to see it for eco-tourism or whether they
wanted to see it for the sense of the memorial for the battle
during World War II?
Dr. D'Angelo. Based on our own experience, we came back
from Japan and were filming for a documentary film. And we had
access to Midway, with permission granted by the Navy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, when was Midway turned over to Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Dr. D'Angelo. I believe that was in 1997. I do have that in
my testimony. I believe it is 1997.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that in 1997, the Fish and Wildlife
Service basically took over jurisdiction of that atoll, of the
Marshall Islands. And then at that point, I guess Midway
Phoenix contracted with the Navy to take out, would you say,
regular sightseeing tours, or memorial tours to the island?
Dr. D'Angelo. The way it worked was that Midway Phoenix
signed the cooperative agreement with Fish and Wildlife in
1996. It basically wasn't until the Navy left, which I believe
was 1997--1996 that the Navy left? OK. Well, the first year
there was no air transportation. In 1997, Midway Phoenix began
to fly out their own Gulfstream jets.
Mr. Gilchrest. How many people were on that jet?
Dr. D'Angelo. Probably, no more than 20 at a time.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would the cost of that be, to anyone
that wanted to visit, if they were flying on the Gulfstream?
Dr. D'Angelo. Oh, well, we, I think, paid about $400, $450.
Mr. Gilchrest. Four hundred dollars round-trip?
Dr. D'Angelo. Something like that, Congressman. Yes,
Chairman--Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. You can call me, you know, ``congressman,''
``Wayne,'' whatever.
[Laughter.]
Dr. D'Angelo. You can call me ``Jim.''
Mr. Gilchrest. OK, Jim.
Dr. D'Angelo. All right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would they stay one day? Was there any
accommodation to stay more than one day?
Dr. D'Angelo. There was beginning to. I think it really
began to flourish as Midway Phoenix began to put their $15
million in and built this beautiful restaurant that cost over a
million dollars, when they began the jet flights of their own.
And then finally, they got permission to have regular service
by Aloha Airlines. And that started in 1998.
Mr. Gilchrest. And when you say regular service, was that
once a week?
Dr. D'Angelo. I believe it was twice a week, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Twice a week.
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And twice a week, there would be a plane of
about 20 people?
Dr. D'Angelo. No. The 737s could hold----
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, 737s?
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes. See, that was the benefit; that the
Gulfstreams carried fewer people, but the 737s obviously
carried more.
Mr. Gilchrest. So how many people would be on the 737s?
Dr. D'Angelo. I would say over a hundred, would be my
guess, with the 737.
Mr. Gilchrest. A hundred people. And there were enough
people that there would be how many flights a week?
Dr. D'Angelo. It would vary per season, but I have facts
that originally the cooperative agreement, which is 30 people
at any one time--then Fish and Wildlife changed it to 100. So
the average maximum on the island at one time of visitors were
a hundred.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Dr. D'Angelo. I believe they also had 170-people staff.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, who had the 170-people staff?
Dr. D'Angelo. That was between Fish and Wildlife, and
Midway Phoenix, who was performing the functions out there.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Dr. Dudley, so you have been out
there one time?
Dr. Dudley. Yes, sir, one time in 1995.
Mr. Gilchrest. And were you a part of the Battle of Midway?
Dr. Dudley. Oh, no, sir. I'm not quite that old.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Dudley. No, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. I was a part of the Battle of Midway. At
least, I have some jeans that were left over.
Dr. Dudley. Yes. Well, I wasn't there. But I think, like
General Patton, I was virtually there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Virtually there.
Dr. Dudley. Yes, sir. I am a historian, and I worked for
the Naval Historical Center for many years. And as soon as 1992
rolled around for the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Midway,
I met Jim D'Angelo and others who actually were there at the
Battle of Midway. And that stimulated my interest.
And so I have spoken several times at Midway commemorative
events, Midway dinners, and so forth. But I continue to have
this interest, even though I am not a veteran of that
particular combat.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Dudley.
Dr. Dudley. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. I will yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. I just have to comment, Mr. Chairman. I
learned a long time ago in politics not to suggest anything
about anybody's age.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Dr. Dudley looks so distinguished.
Dr. Dudley. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. I know that every one of the wildlife refuges
is different, and every circumstance is different. And in my
opening statement I made reference to how we are dealing with
conflicting interests here; which is obviously going to be the
case with Midway and so many of these cases.
I know it is not the same, but I couldn't help but think of
my own district, where we have a national recreation center,
national park, called Sandy Hook. And we literally have
millions of visitors. I mean, starting this Memorial Day
weekend, you won't even be able to get into the place, because
there are millions of people.
But we have Fort Hancock, which is a historic site. And
there is a big controversy now about whether or not we should
spend money to fix that up, and what kind of access should be
available.
And I just can't help but think that every one of these is
not only weighing of interest, but also a money problem. In
other words, at Sandy Hook we have an effort to privatize the
reconstruction, or the restoration I should say, of historic
Sandy Hook. And it is going to cost about $60 million, and it
is being privatized. And most people don't want it, because
they are afraid of the impact and they don't know how many
visitors there are going to be.
And it just seems to me that this is, to some extent, a
question of money. First of all, I assume that the agency that
could possibly replace Fish and Wildlife would be the National
Park Service. You are not saying that, but I suppose that is
one possibility. And, you know, they are running out of money.
I mean, they just don't have that much money.
So I guess I will ask a couple of questions. Would you
suggest that the Park Service replace the Fish and Wildlife
Service? And then, what kind of costs would there be? I mean,
would you want daily visitation? Would people be able to come
in every day? How would we maintain this, given limited
resources? And if you went back to some private concessionaire,
how would they make money?
Was Midway making money? It seemed like it is a lot of
money that we are sinking into it, but not that many people
were using it. So if you could just comment on some of these
things.
Dr. D'Angelo. Sure, I would be happy to comment. I think
the key point is one of the questions you raised is certainly
very legitimate. But that is one of the points of my testimony,
and that is while Midway Phoenix Corporation was out there, it
was virtually at no taxpayers' expense.
Now, at the moment, the month--and this is in my
attachments; most of the statements that I made in my oral
statement are backed up by documents--but the moment that
Midway Phoenix Corporation made a profit, then the rules began
to change. Then the conflicts increased; leading Midway Phoenix
Corporation to leave. For example, I was very pleased to hear
about the tour ship. But they would not allow a tour ship at
the time that Midway Phoenix was----
Mr. Pallone. But Dr. D'Angelo, even though they may have
been making a profit--and I don't doubt your facts--if it is
opened up to either daily visitation or eco-tourism, whatever
you have suggested, there has to be some maintenance.
Let's assume the Park Service took over. They are going to
have to have some staff. They are going to have to maintain
things. You are not going to totally turn it over to the
private sector.
Dr. D'Angelo. No. But again, what I am alluding to is that
when Midway Phoenix Corporation was there, it wasn't turned
over to the private sector in terms of the jurisdiction. The
corporation's responsibilities were for operation, which
included eco-tourism. Originally, they tried to get a separate
entity for eco-tourism, and that just didn't work.
And the point is that my personal opinion, based on the
records, is that if there was a policy of equal footing, so
that there was a reason for the people who want to remember the
Battle of Midway, or if they don't, they want to go out there,
that there is attention given to the national memorial. Of all
the visitors that came out to Midway, 97 percent of them were
environmentalists, which is great, but a lot of this----
Mr. Pallone. But I guess you just----
Dr. D'Angelo. Well, let me get back to your point.
Mr. Pallone. Yes, please, just answer it.
Dr. D'Angelo. I wanted to look, but I apologize for that.
Mr. Pallone. What would you want? Would you want the Park
Service?
Dr. D'Angelo. What I offered to the Department of Interior
was, when Midway Phoenix was out there, OK, it was virtually at
no taxpayers' dollars. They were paying roughly $6 million,
when there was none. I understand they paid over $10 million to
clean up the fuel spill, which is another issue, OK, which we
believe is due to negligence.
And in any event, the point is that this certainly could
have been used as a trial basis. The money that Midway Phoenix,
for example, wanted to go out there at one time was only $2
million, to do everything. Instead, they were denied an
opportunity to renegotiate. And as a result, we went up to $6
million.
So the bottom line is that the private sector, based on a
track record that has already been proven, if it is not
hindered by the Wildlife Service, can cost minimal taxpayers'
dollars. And I would argue that, if it turns out that this is
incorrect, if we had tried it for two years, already the money
that was spent would have been better served. And I personally
feel, if that happened, we wouldn't be here today.
I have told Fish and Wildlife all along, this was a perfect
opportunity for that agency to become a role model for the rest
of the Federal Government; that they could show that the
private sector and a Federal agency working together could be
at minimal taxpayers' dollars, and be very efficient. And if I
am not incorrect, I think this is the President's opinion, as
well.
So I wanted that. I wanted everything to go the way it
should. But for the reasons that are in the record, they did
not.
Mr. Pallone. I am not going to keep pursuing it, Mr.
Chairman. I guess my concern is that, if you turned it over to
a different agency, like the Park Service, there has to be some
cost. And we would need to get some analysis of what it would
cost the Park Service.
I understand you are talking about the private sector, but
there has to be some cost associated with the Park Service, or
whoever would replace it, to allow the private operation to
take place. But we are not going to get to that today.
Dr. D'Angelo. Well, I didn't mean to avoid it, but what I
am telling you is that the Midway Phoenix Corporation, as it
did once before where it donated $15 million of its own money,
was ready to contract once again with Fish and Wildlife for all
the operations, at no cost to Fish and Wildlife. And initially,
there may have been a startup where, I agree with you, there
might have been some funding. But they were willing to do
everything for $2 million.
So even if you make the point, after looking at my analysis
and the data I gave you, you will see that it certainly is not
going to be $4 million more. Yet, we are spending today $6
million a year on a single operation, and that is the airport.
To me, it is pretty clear. And to do that for two years, one
could certainly see if that would succeed.
So you can look at the data I sent you, but if you have the
private sector saying, ``We are responsible,'' let everybody do
an analysis. And if you need two or three million to upstart
it, because the infrastructure is not being maintained the way
it was when that corporation was out there, that is the
solution. Any other solution, in my opinion, will fail.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Dr. D'Angelo. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have one
question. Midway Atoll is included with several other remote
islands in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. And
this refuge was created by President Roosevelt way back in
1909, and is one of our oldest.
Now, my question is, considering this heritage, and the
fact that Midway Atoll provides extremely valuable sea bird
habitat, why should the Fish and Wildlife Service
responsibility for the refuge be terminated? We know about the
BRAC closures, but what about the termination for Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Dr. D'Angelo. Well, the reason for that termination is in
more detail in my testimony; but a simple answer would be they
don't recognize the fact that it is a national memorial to one
of the most significant naval battles in this country's
history. And so, as I pointed out, the question of the debate
should be, should a national memorial, particularly of that
significance, be given equal footing, or, as it is now, it is
subservient to the policies of Fish and Wildlife?
And I think we can also state that Fish and Wildlife itself
agreed to increasing visitors from 30 to a hundred. So the
bottom line is, if it does no harm, and we are all in favor--I
love wildlife. I am a big environmentalist. But I believe in
fair play. If there is a history there, and Congress has
designated it, President Clinton himself signed an Executive
Order for public access, what is wrong with sharing the rich
historical heritage?
The cable buildings--talking about President Roosevelt--
were completed in 1903. And they connected the trans-Pacific
underwater telephone line from Honolulu all the way to the
Philippines. And those cable buildings are still out there, and
they are decaying. President Nixon during Vietnam met there.
There is rich historical significance in Midway.
We are not saying by any means we don't treasure the
wildlife. I don't want to see anything happen to the wildlife
or the environment. But I believe in fair play. We can't ignore
that it is a national memorial that was designated by Congress
and the former Secretary of Interior under President Clinton.
Ms. Bordallo. What is the condition of the facilities right
now? I mean, today.
Dr. D'Angelo. There are photographs I attach now. When we
first went out there, again, the corporation repainted, they
revised, all at their expense, a beautiful restaurant. It is a
gorgeous place.
Since that time, Fish and Wildlife has lowered all the
street signs, so the birds don't run into them; but you worry
about somebody hitting the pole, OK? They have poisoned the
ironwood trees, and that has caused erosion. All right? Now, I
am confident that if Midway Phoenix was out there, or any one
of us were doing that, there would be a tremendous outcry.
And again, I come down to fair play between the historic
sites--and what is Fish and Wildlife doing? There are a lot of
people that are calling me that are environmentalists and
lovers of wildlife, that are upset with Fish and Wildlife. So
it is not just the historic value. Midway----
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman----
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes, go ahead. Sorry.
Ms. Bordallo.--I think you made reference in your opening
comments about how many refuges have been closed?
Dr. D'Angelo. No, I didn't. No.
Ms. Bordallo. Did you make reference to that in your
opening? I thought I read that.
Dr. D'Angelo. No.
Ms. Bordallo. Have there been any other closures?
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, you mean limited access to visitors?
Ms. Bordallo. That's right. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, yes.
Dr. D'Angelo. Oh, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes, I didn't comment on that.
Ms. Bordallo. He did. The Chairman made mention.
Dr. D'Angelo. Yes, the Congressman, yes, the Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. How many of those are with limited access?
Mr. Gilchrest. Out of about 535, there are 88 with limited
access.
Ms. Bordallo. Eighty-eight. Yes. All right. I have no
further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
I would like to say to both of you gentleman that, having
gone back to Vietnam in 1991, after serving there in 1966-1967,
it was really an extraordinary experience. I don't want to
overstate that, but the sensitivity to history in order to
remember the events of the past and pass that on to the present
and future generations is really a way of sustaining the
democratic process. So that is an extraordinary undertaking
that we will seriously pursue.
And Dr. D'Angelo, you made a comment about that historic
significance, and is it subservient to other things like
wildlife. We don't want to take the view that either/or is
subservient. They are both significant, and both important.
The historic significance of Midway: those people who are
lucky enough to make that long-distance travel to get there and
talk about those things with other people, and be able to have
yourselves and history teachers talk about Midway not as
something that used to be a memorial but the buildings are
decaying, but as something that Americans can be proud of, that
their grandparents and great grandparents participated in.
I think we can also strike a significant balance, though,
between that and the sea turtles, the green sea turtles that
are returning; the monk seals, that are endangered, that are
now beginning to give birth on Midway; the dolphins, that had
disappeared virtually for decades and are now back. The healthy
wildlife that is coming back is a natural part of our natural
history.
And so when we talk about sustaining our sense of the
future, it is both the struggles of battles that we fought, but
it is also the historic significance of the natural ecological
integrity that we are smart enough to sustain and restore, as
well.
So as we pursue this information about Midway, or the other
refuges that we will talk about this morning, this Subcommittee
will keep all of those things in mind. And your participation
here this morning and the information that you have given us
have been very vital to that undertaking. And I want to thank
both of you very much.
Dr. D'Angelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Dudley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, sir.
Our second panel will be Mr. Bradley Farrell, Fair Access
to Island Refuges; Mr. Robert Allphin, Fair Access to Island
Refuges; Mr. Robert Langelius, President, Eastern U.S. Free
Flight Conference; and Mr. Dave Mathewson, District Two Vice
President, Academy of Model Airplanes.
Welcome, gentlemen. Gentlemen, in the midst of your
testimony, we will not be interrupted by any more red-tailed
hawks, but we will probably be interrupted by a vote. But we
will begin.
Thank you all for coming. We look forward to your
testimony. Mr. Farrell, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY A. FARRELL,
FAIR ACCESS TO ISLAND REFUGES
Mr. Farrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, and
Congressmen. I reside in Alexandria, Virginia. I represent Fair
Access to Island Refuges, or FAIR. I am an amateur radio
operator, and have been so licensed for 26 years by the Federal
Communications Commission.
Our concern is the closing of two refuges in the Caribbean
Sea, the Desecheo and Navassa National Wildlife Refuges, by the
Fish and Wildlife Service, to Americans who propose to lawfully
visit these island refuges under stringent existing
regulations; while the Fish and Wildlife Service turns a blind
eye to illegal and harmful use of these refuges.
FAIR and amateur radio operators support wholeheartedly the
Fish and Wildlife Service's ``wildlife first'' approach to
managing its refuges. I submitted applications for special use
permits, pursuant to the 1997 statute, in 2002 for amateur
radio on these islands. And amateur radio use of these islands
was allowed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or other
government departments for many years prior to the 1990s, when
the Service barred access to these islands.
My applications were denied, so I appealed through the
administrative process. During that process, the Fish and
Wildlife Service agreed to produce to me all of the information
upon which they based their decisions to close these islands.
And over a 14-month period, they produced about 1,200 pages of
their internal documents, copies of which are right here and I
will submit for the record.
I may skip a few of these slides. I am using slides to
bring you images of some of the information in this evidentiary
record, which I feel is very important. And I may skip one or
two, because the topics have already been covered.
But I do want to make a note about the 1997 National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, because it has been
discussed here today about balancing public use and protection
of wildlife in these refuges. The standard Congress set in this
well-crafted statute is sound professional judgment. The agency
is required to use sound professional judgment in determining
whether a use is compatible. And generally, if a use is found
not to materially interfere with the agency's mission in a
particular refuge--and it is decided case by case--then the use
is compatible.
Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service points repeatedly to, I
believe it is, six priority uses that are expressly stated in
the statute as the focus of allowing use in the refuges. And
that is not the approach that Congress took in adopting this
law, as it clearly shown in the legislative history. In fact,
Congressman Young of Alaska, on the House Floor in 1997, said,
``This bill neither mandates nor prohibits such non-wildlife-
dependent activities, such as grazing, jet skiing, or oil and
gas development.''
Now, it is to be determined, pursuant to the statute, on a
refuge-by-refuge basis. But unfortunately--and I am going to
skip over this one, because Bob Allphin, who is sitting next to
me, is going to cover that in more detail--unfortunately, it
appears more to us that the Fish and Wildlife Service is making
their decisions based more on opinion.
First, I am going to focus on Navassa. It is located
between Jamaica and Haiti. It is about 1,300 acres in size. It
has been a refuge since 1999. Prior to its becoming a refuge,
other governmental departments allowed amateur radio operators
to operate from there.
Reason for closure, according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service: protection of sensitive ecology. In its correspondence
to amateur radio operators and congressmen who have inquired on
behalf of their amateur radio constituents when use was denied,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the ecology of
this island is so sensitive, visitors should not go there. And
also, because it is difficult to access the island because of
its rather steep sides.
What Congress [sic] doesn't tell the public, and has not
told congressmen who have inquired, is that Navassa is among
the healthiest habitats in the world, and its internal
documents clearly show that.
Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service turns a blind eye to
Haitian fisherman on Navassa. They camp there; they start
fires; and they have harmed wildlife. And the Fish and Wildlife
Service, in doing field work there in 2000, was aware of this;
yet they did not tell these Haitian fishermen to leave. And
when they got back to base, in their report on their trip to
Navassa they recommended considering a permit program for
Haitian fishermen to enter this refuge. Yet American taxpayers,
who propose to go there pursuant to stringent regulations--
amateur radio operators, for example--are barred from this
island refuge.
This is a photograph from the U.S. Geological Survey
website. And standing in the doorway of the old lightkeeper's
house on Navassa is a USGS employee. But you can see he is
hanging out there during field work the USGS was doing on the
island with Haitian fishermen. And we have nothing against
Haitian fishermen; we just think, again, it is an issue of
fairness. Americans who propose to go to this refuge, under
stringent guidelines that will protect the wildlife of the
refuge and protect the flora and fauna of this refuge, should
be given at least the same consideration. And quite frankly, I
believe the statute requires it.
Regarding access to Navassa, the Fish and Wildlife Service
in 2000 stayed on a ship during their nights there, for a week
or more. Every day, they climbed a ladder system that they tell
amateur radio operators is too risky for them to use, and there
was no mishap. And the only recommendation when they got back
was to get a better ladder.
This is a copy of the 2000 report that I was referring to.
It comes from the Fish and Wildlife Service's records. I think
this is very important because we are quoting here. Very recent
fires, according to the agency, covering several acres were
evident in at least two areas of the island. One near Lulu Bay
may have been the result of a campfire. Neither group of
Haitians admitted to harvesting boobies--those are birds--or
their eggs; though a crew member of a vessel stated he saw a
fisherman attract a booby by holding up a fish, then knocked it
down with a stick.
Yet these trespassers, who had no authorization to be there
from the U.S. Government, were not told to leave. And
Americans, who propose to go there under stringent regulations,
cannot go there. And when they got back, they considered the
permit program for Haitian trespassers.
Desecheo is located about 14 miles from Puerto Rico. It is
much smaller than Navassa, about 360 acres in size. It has been
a refuge since 1976. The reason, according to the Fish and
Wildlife Service, that this island is closed is because of
unexploded ordnance. This island was a bombing range in the
1940s and early 1950s. Also, drug smuggling, and illegal
aliens.
But what Congress doesn't know, and what the Fish and
Wildlife Service hasn't disclosed to congressmen who inquire,
or to amateur radio operators, is that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers went to the island in 2002, surveyed it, identified
old bombs, and characterized those old bombs as largely
innocuous scrap. And then later in 2002, a Navy demolitions
team went to the island and blew up all three bombs that they
found.
As a basis for closure regarding drug smuggling, the Fish
and Wildlife Service includes incident reports from an area of
up to 15 miles from Desecheo, which includes mainland Puerto
Rico. And the records of the agency demonstrate that the last
incident of drugs being found on the island was in 1990, when a
bale of marijuana was found there, and that was 15 years ago.
Regarding illegal aliens, we don't deny that they get on
the island, trying to make their way to Puerto Rico. But no one
has ever been harmed by them. Also, the Fish and Wildlife
Service regularly camps on this island. They go out there to
try to trap monkeys and shoot goats that the Health Institute
released several years ago for research purposes. And they camp
overnight on the old helipad; which is exactly where hams used
to be allowed to go here, and to which we have proposed to go.
You see now a copy of the compatibility determination for
amateur radio for Desecheo. The compatibility determination
says that amateur radio is not compatible because it is not
safe.
But if you look at the language of the compatibility
determination--and it is in the materials I am submitting for
the record--the Fish and Wildlife Service says there is no
significant biological impacts anticipated from amateur radio
use.
And it also states that the greatest impact amateur radio
would have on this island is the trampling of some grass. And
we're assuming that means when the amateur radio operators were
walking from the beach, where they land, to the helipad; if
they don't land by helicopter, which is what the Fish and
Wildlife Service does at times.
This is a map from their files showing a route, one of the
many routes on Desecheo the Fish and Wildlife Service uses to
hike the interior. Their records show they have hiked this
island extensively since 1979.
Amateur radio operators have been good stewards of these
island refuges, both in the Caribbean region and in the Pacific
and other areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service's own records
demonstrate that amateur radio's ``no trace left behind''
approach is working, and has worked.
This is a copy of a special use permit issued to amateur
radio operators before they were banned from going to this
island. This is key, this document right here. This was
attached to the special use permit. It is an outline drawing of
the island of Desecheo. The crosshatched area is the area the
Fish and Wildlife Service, from the 1970s, 1980s, and early
1990s, identified for amateur radio operators to go, that was
safe for them, and not to leave that perimeter. And the helipad
is a tiny dot in that area.
This is important because it demonstrates that the Fish and
Wildlife Service, before they banned use, was doing the
balancing that the 1997 statute requires; balancing a
responsible, reasonable public access to a wildlife refuge,
while protecting wildlife.
And they are doing it, for example, in a national wildlife
refuge in South Dakota, which is closed to the public. It is a
nesting ground for eagles. It is called the Karl Mundt National
Wildlife Refuge.
So what the agency has done, they have teamed with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. They built a platform, an observation
platform, on core land adjacent to the refuge. And visitors can
go there and observe these beautiful birds from the platform.
And it is no different from what they did here.
Desecheo is not surrounded by adjacent land. It is
surrounded by water. But what the Fish and Wildlife Service did
is carved out an area where reasonable public access--whether
it is for amateur radio, or bird watching, or any other
activities that are compatible with this refuge--can be carried
out.
I am almost finished. I know I am running short on time.
This is a copy of one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
reports. And it expressly says that amateur radio operators
went to Desecheo, they have been very responsible, have
complied with the conditions of their permits.
The landing issue, which the Fish and Wildlife Service has
brought up time and again, is not an issue. The Fish and
Wildlife Service lands on Desecheo by helicopter or boat.
Nothing in this information that they turned over indicates
that anyone--hams, or otherwise--has ever been injured. The
same for Navassa.
One of the bills that we are supporting in Congress is H.R.
1183. The Ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee
introduced it. It would require limited public access to
Desecheo and Navassa. We support this bill, but really, the
1997 statute already requires that. It requires the Fish and
Wildlife Service to balance public access that is reasonable to
the protection of wildlife. That is what they were doing
before, and we think that they should do it again.
I want to thank the committee, and I will try to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrell follows:]
Statement of Bradley A. Farrell, Fair Access to Island Refuges
My name is Brad Farrell. I reside at 7423 Salford Court,
Alexandria, Virginia. I am a lawyer practicing in the District of
Columbia. I represent Fair Access to Island Refuges, or ``FAIR'' and I
am an Amateur Radio operator, licensed by the Federal Communications
Commission for 26 years. Our concern in the closing of the Desecheo and
Navassa national wildlife refuges by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to Americans who propose to lawfully visit these island refuges under
stringent regulations while the Fish and Wildlife Service turns a blind
eye to illegal and harmful use of these refuges.
We thank the Fisheries Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify
on the issue of public access to the nation's wildlife refuges.
1. Desecheo & Navassa Islands
Desecheo Island is a small uninhabited island of about 360 acres
which lies approximately 14 miles west of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean
Sea. R. 35 at 2. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been trying for
years to remove goats and monkeys from the island. The monkeys were
released on Desecheo many years ago by the National Institutes of
Health for research purposes.
Navassa Island is located in the Caribbean Sea, approximately 40
miles west of Haiti. R. 35 at 2. Navassa was once the site of a guano
mining operation, and later served as the platform for a lighthouse
built and maintained by the United States government.
2. Why Desecheo and Navassa Are Important to Amateur Radio
Amateur Radio operators operated from Desecheo and Navassa for many
years prior to the refuges being closed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Amateur Radio operators seek to visit these islands to
activate them for other Amateur Radio operators in the United States
and throughout the world who seek to contact them and to obtain
postcards that memorialize the contacts and tell something about the
history and geography of each island. The operators who activate these
island locations benefit because it allows them to practice operating
from remote locations on non-commercial power and with small portable
antennas, which is beneficial to this nation in times of emergency.
3. Fish and Wildlife Service Evidence
During an administrative appeal, I obtained from the Fish and
Wildlife Service over a thousand pages of the agency's internal
documents and reports which, in my opinion, demonstrate that the Fish
and Wildlife Service has insufficient grounds for closing the Desecheo
and Navassa refuges and that in closing the islands and barring Amateur
Radio and other lawful uses of these refuges, has violated the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (``NWRSIA''). These
documents constitute most of the administrative record for my appeal
(the ``Appeal Record'') and I have referenced a number of them in my
written remarks submitted to the Fisheries Subcommittee (identified
herein by the abbreviation ``R.'').
The NWRSIA, set forth in the United States Code beginning at
Section 668dd, requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service determine
whether a particular use of refuge be the product of sound professional
judgment and that the Fish and Wildlife Service may bar use of a refuge
if it materially interferes with the agency's mission in the refuge or
on the basis of safety factors. The legislative history and an analysis
of the statute, analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service internal
documents, and how the Fish and Wildlife Service is violating the Act
receives extensive treatment in my initial administrative appeal brief,
which I have submitted to the Fisheries Subcommittee for the record in
this proceeding.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed Amateur Radio use of its
island refuges in the Pacific Ocean. In fact, the agency's Pacific
department has embraced Amateur Radio visits to the refuges under its
jurisdictions, despite the fact that many of the same issues affecting
the Caribbean islands also affect wildlife refuges in the Pacific.
Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service has begun making it
considerably more difficult and expensive for the public to visit the
island refuges in the Pacific. Bob Allphin will discuss his experiences
in visiting Pacific refuges for Amateur Radio operations during his
remarks.
In the Caribbean, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service has closed
Desecheo and Navassa refuges on the basis of purported safety issues,
i.e., unexploded ordnance, illegal aliens and drug smugglers on
Desecheo and on the basis of Navassa's sensitive ecology. However, the
agency's own records and other evidence do not, in our view, support
the agency's decision-making. Fish and Wildlife Service records are
devoid of any evidence that Amateur Radio operators were ever
threatened or harmed by illegal aliens, drug smugglers or ordnance. In
fact, the Refuge Manager has admitted that the agency is aware of no
one who has been harmed in the Refuges by the purported threats. R. 35
at 7, R. 44 at 2. The fact that no one has been harmed on these islands
is further supported by the verifications of two Amateur Radio
operators that are included in the Appeal Record. R. 183, R. 182.
The evidence demonstrates that the Fish and Wildlife's position is
the progeny of unsubstantiated and speculative assertions not grounded
in evidence, upon which layer by layer, year after year, the same
misapplication of the statute was perpetuated by service personnel who
exceeded their authority under the NWRSIA by actively discouraging,
through deceptions and misrepresentations, lawful use of the Refuges.
The unlawful position ultimately endorsed by the agency director
mischaracterized and misconstrued the NWRSIA, and was incorrectly
represented to be the law to applicants for permits for Amateur Radio
use of the Refuges and to Members of Congress who inquired about
Amateur Radio use of Desecheo and Navassa. The result is that the Fish
and Wildlife Service has barred lawful, reasonable use of the Refuges
pursuant to agency regulations while simultaneously allowing
trespassers to enter the Refuges, unchecked and without repercussions
despite the agency's knowledge that trespassers are harming the
Refuges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service evidence provides merely speculative
support for the Fish and Wildlife Service's conclusion that there is
risk of harm on Desecheo Island to Amateur Radio operators by illegal
aliens, drug smugglers or ordnance, if any. Indeed, the Fish and
Wildlife Service's own records clearly demonstrate that (1) the
agency's assertions concerning alleged safety issues in the Desecheo
Refuge are speculative or baseless and fall short of the evidentiary
standards established by the federal courts (See e.g., Arizona Cattle
Growers' Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 273 F.3d 1229 (9th
Cir. 2001)), and (2) the agency's assertions concerning the purported
sensitive ecology in the Navassa Refuge are fabrications, belied, in
part, by the Refuge Office's own internal reports, and its discussion
of adopting a formal permit program that would formally recognize the
presence on Navassa Island of alien transients who are likely
responsible for setting fires and harming wildlife on the island.
Neither compatibility determination for Desecheo or Navassa nor any
Fish and Wildlife Service records so much as suggest that that Amateur
Radio use of these refuges would disturb or harm wildlife.
4. The Desecheo Refuge
a. Compatibility
The Desecheo Compatibility Determination states that the Refuge
Office anticipates ``No significant biological impacts'' and that only
``Minor disturbance (e.g., trampling of vegetation) would occur due to
the transport of equipment across refuge property and use of the
campsite.'' R. 1. The Compatibility Determination does not conclude
that Amateur Radio is incompatible with the Desecheo Refuge, and, in
fact, supports the Fish and Wildlife Service's prior view that Amateur
Radio is a compatible use of the Desecheo Refuge. Instead, the
Compatibility Determination identifies three safety factors as a basis
for closing Desecheo.
b. Purported Safety Factors
``unexploded ordnance'' from Desecheo's bombing range
days;
Desecheo served ``as a drop-off point for illegal
aliens''; and
drug trafficking ``is common in the area.''
R. 1.
a. Unexploded Ordnance
Desecheo's bombing range days ended in the early 1950s. Ordnance on
Desecheo, if any exists, does not present a threat to visitors who
abide by the conditions of use the Fish and Wildlife Service imposed
upon visitors for many years. The Fish and Wildlife Service required
Amateur Radio operators to stay within an area the agency concluded was
free of ordnance, primarily near the helipad, which is a large concrete
slab. This is demonstrated by the many special use permits issued by
the agency prior to 1993 which included maps of Desecheo, clearly
outlining a perimeter to which Amateur Radio operators were to confine
their activities.
The agency's own records demonstrate that the Fish and Wildlife
Service has never considered ordnance on Desecheo Island other than a
marginal risk. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel have been visiting
Desecheo Island for at least 30 years and have hiked the island
extensively. R. 151, 158-160, 162-167, 170-171, 174-175. Nevertheless,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers inspected Desecheo Island for ordnance
in March 2002. R. 140, R. 170. During the inspection, Corps personnel
examined old bombs and fragments on Desecheo Island, concluded that
most of the objects they found were ``innocuous scrap'', and assessed
the risk of harm from the six rusting and damaged bombs found as
``low'' or ``marginal.'' R. 140 at 6-1-6-3, 7-, R. 140 App. D-1 at 11.
This information is contained in a report issued by the Corps in 2002
about its inspection and extensive review of historical data concerning
Desecheo Island. The report was issued in June 2002. R. 140.
Ordnance identified on the island was destroyed by a United States
Navy demolitions team as verified by a report dated December 19, 2002
verifies. R. 200. Thus, the ``innocuous scrap'' identified by the Army
Corps of Engineers was, apparently out of an abundance of caution,
destroyed. According to the report, three bombs were detonated. The
demolitions team reported that it was unable to detonate three shells
the Fish and Wildlife Service had identified in hilly terrain which is
not near the area Amateur Radio operators have operated from in the
past.
b. Illegal Aliens & Drug Traffickers on Desecheo Island
The Fish and Wildlife Service has taken into account reported
activity up to fifteen miles outside the Desecheo Refuge. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has produced no evidence that any illegal aliens have
ever threatened or harmed anyone on Desecheo. A letter authored by the
Desecheo refuge manager on September 25, 2003 letter is telling: ``The
Service does not have direct evidence that such intercepts have or
would put visitors at risk[.]'' R. 35 at 3 ] 7.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the Fish and Wildlife
Service's assertion ``that almost all migrant and drug smuggling
ventures'' use Desecheo Island ``as a referential landmark, a rest
area, a temporary hideout pending cover of darkness or for
emergencies''. Fish and Wildlife Service records include no evidence to
show that illegal aliens or illegal drug traffickers pose any more of a
threat on Desecheo Island than do illegal aliens or drug traffickers
anywhere else in the United States. The only evidence of drug
trafficking on Desecheo Island produced by the Fish and Wildlife
Service was of a stash of marijuana found in the old cable house in
1990--and that was fifteen years ago. R. 147.
c. Landing on Desecheo Island Can be Done Safely
The Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that there is ``no landing
site but rather a small boat has to be brought to the shore at
Desecheo[.]'' R. 40 at 2. Desecheo has a cove and beach area adjacent
to the proposed operating site on the Helipad that is ideal for landing
on the island and has been used in the past by Amateur Radio operators
authorized to land on the island. R. 196 at 12 (original document page
14). There is no evidence in the Fish and Wildlife Service records to
show that Fish and Wildlife Service personnel or other government
personnel who enter the Desecheo Refuge frequently to hunt goats or
trap monkeys have been injured landing on or departing from the island.
There is no evidence that anyone who has ever visited Desecheo has been
injured landing on or departing from the island by sea or otherwise.
An unsolicited e-mail message in which a Michigan man who was
denied a special use permit for Amateur Radio, details his telephone
conversation with the Desecheo refuge manager who informed him that she
has visited Desecheo Island with her family. If this is true, it
supports the other evidence which demonstrates that Desecheo is safe
for access by other than non-government employees. A copy of the e-mail
message is submitted to the Fisheries Subcommittee for the record.
5. The Navassa Refuge
The Navassa refuge is being used by fishermen from Haiti as a
campground and the fishermen have harmed the refuge and its wildlife.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been aware of this since at least
2000 and has chosen to do nothing about it, all the while barring from
the refuge Americans who seek to visit the island for lawful reasons
consistent with the NWRSIA.
a. Compatibility
The Navassa Compatibility Determination does not address Amateur
Radio use of the refuge. It concludes that ``it is unclear at present
what negative impacts might result'' from various ``recreational
activities.'' R. 2 at 2. The Compatibility Determination addresses
proposed ``wildlife-dependent recreation'', R. 2, stating, in part:
``Use of the island for recreational purposes could substantially
impact a number of terrestrial species, most notably nesting birds such
as the Red-footed Booby'' and ``Traditional uses of the area (e.g.,
subsistence fishing) should not have a significant impact on trust
resources if the level of activity remains constant.''
The Fish and Wildlife Service typically tells applicants seeking
Amateur Radio use permits for Navassa that the island's ecology is in
such a sensitive state that visitors are not allowed on the island.
However, a May 2000 Fish and Wildlife Service internal report prepared
by the Refuge Office states that the marine habitat surrounding Navassa
Island is in ``excellent condition'', and is ``very healthy''. R. 161
at 1, 3. Scientists who have surveyed Navassa support the Fish and
Wildlife Service's conclusions, stating that Navassa is a ``pristine
and entirely unexploited marine habitat'' and is a habitat ``that may
remain in a relatively unexploited state.'' R. 25 at 46 (original
document page numbers). No evidence supports the agency's assertion
that the ``flora and fauna'' of Navassa are in a sensitive state.
Furthermore, information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey
internet site shows considerable photographic evidenced that USGS
personnel roamed extensively over Navassa Island on foot. R. 23 at 3.
Presumably, there was no impact from their exploration on the ecology
or flora and fauna of Navassa Island nor any material interference with
the Fish and Wildlife Service's purpose and mission in the Refuge. It
stands to reason that Amateur Radio operators confined to a tiny
perimeter on the edge of the Navassa Refuge for a brief period would
have even less impact on the Refuge's ecology.
b. Navassa is a Campground for Haitian Fishermen
The Fish and Wildlife Service's records reveal that Navassa is a
camp-ground for Haitian fishermen who fish the surrounding waters and
that the agency is content to do nothing about the harm caused by these
trespassers--even considering encouraging the fishermen to visit the
island through a permit program. The agency's report for field work in
the Navassa refuge for the year 2000 states that fires had been started
on the island, that fishermen reported seeing other Haitians harm
wildlife, and that Fish and Wildlife Service personnel, learning about
the harm the fishermen caused the refuge, didn't bother to tell the
Haitians to leave the island. When Fish and Wildlife Service personnel
returned to their office in Puerto Rico and prepared their report, they
recommended that permits be issued for Haitians to go to Navassa. R.
161 at 5.
The Navassa Compatibility Determination concludes that
``Traditional uses of the area (e.g., subsistence fishing) should not
have a significant impact'' on Navassa. R. 161 at 4. The evidence shows
that traditional uses are camping by subsistence fishermen who roam
Navassa Island at will, start fires and harm wildlife. The Fish and
Wildlife Service has made no attempt to prevent fishermen from entering
or camping on Navassa Island. If such traditional use of the Refuge
should not have a significant impact on the refuge as the Fish and
Wildlife Service has concluded, then it stands to reason that Amateur
Radio activity, a temporary, passive presence confined to the very edge
of the Refuge, will not have a significant impact, if any, on Navassa
Island. United States citizens whose taxes pay to support the national
wildlife refuge system, who propose to use the Navassa Refuge for
compatible, lawful activity under agency supervision, are denied use of
the Navassa Refuge in favor of illegal aliens the Fish and Wildlife
Service encourages to continue unauthorized and uncontrolled habitation
of the island and its waters.
c. Landing on Navassa Island Can be Done Safely
The Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that there is ``no landing
site'' but rather ``cliffs have to be climbed from a small boat at
Navassa.'' R. 40 at 2. Helicopter landings on Navassa have been used by
government personnel in the past and are the easiest and safest way of
getting on and off the island. A ladder has been safely used to access
Navassa by Fish and Wildlife Service personnel and Amateur Radio
operators, R. 182, without known mishap. The Fish and Wildlife Service
admits that landing on Navassa Island is difficult but not impossible.
R. 161 at 1. Surely landing on Navassa Island cannot be as difficult as
the Fish and Wildlife Service suggests, if agency personnel Joseph
Schwagerl, Beverly Yoshioka, and Glen Callingford spent nights on a
research vessel offshore during field work, R. 30 at 2, only to have to
climb on and then off the island six times during three day-trips to
the island, using a ladder. Id. When the field team returned to base
that year, the only recommendation regarding improved access to Navassa
was to suggest installing a better ladder. R. 30.
6. Distance & Law Enforcement
Neither Desecheo nor Navassa are remote because both Refuges are
easily accessible by existing licensed aviation and marine charter
transport services. R. 161 at 1, R. 197. As the Fish and Wildlife
Service has previously demonstrated in issuing special use permits for
Amateur Radio use of Baker Island in the Pacific, the remoteness of a
refuge was not a factor. No law enforcement personnel were dispatched
to accompany the visitors into the Baker refuge, which is some sixteen
hundred miles from Hawaii. Desecheo is 14 miles from Puerto Rico;
Navassa is 40 miles from Haiti.
Congress has not mandated that the Fish and Wildlife Service
``maintain a law enforcement presence'' in the Refuge, nor does the
Fish and Wildlife Service have any legal basis for asserting that it is
required to do so, or make the presence of law enforcement personnel in
the Refuge a condition precedent to authorizing visitors to the island.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not require a law enforcement
presence in the Baker Island Refuge as a prerequisite to issuing a
special use permit for the Baker Island Operation. R. 190.
Remarkably, the Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that it is
willing to place its personnel at risk on Desecheo and Navassa but not
non-government visitors. We know of no law or regulation that would
allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to subject its civilian employees
to such risks and it is unreasonable to believe that any government
agency other than military or law enforcement departments of the
government would do so.
7. Costs
The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that it does not have
sufficient funding to allow access to the Desecheo and Navassa refuges.
In my application for special use permits for Amateur Radio on Desecheo
and Navassa, and in subsequent conversations with the agency, I offered
to pay for the cost of sending up to two Fish and Wildlife Service
field personnel to the refuges to supervise us, and to pay for
transportation to and from the island. The Fish and Wildlife Service
required a similar obligation by Amateur Radio operators for the Baker
Island visit in 2002. Proposals of this kind, if granted by the agency,
would entail no additional costs above and beyond the administrative
costs of reviewing the applications. I have proposed a means by which
the Fish and Wildlife Service could reduce the administrative time and
costs necessary to reviewing application in my initial appeal brief
(pages 77-79).
8. Conclusion
Amateur Radio is a compatible use of the Desecheo and Navassa
refuges. Only speculative evidence, at best, suggests the presence of
safety factors, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's prior issuance of
permits for Amateur Radio for Desecheo and permits for Navassa issued
by other agencies demonstrate that safety is not an issue. Furthermore,
the closure of Desecheo and Navassa have barred lawful, compatible uses
of these refuges consistent with the NWRSIA, leaving the islands to be
harmed by trespassers.
The NWRSIA and its legislative history require the Fish and
Wildlife Service to balance protection of wildlife and responsible
public access. The relevant facts support reasonable, responsible
public use of the Desecheo and Navassa national wildlife refuges, not
just for Amateur Radio, but for all Americans who desire to go there to
enjoy and appreciate these island refuges. If the agency is concerned
about opening the floodgates of public use, then it can, under existing
regulations, or through additional rule-making, adopt guidelines for
applications for special use permits that will allow an appropriate
degree of access to the refuges, as envisioned by the NWRSIA.
H.R. 1183, introduced by Congressman Nick Rahall, the Ranking
Member of the House Resources Committee, addresses these issues and
would allow limited public access of these island habitats.
NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr.
Farrell has been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Farrell. And we
will now hear from Mr. Robert Allphin.
Mr. Allphin. It is pronounced ALL-phin.
Mr. Gilchrest. ALL-phin.
Mr. Allphin. But that's been a problem all my life. Thank
you.
Mr. Gilchrest. ALL-phin.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. ALLPHIN,
FAIR ACCESS TO ISLAND REFUGES
Mr. Allphin. My name is Bob Allphin. I reside at 4235
Blackland Drive, Marietta, Georgia. And I have two red-tail
hawks nesting in my back yard.
Mr. Gilchrest. Really?
Mr. Allphin. However, I only observe them through
binoculars, so I appreciate the opportunity to see one up close
and personal.
Mr. Gilchrest. That's great.
Mr. Allphin. Thank you for that.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are welcome.
Mr. Allphin. I represent Fair Access to Island Refuges, or
FAIR. And I wish to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify on the issue of public access to certain U.S.
wildlife refuges.
I am enjoying an early retirement and my family, two young
grandchildren, travel, and my hobby that has interested me
since I was a young boy: amateur radio, sometimes called ``ham
radio.'' I have held an amateur radio license for 47 years,
since I was 13 years old. And I am one of 700,000 federally
licensed amateur radio operators in the United States, and
among several million worldwide.
Although the hobby is very diverse, you are probably most
familiar with a certain facet of the hobby that involves
emergency communications. If you have ever been directly
affected by a hurricane or a tornado or a flood, or read
accounts of the aftermath of September 11th or, more recently,
the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, then you have read about the
emergency communications role played by unpaid volunteers with
their ham radios.
On a national level, hams operate through the Radio Amateur
Civil Emergency Service, or RACES, which is coordinated through
FEMA, and Amateur Radio Emergency Service, ARES, which is
coordinated through our national organization, the American
Radio Relay League, and its field volunteers. In those areas of
America where there are tornadoes and hurricanes, many hams are
involved in Skywarn, which operates under the National Weather
Service.
Other hams have entirely different interests, ranging from
amateur television, antenna design and experimentation,
bouncing signals off our own satellites that we have launched,
and even sometimes bouncing signals off the moon. Some just
enjoy shooting the breeze with a fellow ham in a neighboring
state, or on the other side of the world.
However, my interest involves transmitting and contacting
other hams worldwide while I am visiting rare and out-of-the-
way places. This way, I combine two of my passions, two of my
interests, travel and hamming. Thus far, I have operated my ham
radio from 42 different countries.
Now, while most hams with interests similar to mine are on
the receiving end of these radio contacts, and they are making
them from ham radios in their living room or their den or their
basement; I am among those few who travel to those out-of-the-
way places.
And these places are typically where there are no hams, no
resident hams, or for whatever reason, there is little or no
radio activity. These places are usually uninhabited, isolated,
or politically difficult. In our ham radio world, there are 335
of these places, called ``entities.'' They range from entities
as large as Russia, Canada, or the USA, to as small as Kingman
Reef in the Pacific Ocean, which is about 1,000 miles southwest
of Hawaii, and is nothing more than a spit of land about 450
feet long, 25 feet wide, and 5 feet above water at high tide.
These are all entities for amateur radio purposes, and hams
collect contacts with these entities, much like other citizens
collect stamps, coins, art, or sports memorabilia. Many of
these entities are in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, and
are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Here is a sample of those confirmation cards that are
sought after the contact is made. This is a card from Navassa
in 1988 for an amateur radio operation there. And this is a
card from Desecheo for contacts made in 1985.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where do you get those cards from?
Mr. Allphin. After the radio contact is made, the person
who made the contact requests these confirmation cards, and
adds them to their collection. And in addition, they can apply
for certain awards.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who makes up the cards?
Mr. Allphin. Generally, they are made up by the members of
the expedition.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh. Interesting.
Mr. Allphin. Now, of course, the other benefit is that the
operators themselves in these isolated places are honing their
emergency operating skills, using small, portable antennas and
small radios and emergency power.
We have brought along with us an example of some of those
small radios, that are back here in the back of the room. One
of the small devices is the radio itself. The other is the
power supply. And there is a sample of modern technology in
terms of antennas.
I just thought it might be interesting to point out that we
are not talking about setting up large towers 100 feet tall, or
anything like that. We can accomplish what we want to
accomplish with some mighty small footprints, if you will.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they on right now, so other ham
operators can hear the hearing?
Mr. Allphin. They are not. If we had gotten here a little
earlier, we might have been able to hook that up.
Mr. Gilchrest. We should have accommodated that.
Mr. Allphin. I want to point out that over the years there
has been a good partnership between amateur radio operators and
the Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, there remains a very
good partnership between Fish and Wildlife and amateur radio
operators in the Pacific region. But unfortunately, in recent
years, not so good in the Caribbean area, as part of the
southeastern region. It is like they are operating under a
different set of rules, or maybe different legislation.
Oftentimes, when amateur radio operators apply for and
receive a permit to visit and operate their radios from a
refuge, Fish and Wildlife personnel will accompany them. This
allows Fish and Wildlife personnel to visit the refuge and do
their work more frequently than might otherwise be possible
during times of budgetary restrictions.
Of course, with Fish and Wildlife personnel on hand, they
can also be sure that the ham visitors stay within the
restrictions of their permit that require that their visit have
little or no impact on the local ecology, the environment, or
wildlife.
Needless to say, this cooperative relationship also allows
a few fortunate citizens a chance to visit and enjoy places
that most U.S. citizens will never have the opportunity to see
or experience.
As an example, in January 1993, I was part of a ham radio
expedition to Howland Island, one of the refuges in the
Pacific. As a matter of interest, this is the island that
Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, were looking for
when they disappeared in 1937.
We sailed to Howland on an 85-foot schooner that our group
had chartered, and were accompanied by two Fish and Wildlife
employees. One was Dr. Beth Flint, a Fish and Wildlife Service
biologist. I am quoting her directly, ``I hope you guys take
advantage of this opportunity. You're going to a place that,
unfortunately, most of the public never, ever gets to see, even
though it belongs to them. These places just can't tolerate a
lot of public use, for obvious reasons. We are delighted when
some people get to use it, and hope that you will become
advocates for these resources.''
She also said, ``It's pretty easy to operate without
causing death and destruction, if you're real careful. I'll be
able to teach you guys how to do it without having to cause
mortality to the birds.''
When we arrived at Howland Island, she and the other Fish
and Wildlife employee, Mr. Dave Woodside, went ashore in the
first Zodiac, and surveyed the area. They marked the nesting
colonies with colored flags, and then marked where we could put
up our tents and antennas. Since we had two camp sites, she
marked a clear pathway between the sites.
Dr. Flint spent considerable time with us, showing what to
do and what not to do in order to protect the birds. And for
those of us who wanted to learn more, she was a wealth of
information. It was much like a high school field trip, for
those of us that didn't want to spend all of the time on the
radios.
I have also operated ham radios from Kingman Reef, that
spit of land that I mentioned earlier, and on nearby Palmyra
Island. Although the islands were not under Fish and Wildlife
control at that time, in October of 2000, in January of 2001,
the had become Fish and Wildlife refuges. I notice on the Fish
and Wildlife website that Kingman Reef, not unpredictably, is
now closed to public access.
Today, there continues to be an excellent relationship
between the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Pacific area and
amateur radio operators. In fact, as recently as 2002, a permit
was granted to a Yugoslav citizen who led a multinational team
of radio operators to the Baker Island refuge.
In the Caribbean, it is a different story. We are not sure
why. At least 16 requests for permits from radio amateurs to
visit these two refuges, Navassa and Desecheo, have been turned
down in the last ten years. The most recent denial was in March
of this year.
Prior to 1992, permits were issued with regularity. The
reasons cited for the refusals are usually the same, time and
time again. As Mr. Farrell has already testified, Fish and
Wildlife's own records contain evidence that amateur radio is
indeed a compatible activity, under current legislation. And
the reasons given for the denial of access may be less than
accurate or truthful.
Personally, I have been involved with two groups that have
requested permits to visit Desecheo. One application filed by
Dr. Carl Henson--I'm sorry, Mr. Carl Henson--of Virginia, and
the other by Mr. Farrell, himself. Both requests were denied.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Allphin----
Mr. Allphin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest.--I am just going to interrupt you for a
second. This is a fascinating story. We have other pressures.
You are about into ten minutes now. We have your testimony. So
if you could just wrap up.
Mr. Allphin. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. My time remaining says
``5.20.''
Mr. Gilchrest. I think that is 5.20 over the original five
minutes.
Mr. Allphin. Oh. OK. I'm sorry.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is all right.
Mr. Allphin. I fully understand the problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Allphin. I think I can finish in about 60 seconds, if
that will be all right. I just want to point out that the
United States is not the only country that has ecologically
sensitive and pristine ecosystems. In 1997, I and a group of 19
others applied to the Australian Government for a permit to
visit Heard Island. That island is a protected area, the
subject of a management plan covered by 13 different pieces of
legislation. It is also a national historic landmark. We have
also operated from Thule Island, and from South Georgia,
pristine islands owned by the U.K.
I guess the point--and in summary--is that while Fish and
Wildlife, amateur radio operators, and the wildlife benefit
from a cooperative relationship in the Pacific, and other
nations cooperate with U.S. amateur radio operators and allow
access to their pristine, sensitive, and important areas, why
is it--why is it--that with the Caribbean region of Fish and
Wildlife we are continuously denied access to Desecheo and
Navassa?
Again, I apologize for misunderstanding the system. This is
my first, and probably last, time----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Allphin.--of speaking in front of a Subcommittee. And I
want to thank you all for that opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allphin follows:]
Statement of Robert C. Allphin, Jr.,
Fair Access to Island Refuges
My name is Bob Allphin; I reside at 4235 Blackland Drive, Marietta,
Ga. Like Mr. Farrell, I represent Fair Access to Island Refuges, or
``FAIR''. I wish to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
testify on the issue of public access to the certain U.S. wildlife
refuges.
I am enjoying an early retirement and enjoying my family, 2 young
grandchildren, travel and my hobby that has interested me since I was a
young boy-Amateur Radio also known as Ham Radio. I have held an amateur
radio license for 47 years since I was 13 years old and am one of
700,000 federally licensed amateur radio operators in the U.S. and
among several million worldwide. Although the hobby is very diverse, we
are probably best known for providing what is sometimes the only
communications available during National and local emergencies. If you
have ever been directly affected by a hurricane, tornado, flood or read
accounts of the aftermath of Sept. 11th or more recently, the Tsunami
in the Indian Ocean you have heard of the emergency communications role
played by unpaid volunteers with their ham radios.
On a National level, hams operate through the Radio Amateur Civil
Emergency Service (RACES), which is coordinated through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Amateur Radio Emergency
Service (ARES), which is coordinated through the American Radio Relay
League and its field volunteers. In those areas prone to tornados and
hurricanes, many hams are involved in Skywarn, which operates under the
National Weather Service.
Other hams have entirely different interests ranging from amateur
television, antenna design and experimentation to bouncing signals off
our own satellites that we have launched and even sometimes off the
moon. Some just like ``shooting the breeze'' with a fellow ham in a
neighboring state or around the world. However, my interest involves
transmitting and contacting others hams worldwide while I am visiting
rare and out of the way places. This way I combine two of my
interests--travel and hamming. Thus far I have operated my ham radio
from 42 different countries.
While most hams with interests similar to mine are on the receiving
end of these contacts and are made from their ham radios in their
living room or den at home, I am among those who travel to those out of
way places where few hams may live or for whatever reason, there is
little or no radio activity. These places are usually uninhabited,
isolated or politically difficult. In our ham radio world there are 335
of these places, called entities. The range from entities as large as
Russia, Canada or the USA to as small as Kingman Reef in the Pacific
Ocean about 1000 mile SW of Hawaii, which is nothing more than a spit
of sand about 450 ft long, 25 feet wide and 5 feet above water at high
tide. These are all entities for amateur radio purposes and hams
collect contacts with these entities much like others collect stamps,
coins, art or sports memorabilia. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
the Caribbean and Pacific regions administer a number of these
entities.
Over the years there has been a good partnership between amateur
radio operators and the FWS. In fact, there remains a very good
partnership between FWS and Amateur Radio operators in the Pacific
region, but unfortunately in recent years not so good in the Caribbean
area. It's like they are operating under a different set of rules of
different legislation.
Oftentimes, when amateur radio operators apply for and receive a
permit to visit and operate their radios from a refuge, FWS personnel
will accompany them. This allows the FWS personnel to visit the refuge
and do their work more frequently than might otherwise be possible
during times of budgetary restrictions. Of course, with FWS personnel
on hand they can also be sure that the ham visitors stay within the
restrictions of their permit that require that their visit has little
or no impact on the local ecology, environment or wildlife. Needless to
say, this cooperative relationship also allows a few fortunate citizens
the chance to visit and enjoy places that most U.S. citizens will never
have the opportunity to see or experience.
In Jan. 1993, I was part of a Ham radio expedition to Howland
Island, one of the Refuges in the Pacific. As a matter of interest,
this is the island that Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan
were looking for when they disappeared in 1937. We sailed to Howland on
an 85-foot schooner that our group chartered and were accompanied by 2
FWS employees. One was Dr. Beth Flint, a FWS biologist. I am quoting
her directly--I hope you guys take advantage of this opportunity. You
are going to a place that, unfortunately most of the public never,
ever, gets to see even though it belongs to them. These places just
can't tolerate a lot of public use for obvious reasons. We are
delighted when some people get to use it and we hope you will become
advocates for these resources.''
She also said, ``It's pretty easy to operate without causing death
and destruction if you're real careful''..I'll be able to teach you
guys how to do it without having to cause mortality to the birds.''
When we arrived at Howland Island, she and the other FWS employee,
Mr. Dave Woodside went ashore in the first zodiac and surveyed the
area. They marked the nesting colonies with colored flags and then
marked where we could put up our tents and antennas. Since we had 2
campsites, she marked a clear pathway between the sites. Dr. Flint
spent considerable time with us showing us what to do and not to do to
protect the birds. And for those of us who wanted to learn more, she
was a wealth of information. It was much like a high school field trip
for those of us that who didn't want to spend all their time on the
radios.
I have also operated ham radios from Kingman Reef, that spit of
sand that I mentioned earlier and on nearby Palmyra Island. Although
the islands were not under FWS control at that time in October, 2000;
in early 2001 they both became FWS refuges.
Today, there continues to be an excellent relationship between the
FWS in the Pacific area and amateur radio operators. In fact, as
recently as 2002 a permit was granted to a Yugoslav citizen who led a
multi-national team of radio operators to the Baker Island Refuge.
In the Caribbean it is a different story. We are not sure why. At
least 16 requests for permits from radio amateurs to visit two refuges,
Navassa and Desecheo, have been turned down in the last 10 years. The
most recent denial was in March of this year. Prior to 1992, permits
were issued with regularity.
The reasons cited for the refusals are usually the same time and
time again. As Mr. Farrell has already testified, FWS own records
contain evidence that Amateur radio is a compatible activity under
current legislation and the reasons given for denial of access may be
less than accurate or truthful.
Personally, I have been involved with two groups that have
requested permits to visit Desecheo. One application filed by Mr. Carl
Henson of Virginia and the other by Mr. Farrell. Both requests were
denied despite our willingness to sign any releases or waivers that
might be requested, submission to any reasonable restrictions imposed
by FWS upon our operations to protect the environment and wildlife and
our offer to have FWS personnel accompany us. Yet we were denied!
In late 2002, I represented a small group of hams and submitted a
written proposal for a joint operation on Desecheo with 8-10 amateur
radio operators and the Puerto Rico Emergency Management Agency. We
were working with Mr. Raphael Guzman, Executive Director, who happens
to be a ham, and he was interested in pursuing the idea of joint
emergency communications exercise to help train his personnel. We also
proposed that the training exercise be highly publicized and used to
provide visibility and recognition for the 100th Anniversary of the
U.S. Refuge System. Our proposal was to help bring a higher level of
understanding and appreciation by the general public of the USFWS and
the U.S. Refuge System. It would have also publicized PREMA. Mr. Guzman
met with FWS personnel in Puerto Rico, presented our plan and he was
denied permission for this training exercise.
The United States is not the only country that has ecologically
sensitive and pristine ecosystems scattered around the globe. In 1997,
I and a group of 19 other amateur radio operators applied for and
received a permit from the Australian government to conduct radio
operations from Heard Island. Heard Island is one of the world's rare
pristine island ecosystems and lies in the complete absence of alien
plants and animals, as well as human impact. Heard Island is a
protected area and the subject of 13 different acts of protective
legislation. It is also the site of an old Antarctic research base that
is a national historic landmark. We sent 16 days on the island camped
right next to this historic landmark. We complied with all of the many
restrictions placed upon us and were able to enjoy this very special
place--thanks to the Australian government.
In 2000, I and a small group of 12 amateur radio operators were
given permits to set up camp and operate our radios from Thule Island,
the southernmost island in the South Sandwich Island group near
Antarctica. This island is the home of one of the largest
concentrations of Chinstrap penguins in the world and a protectorate of
the United Kingman.
We also spent 12 days on South Georgia Island, one of the most
prolific wildlife areas in the world. South Georgia is home to the
greatest concentration of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic wildlife on the
planet. In the summer, there are 2.2 million fur seals crowding the
shoreline; 95% of the world's population. The 360,000 elephant seals
that breed on the island is more than half the world's population. A
very special place, a protectorate of the UK, and available to amateur
radio operators, under strict conditions.
In summary, while the FWS and amateur radio operators and the
wildlife benefit from a cooperative relationship in the Pacific region,
and other nations cooperate with U.S. amateur radio operators and allow
access to their pristine, sensitive and important areas around the
world, why is it that in the Caribbean region of the FWS we are
continuously denied access to Desecheo and Navassa Island refuges? How
can this U.S. agency discriminate against American citizens, the owners
of these islands, when the 1963 Act clearly requires that the
Department of the Interior to use a nationwide approach to
administering our wildlife refuges. Something is wrong. Something is
not right! My thanks to the subcommittee for allowing me to testify but
more importantly for thanks looking into these important questions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Allphin. we would
like to have you back numerous times.
We do have one vote. Is it just one vote? I think what we
will do, we will go over there; vote; and come right back. So
we will have a pleasant, ten-minute break. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you for your patience.
We will begin with Mr. Dave Mathewson--Is it ``Matheson''
or ``Mathewson''?
Mr. Mathewson. It is Mathewson.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mathewson. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVE MATHEWSON, DISTRICT 2 VICE PRESIDENT, ACADEMY
OF MODEL AIRPLANES
Mr. Mathewson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee, my name is Dave Mathewson. I am a
district vice president with the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
The academy is a national organization of over 160,000 members
involved in the international hobby and sport of model
aviation.
In 1997, the training facility at Galeville, New York, was
deemed excess by the West Point military Academy. Control of
the property was reassigned to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and renamed the Shawangunk National Wildlife Refuge.
On December 7th, 1997, after over 26 years of co-existence
between aeromodelers and the grassland habitants, the Service,
claiming incompatibility, banned our members from continuing
their use of this facility for free-flight modeling.
I am here today to describe to you the academy's efforts to
return aeromodeling to this property, and the unyielding
reluctance of the Fish and Wildlife Service to fairly consider
our request.
On May 23rd, 2001, Mr. Wes DeCou, the academy's flying site
assistance coordinator, testified before the Committee on
Resources examining recreational access to Federal lands. The
briefing paper on this hearing condensing Mr. DeCou's remarks
described how our members flew at Galeville to the satisfaction
of biologists at West Point, and in fact were involved in a
working relationship with those biologists to create and
maintain a grasslands area on the property.
The briefing noted the Army conducted two separate
environmental studies at Galeville, and found no adverse impact
in the region as a consequence of aeromodeling. The briefing
describes how modelers approached the Service, after being
restricted from the site, expressing a desire to continue to
use the facility.
The modelers committed to a plan that included a limited
flying schedule, the hiring of an environmental professional to
monitor impacts on wildlife, and maintaining the grasslands.
The Service refused the modelers' request, despite the studies,
past history, and the modelers' commitment to continuing to be
sensitive to the surrounding environment.
On November 6th, 2001, a draft compatibility determination
was released by the Fish and Wildlife Service, focusing on
free-flight modeling at Galeville. The academy's review of the
draft revealed several misleading statements, erroneous
conclusions, and references to studies having no direct
relationship to model flying.
The academy contracted Mr. Ken Scartelli, of Northeast
Environmental Management Systems, to prepare a response to the
draft. Mr. Scartelli had authored a site survey in 1996,
concerning the Galeville property. In both his 1996 study and
his 2001 response, Mr. Scartelli concluded that use of the site
for free-flight activities would pose no significant negative
impacts to the site.
Referring specifically to the draft CD, Mr. Scartelli
concluded that the CD contains numerous errors, exaggerations,
and distortions of data. These include mismanagement of fact,
ignoring pertinent information, speculation, citing of
unrelated studies, and internal inconsistencies. Moreover, it
provides no credible data to support its conclusion.
Members of the academy provided over 2,100 responses
objecting to the conclusion of the CD. Included in these
responses were several letters by noted experts and others
having direct involvement in refuge management, that indicated
the draft's conclusion was flawed. In spite of this, the
Service upheld their position in issuing the final CD on
February 20th, 2002.
On February 27th, 2002, the academy appealed this decision.
This resulted in a meeting with Dr. Mamie Parker, Fish and
Wildlife Service Regional Director, and members of her staff.
The academy presented a letter from former Congressman James
Hansen, at the time Chair of the Congressional Committee on
Resources, and a sponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997.
That letter indicated the Service, in denying modelers
access to Galeville, was misinterpreting this legislation
regarding use policies at National Wildlife refuges. In
essence, the response of the staff at this meeting was, ``It
doesn't matter.'' The meeting concluded with our efforts being
dismissed.
Subsequent to this meeting, the academy suggested to Dr.
Parker that limited short-term use of the facility for free-
flight aeromodeling be allowed, so that a relevant study could
be conducted to prove conclusively the impact of aeromodeling
on the habitat. Once again, our efforts were rebuffed. In her
reply, Dr. Parker did recognize and thank the modelers for
their past stewardship of the site.
The Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference, with the support
of the academy, has worked hard to try to negotiate an
agreement to return to Galeville, while being extremely
sensitive to the primary purpose of the refuge. In each
instance, they have met with unreasonable resistance.
The irony is that the Service is quick to point out that
Shawangunk is a man-made facility. The fact is, Shawangunk is a
man-made refuge. What the Service fails to tell you is that it
was the aeromodelers who played a major part in its creation.
In return for their efforts, the modelers were simply told to
get out.
In his closing statement from the Resources Committee
hearing in 2001, Congressman Hansen said, ``Today's hearing
made it clear that we have lost the proper balance between
protecting the environment and allowing the American people to
enjoy their own public lands. A prompt and sharp course
correction is called for.'' The academy agrees.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the
Academy of Model Aeronautics and the Eastern U.S. Free Flight
Conference, thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mathewson follows:]
Statement of Dave Mathewson, District 2 Vice President,
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, my name is
Dave Mathewson. I am a district vice president with the Academy of
Model Aeronautics. The Academy is a national organization of over
160,000 members involved in the international hobby and sport of model
aviation.
In 1997, the training facility at Galeville, New York, was deemed
excess by the West Point Military Academy. Control of the property was
reassigned to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and renamed the
Shawangunk National Wildlife Refuge. On December 7, 1997, after over 26
years of co-existence between aeromodelers and the grassland habitants,
the Service, claiming incompatibility, banned our members from
continuing their use of this facility for Free Flight modeling. I'm
here today to describe to you the Academy's efforts to return
aeromodeling to this property and the unyielding reluctance of the Fish
& Wildlife Service to fairly consider our request.
On May 23, 2001, Mr. Wes De Cou, the Academy's Flying Site
Assistance Coordinator, testified before the Committee On Resources
examining recreational access to federal lands. The briefing paper on
this hearing, condensing Mr. De Cou's remarks, described how our
members flew at Galeville to the satisfaction of biologists at West
Point, and in fact, were involved in a working relationship with those
biologists to create and maintain a grasslands area on the property.
The briefing noted the Army conducted two separate environmental
studies at Galeville and found no adverse impact in the region as a
consequence of aeromodeling. The briefing describes how modelers
approached the Service, after being restricted from the site,
expressing a desire to continue to use the facility. The modelers
committed to a plan that included a limited flying schedule, the hiring
of an environmental professional to monitor impacts on wildlife, and
maintaining the grasslands. The Service refused the modelers' request
despite the studies, past history, and the modelers' commitment to
continuing to be sensitive to the surrounding environment.
On November 6, 2001, a draft compatibility determination (CD) was
released by the Fish & Wildlife Service focusing on free flight
modeling activities at Galeville. The Academy's review of the draft
revealed several misleading statements, erroneous conclusions, and
references to studies having no direct relationship to model flying.
The Academy contracted Mr. Ken Scartelli, of Northeast Environmental
Management Systems, to prepare a response to the draft. Mr. Scartelli
had authored a site survey in 1996 concerning the Galeville property.
In both his 1996 study and his 2001 response, Mr. Scartelli concluded
that,--''.use of the site for free-flight activities would pose no
significant negative impacts to the site.'' Referring specifically to
the draft CD, Mr. Scartelli concluded that, ``The CD contains numerous
errors, exaggerations, and distortions of data. These include
mismanagement of fact, ignoring pertinent information, speculation,
citing of unrelated studies, and internal inconsistencies. Moreover, it
provides no credible data to support its conclusion.''
Members of the Academy provided over 2100 responses objecting to
the conclusion of the CD. Included in these responses were several
letters by noted experts and others having direct involvement in refuge
management that indicated the draft's conclusion was flawed. In spite
of this, the Service upheld their position in issuing the final CD on
February 20, 2002.
On February 27, 2002, the Academy appealed this decision. This
resulted in a meeting with Dr. Mamie Parker, Fish & Wildlife Service
Regional Director, and members of her staff. The Academy presented a
letter from former Congressman James Hansen, at the time Chair of the
Congressional Committee on Resources, and a sponsor of the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. That letter indicated the
Service, in denying modelers access to Galeville, was misinterpreting
this legislation regarding use policies at National Wildlife Refuges.
In essence, the response of the staff at this meeting was, ``It doesn't
matter!'' The meeting concluded with our efforts being dismissed.
Subsequent to this meeting, the Academy suggested to Dr. Parker
that limited short-term use of the facility for free flight
aeromodeling be allowed so that a relevant study could be conducted to
prove conclusively the impact of aeromodeling on the habitat. Once
again, our efforts were rebuffed. In her reply Dr. Parker did recognize
and thank the modelers for their past stewardship of the site.
The Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference, with the support of the
Academy, has worked hard to try to negotiate an agreement to return to
Galeville while being extremely sensitive to the primary purpose of the
refuge. In each instance they've met with unreasonable resistance. The
irony is that the Service is quick to point out that Shawangunk is a
man-made facility. The fact is, Shawangunk is a man-made refuge. What
the Service fails to tell you is that it was the aeromodelers who
played a major part in its creation. In return for their efforts, the
modelers were simply told to get out. In his closing statement from the
Resource Committee hearing in 2001, Congressman Hansen said, ``Today's
hearing made it clear that we have lost the proper balance between
protecting the environment and allowing the American people to enjoy
their own public lands. A prompt and sharp course correction is called
for.'' The Academy agrees.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Academy of
Model Aeronautics and the Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference thank you
for this opportunity.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Now I am going to
pronounce Mr. Langelius----
Mr. Langelius. That is good enough.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Langelius. Langelius.
Mr. Gilchrest. Langelius.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LANGELIUS, SR., PRESIDENT,
EASTERN U.S. FREE FLIGHT CONFERENCE
Mr. Langelius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert
Langelius. I am the President of the Eastern U.S. Free Flight
Conference--that is EUSFFC--a group formed to coordinate the
competition activities and sporting efforts of the aeromodelers
and their clubs whose aircraft are specially designed to fly
free, yet safely and satisfactorily, without active control.
I want to thank you and the other members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide my feelings about
public access to a specific unit of the National Wildlife
System. The unit is renamed the Shawangunk National Wildlife
Refuge, but it was formerly known as Galeville Airport in
Wallkill, New York.
The request to me asked six questions, and my responses
will follow this brief statement, if I might.
The aeromodeling community observed the transfer of the
Galeville Airport site by the Department of Defense to the
National Wildlife Refuge System, first with disappointment, and
then with frustration, and then with anger. And the reason is
the General Services Administration, that had mandatory
hearings for transfers--the aeromodeling community was excluded
from any testifying.
No one heard of our ongoing activities for 28 years; our
historical usage; the maintenance that we accomplished, and I
will speak to that in our questions and answers; the security
and the insurance protection that we provided; and our critical
dependency on that site.
The exclusion was wrong, it was illegal, and the transfer
should not have taken place. But when it did, we contacted the
staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to regain access,
or at least attempt to regain access, to the site. And we were
stonewalled; we were lied to; we were condemned. We were
roundly discouraged in every effort we made to resume what had
been a productive and mutually cooperative relationship with
West Point.
When we approached Congress for help, we found many
supporters, and a particularly staunch supporter in the
advocate of Congressman Benjamin Gilman. However, all were
treated with the same cavalier attitude. They just didn't
bother to continue communications as promised, and it was just
a debacle.
The years since the transfer have dramatically increased
our disillusionment and frustration with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. They are consumed by, in my opinion, a
completely intransigent mentality, from top to bottom. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will stop at nothing to impose
wilderness, go back to wilderness. That is my understanding,
and that is basically where they come from.
The response to the first question that was given to me
is--how often were model airplanes flown on the Galeville
Airport? And informally, we had a daily aeromodeling exposure.
There were folks on there practically every day, weather
permitting. Formally, the Eastern Free Flight Conference, we
would arrange with West Point for about 17 to 20 days annually.
How many people were actually involved in this activity?
The total combined membership of the clubs in the conference
was approximately 400 flyers, daily and walk-on flyers. Weekday
and weekends numbered approximately from five to 20. Scheduled
contests drew from 50 to 75 flyers.
And many international flyers came and flew on the field
from Japan, England, Poland, Israel, Germany, France, Turkey,
Hungary, the Ukraine, Russia, and Sweden. This is a famous site
for flying model airplanes; the best site and the only site
like it in northeastern United States.
Question number three: What steps were taken to protect the
resident wildlife and surrounding habitat? And we are very
proud of this. The EUSFFC actively sought the guidance from the
West Point environmental officer for the following purposes. We
initiated a periodic mowing of the facility to convert it to a
savannah type of appearance of all the grassy areas; the
removal of second growth trees designated by the environmental
officer.
The environmental officer also supervised the introduction
of model retrieval paths to concentrate our general movement
across the grassy areas and reduce the time spent out there.
The West Point environmental officer was frequently on the
field, observing our operations. And we had an excellent
relationship with him.
All aeromodelers were required to remove any and all refuse
from the field--theirs, or anyone else's--and pets were
controlled.
Question number four was, what impact did model airplanes
have on wildlife? And there was a significant positive impact,
as the fields were mowed for the first time in decades and the
removal of the burgeoning second growth trees opened up sight
lines for nesting birds. They came in droves.
I believe there was no negative impact by model airplane
flying at Galeville. This opinion is shared by many noted
biologists, especially those who took time to visit and study
the Galeville site. These same biologists stated our activity
was benign.
And the final question was: Like to know of our efforts to
continue this recreational activity after the refuge was
closed. The closing of the Galeville site was obviously a
disaster for us, because there is no comparable site in
northeastern United States. All our qualification events for
international teams had to be shifted to Muncie, Indiana;
Dayton, Ohio; or northern Florida.
We had to consolidate or eliminate our major annual
contests. And a large farm site in Engleside--which you are
probably familiar with, Mr. Chairman; Engleside, Maryland--was
used, but the farm is only available one weekend in early
spring and one weekend in late fall, and the weather conditions
are poor to impossible.
A member of the EUSFFC purchased a sod farm in Wawayanda,
New York, and general free-flight activities have centered
about this location since that time. The site, however, has
serious flaws. The area is crisscrossed by canals and a river.
The sod is surrounded by corn and wheat fields, which makes
model retrieval difficult. Senior aeromodelers have major
problems traversing the canals. Model losses are high. And
travel distances are extreme and prohibitive for youths and
those on limited budgets.
Final question. I am sorry to take so much time. The
justification of the EUSFFC [sic] for denying your request. The
aeromodeling community has been very disappointed by the
findings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
compatibility report was simply a Lexus-Nexus search of all
negative information found pertaining to full-scale aircraft,
and that was creatively projected onto our models. Then they
luridly embellished those results with all kinds of dramatic
effects.
They negatively distorted our retrieval activities, and
suggested tales of modelers in off-road four-wheels, grinding
up nests and scattering flocks. Their report was absolutely
outrageous.
Fish and Wildlife Service never took time to observe our
activities. They said the field is at no time capable of
accommodating our activity; yet there is a picture in my
package I sent you folks, this monstrous tractor and mower that
they use to mow. And there is a tiny, little person--that is a
human being in the middle of that. And they say we can't fly,
there is no time we can do it. I wonder when they do it.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected our
observations of positive bird responses during model retrieval;
yet they claim they observed similar responses when they mowed.
And finally, the proposed budget aspect--which I am glad to
see Congressman Pallone is here, because he is very concerned
about the monies--the proposed budget impact was a complete
fabrication by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The only expense
we would be, would be for a lock and a privy--and it is for
public use, the privy. And we historically paid for both of
them. There was absolutely no truth in that report, sir.
I would like to conclude with the observations of a retired
employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service. His comments are
quoted in the ``Missing Lynx'' article I put in here. He
observed, ``The agency pushed out the people who didn't fit the
anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-land-management profile.
They've got to get back to science.''
I think since Jamie Clark there has been a change, a tidal
change, in attitude. The Fish and Wildlife Service is no longer
interested in supporting people and providing access. I think
they have stonewalled many, many people, and fabricated a lot
of activities--rejection to them.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Langelius follows:]
Statement of Robert Langelius, Sr., President,
The Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference
My name is Robert Langelius, and I am the president of an
organization known as the ``Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference''
(EUSFFC), a group formed to coordinate the competition activities and
sporting efforts those aeromodelers whose aircraft are designed to fly
safely and satisfactorily without active control.
I would like at this time to thank yourself and the other members
of the Sub-Committee for the opportunity to provide my feelings about
public access to a specific unit of the National Wildlife System. The
unit has been re-named ``The Shawangunk National Wildlife Refuge'' and
was formerly known as ``Galeville Airport'' in Wallkill, New York.
The request asked six questions and my responses are on a separate
attachment.
I would like, however, to make a brief statement:
The aeromodeling community observed the transfer of the ``Galeville
Airport'' site from the Department of Defense (DOD) to the National
Wildlife Refuge System with disappointment, frustration, and anger!
During the General Services Administration (GSA) mandatory
hearings, the aeromodeling community was excluded from testifying about
their ongoing activities, our historical usage, the maintenance and
development we had made, the security and insurance protection we
provided, and our critical dependency on the site!
That exclusion was not only wrong but it is ILLEGAL and should have
negated the transfer!!
When the transfer was completed we engaged the staff of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to regain access and we were ``stone
walled'', lied to, condemned, and roundly discouraged in every effort
we made to resume what had been a productive and mutually cooperative
relationship with the DOD!
The years since that transfer have dramatically increased the
aeromodelers frustration with an agency (USFWS) that has a completely
intransigent mentality from the top to bottom and will stop at nothing
to impose its will!
Thank you!
______
Response to questions in Congressman Gilchrest's Letter of May 5,
2005
Question 1 ``How often were model airplanes flown from the `Galeville'
airport''?
Informally, there was a daily aeromodeling presence on the
``Galeville'' site (weather permitting)
Formally, the Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference (EUSFFC) would
negotiate with West Point for approximately seventeen to twenty days
annually!
Question 2: ``How many people were involved in this activity''?
The total combined membership of the clubs in the conference was
approximately four hundred flyers. Weekend ``walk on'' flyers numbered
approximately ten to twenty flyers.
Scheduled contests drew from fifty to seventy-five flyers. Many
international flyers from Japan, England, Poland, Israel, Germany,
France, Turkey, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, and Sweden have joined us in
major competitions at ``Galeville''.
Question 3: What steps were taken to protect the resident wildlife and
surrounding habitat?
The EUSFFC actively sought guidance from the ``West Point''
Environmental Officer for the following purposes:
Initiate a periodic mowing of the facility to convert it to a
``savannah'' type appearance of the grassy areas.
The removal of second growth trees designated by the Environmental
Officer.
The Environmental Officer also supervised the introduction of model
retrieval paths to concentrate general movement and reduce the time
spent in the grassy areas.
The West Point Environmental Officer was frequently on site and we
had an excellent relationship with him.
All aeromodelers were required to remove any and all refuse from
the field--theirs or anyone elses.
Pets were controlled.
Question 4: ``What impact model airplanes had on the wild life''?
I believe there was no negative impact by model plane activity at
``Galeville''!
There was a significant ``positive'' impact as the fields were
mowed for the first time in decades and the removal of the burgeoning
second growth trees opened sight lines for the nesting birds!
This opinion is shared by many noted biologists and especially
those who took the time to visit and study the ``Galeville'' site!
The biologists stated our flying activity was ``benign''!
Question 5: ``Like to know of your efforts to continue this
recreational activity after the refuge was established in 1999?
The ``EUSFFC'' recognized the closing of the ``Galeville'' site was
a disaster for aeromodeling! There is no comparable site in the
Northeastern United States.
We consolidated major annual contests.
A farm site in Engleside, Maryland, is used, but the farm is only
available for one weekend in early spring, and one weekend in the late
fall, when the weather conditions are poor to impossible!
Major contest activity shifted to Muncie, Indiana, Dayton, Ohio,
and Northern Florida.
A member of the ``EUSFFC'' purchased a sod farm in Wawayanda, New
York. General free flight activities have centered about this location
since that time.
The site has very serious flaws! The area is ``criss-crossed'' by
canals and a river, the sod is surrounded by corn and wheat fields
which makes model retrieval very difficult. Senior aeromodelers have
major problems traversing the canals and model losses are high!
Travel distances are extreme and prohibitive for youths and those
on limited budgets!
Question 6: The justification of the ``USFWS'' for denying your
request.
The aeromodeling community has been very disappointed by the
findings of the ``USFWS''!
The compatibility report was simply a ``Nexus Lexus'' search and
all negative information associated with ``full scale'' aircraft was
projected onto our models! The ``USFWS'' then creatively embellished
those results to validate the ``non compatible'' decision!
They distorted our activities and suggested lurid tales of modelers
in ``off ``road'' four-wheelers grinding up nests and scattering flocks
of nesting birds! There was no truth in the report.
The ``USFWS'' never even took the time to observe what we do!
They say the field is at no time capable of accommodating our
activity, yet the mowing rig they use is monstrous! The impact their
mower makes is far in excess of our retrieval activity!
The ``USFWS'' staff rejected our comments ``the birds often follow
us around catching the bugs we kick up''! Yet they stated the same
thing happened when they mowed ``Galeville''.
There would be more cooperation if the ``USFWS'' spent more time
``observing'' our activity and less time denying it!
The proposed budget impact was a complete fabrication! All we ever
required was a lock and a ``privy'' and we payed for them both!
I would like to conclude with the observations of a retired
employee of the ``USFWS'' (in ``the missing lynx'' article) he observed
``...the agency pushed out people that didn't fit the anti-hunting,
anti-fishing, anti-land management profile. They've got to get back to
science...''
How prophetic!!!
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Langelius. Is that
right?
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Langelius. Where are you from?
Mr. Langelius. I am from White Plains, New York.
Mr. Gilchrest. White Plains.
Mr. Langelius. Have to drive to Engleside to fly a model
airplane.
Mr. Gilchrest. Engleside.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, you know, we have a lot of farmland in
my district.
Mr. Langelius. I know. It has been suggested we go out
there. But I don't want to recover--I got my first grandson
this year.
Mr. Gilchrest. What county is White Plains in?
Mr. Langelius. It is Westchester County.
Mr. Gilchrest. Westchester County.
Mr. Langelius. North of New York City.
Mr. Gilchrest. My father and two brothers were born in
Rockland County.
Mr. Langelius. Wow, that is where that field is.
Mr. Gilchrest. In Rockland County?
Mr. Langelius. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. They were born between Congers and Valley
Cottage.
Mr. Langelius. OK. A lot of flyers from that area.
Mr. Gilchrest. Old farmhouse was built in 1812, and the
road in front of the farmhouse is called ``Gilchrest Road.''
Mr. Langelius. Whoa!
Mr. Gilchrest. Ben Gilman used to tell me he was taking
care of it all the time.
Mr. Langelius. Well, God bless Ben Gilman, I have to say.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Langelius. That is a classic congressman. I am sorry he
is not still in the Congress.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess we will start with the model
airplane part of this first. The model airplane group or
association apparently extends, I guess, nationally and
internationally. When did you start flying those model
airplanes at Galeville?
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir. About the early '70s. We were
there for 28 years when the Department of Defense budget was
dried up and they had to divest themselves of Galeville. It was
West Point, was the range.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Langelius. Twenty-eight years, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you were out there flying those model
airplanes for 28 years.
Mr. Langelius. On that site.
Mr. Gilchrest. On that site.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And Galeville was a military airport for
West Point?
Mr. Langelius. No, sir, it was a military Air Force Base.
It was an emergency field that was set up during World War II.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Langelius. For adjacent training areas and bombers
training. And 3,200-foot runways, two concrete runways.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Now, are those runways still
operable?
Mr. Langelius. Not any more. Not since Fish and Wildlife
got them.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are the runways still there? Is it still
asphalt there?
Mr. Langelius. Yes, they are. Yes, they still are. But they
are overgrown. No attention is being paid to the runways, and
the growth coming through the cracks is starting to really
create major problems with the concrete surface.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that Galeville--or Galesville--is 566
acres?
Mr. Langelius. Approximately, yes. But there is an adjacent
area that the Park Department----
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that the state, or the Federal?
Mr. Langelius. No, it was given by the Fish and Wildlife
agency, I think to kind of satiate some concern by the local
township. They wanted a piece of the action, or a piece of the
field. And they gave them a piece.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying the state fish and game
department gave the Fish and Wildlife Service some land?
Mr. Langelius. The Fish and Wildlife Service took over the
whole field. They divested a few acres of it, about 120 acres,
I think. Started around 600, ended up around 120 for them and
about 500 for the----
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. OK.
Mr. Langelius. The field itself, now.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the refuge called now?
Mr. Langelius. It is now called the Shawangunk--I believe--
forgive me--the Shawangunk National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is ``Shawangunk''? Is that an Indian
tribe?
Mr. Langelius. Shawangunk is the town. It is an Indian name
of the town in which it resides.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. I see. How much is forested of that
500 acres?
Mr. Langelius. Very little. Just around the perimeter.
Mr. Gilchrest. Just around the edges?
Mr. Langelius. It is not even forested. Along the two
sides, it is forested.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is like a hedge row or a tree line?
Mr. Langelius. That is exactly it.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you said up until what year could you fly
these airplanes?
Mr. Langelius. Well, we flew until the budget crunch, and
they ran out, and they didn't want to insure it any longer. So
around '95, we were told. We got one final contest in. Around
'95 is when it was shut down.
Mr. Gilchrest. So I understand that Galeville was on the
BRAC list because of the closing military bases. It was shut
down as a result of that. Then through whatever measure or
means, it was transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. So
when that was transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service, for
a couple or three years you continued to have the model
airplane activity out there?
Mr. Langelius. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. No?
Mr. Langelius. No, sir. As soon as it was apparent that the
Fish and Wildlife Service was going to get it, we started
negotiating with them.
Mr. Gilchrest. With Fish and Wildlife?
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir. And our first president, the
current president at the time, he was told summarily, ``We get
that land--'' they didn't even have it yet. They said, ``If we
get it, you're out of here.'' That was the words they used,
``You're out of here.''
Mr. Gilchrest. So your last time of flying model airplanes
was when the Air Force base was still an Air Force base?
Mr. Langelius. It was a range, sir, an airborne assault
range from West Point.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. But the year after it was transferred to the
Fish and Wildlife Service----
Mr. Langelius. We never have flown an airplane on it since.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Langelius. They won't even allow us to demonstrate what
we do.
Mr. Mathewson. The modelers were restricted from using the
site in December 1997. But there was a time lag between the
time when West Point relinquished control of the property until
it became a national wildlife refuge, which I believe was in
1999. But in the interim, the modelers were not allowed to use
the facility.
Mr. Gilchrest. Because of the transition between liability
and responsibility and all of that?
Mr. Mathewson. That would be my understanding.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who initiated this to become part of the
Fish and Wildlife Service refuge system? Was it Ben Gilman?
Mr. Langelius. No, it was in the environmental report, when
they were accessing the property.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Langelius. It emerged in the dialog. They thought it
would be a good thing. Environmentally, because you can't build
on it. It is a little too wet.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Langelius. And it is a perfect site for modeling,
because nobody can build on it. We would be there in
perpetuity, if we could only get access. And that is why we
took such good care of it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Mr. Langelius. Because, I mean, it was our sanctum
sanctorum.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sanctum sanctorum. Sounds like a senator.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Langelius. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will continue to take a look at this,
pursue this, and do the best by you and the Service.
Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.
Farrell and Bob Allphin, the ham operators, a couple of
questions. Mr. Farrell, did you know of any instance where the
operations of ham radios negatively affected any fish or
wildlife species? Have ham radio operations been documented
anywhere as having an impact on migratory birds, to your
knowledge?
Mr. Farrell. I am aware of none, Congressman. And looking
at the information that was provided to me by the Fish and
Wildlife Service for Desecheo and Navassa--which those refuges
were the subject of my applications for use permits--nothing in
the information provided to me indicates that. But as far as
other refuges, I am not aware. And Mr. Allphin may be able to
address that.
Mr. Pallone. If you want to add anything, sure.
Mr. Allphin. I am not aware of any instance of negative
consequences to the wildlife.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I know both of you said that you are
environmentalists. And you know that, as I mentioned earlier,
the refuge system is operated under a clear ``wildlife first''
mission. Do your organizations support that mission? And when
your expeditions set up to broadcast and then depart, what
remains at the site that you occupied, if you want to answer
it?
Mr. Farrell. I will answer the first part of that question.
I believe I did state that on the record, that our organization
and all the amateur radio operators that I know of who are
interested in doing this kind of thing are supporters of
wildlife and the environment in general. And our organization,
Fair Access to Island Refuges, does support, as I said earlier,
the ``wildlife first'' policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Pallone. What about what remains after you have left?
Is there anything left there when you leave, or how does it
work?
Mr. Allphin. As the old saying goes, only our footprints.
We take that very seriously. If I may give you an example of
how seriously we take it, although this doesn't involve a
refuge property, there is an island that I am trying to go to
called ``Peter the First,'' which is off the coast of
Antarctica. The last operation down there was in 1994. It is
owned by Norway. And the amateur radio operators were ferried
on and off the island by helicopters from Russian ships.
The last flight off the island, there were several large
bags of human refuge [sic] which had to be collected during the
operation. The helicopter pilot refused to take it aboard the
helicopter; at which point, the team locked arms and said--I am
not sure I can quote this exactly; there was a four-letter word
used--``Refuge [sic] no go; we no go.'' At which point, it was
loaded aboard, and they were taken back to the Russian ship.
And that is the attitude of all the amateur radio operators
that I am aware of that are involved in this kind of thing.
Mr. Farrell. And I would just note, if I can, that the
special use permits issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service for
Desecheo, for example, include, in addition to the map you saw
and the image of the permit and the attached map, a list of
conditions. And there are several in here in the record. But
they include requirements to remove the effects of the
operation there.
And I believe that I stated earlier that one of the reports
noted that the amateur radio operators did fully comply with
the requirements of their permit. And there is nothing in this
record to indicate otherwise.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I was going to ask you, Mr. Farrell,
with regard to Desecheo, if I understand you correctly, the
Fish and Wildlife Service denied your request for special use
permits to visit the Desecheo refuge because the Service
determined that the use, which had been permitted both prior to
and after the Service acquired the island, was now
incompatible. Obviously, you don't agree that that
compatibility determination was accurate. But would you comment
on that?
Mr. Farrell. I can expand on that. I do believe the
compatibility determination is accurate. The conclusion drawn
by the Fish and Wildlife Service states that it is incompatible
because of the safety issues. But it actually states that the
greatest impact from the amateur radio operators entering the
refuge onto the island would be the trampling of the grass,
carrying their equipment from the shoreline to the helicopter
pad. And the criticism doesn't say this in the compatibility
determination, but I will note that if a helicopter was taken
there, that impact would not even occur.
So the compatibility determination does not conclude that
the use is incompatible. It concludes that the use is not
allowed because of safety issues; one of them being unexploded
ordnance. And I can expand on that, as well. I think that is a
very important point that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
raising that is not always fully discussed by the agency.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
question for Mr. Langelius.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Correct me if I am wrong now, but it is my
understanding that model planes have been used as an effective
means to keep birds away from airfields in order to reduce or
eliminate in-flight collisions with aircraft. And consequently,
it seems reasonable to assume that aerial modelers could scare
away birds that are nesting or fledging.
So in light of the known ability of model planes to harass
birds, how can you conclude that aeromodeling within a refuge
poses no threat to the birds located there?
Mr. Langelius. That is an excellent question,
Congresswoman, but it is not valid. The truth is, you may use a
model airplane to frighten birds twice or three times. But it
is not effective long-term, because they become acclimated in
two days.
They attempted to do it. Many airfields have tried. But it
is worthless, because the birds very quickly recognize no
threat.
Ms. Bordallo. I see.
Mr. Langelius. But it is a good question, because it brings
out the fact that what you spoke to was the response of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. It was rather distorted.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, that is why I asked it.
Mr. Mathewson. Congresswoman, could I add to that, please?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Surely.
Mr. Mathewson. I think there is a distinct difference
between the type of model airplane mentioned in the study, and
what Mr. Langelius does at Galeville. The airplanes in the
study are radio-controlled model airplanes, and they are used
specifically for trying to move birds, for instance, from
around the perimeters of airports. It is done intentionally.
The type of airplane that Mr. Langelius flies is a free-
flight model. The motor runs for probably in the neighborhood
of eight to ten seconds; shuts off; the model glides from that
until the duration of the flight.
And I think it is also important to point out that Fish and
Wildlife, I think, mentioned back in the late '90s that this is
one of the most pristine areas in the Northeast as a grasslands
habitat. But you have to take that in the context that Mr.
Langelius and the members of his organization were there for 26
years before that. And it is entirely obvious that the refuge
was thriving, in spite of the models.
Ms. Bordallo. I have a quick follow-up for Mr. Langelius.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. If what you say is true, and the birds become
acclimated to the situation, does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
document this?
Mr. Langelius. They document and retain those things which
they think are to their value, and they dismiss out of hand
anything that they don't.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I have a question for the two of
you now, Misters Mathewson and Langelius.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. In the time that your organizations have been
denied access to conduct your activity at the--Shawangunk
Refuge?
Mr. Langelius. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Is that the way to pronounce it?
Mr. Langelius. Well, that is the way they----
Ms. Bordallo. Pretty good. All right. I am assuming that
you have found alternative locations to conduct your
activities. So what new locations have you found to fly your
model planes?
Mr. Langelius. Well, in my testimony, we have found for one
weekend competition twice a year we now go to Engleside,
Maryland, which is quite a drive from the northeast.
Ms. Bordallo. So your activity, then, has been diminished.
Mr. Langelius. Remarkably. However, a very affluent fellow
in the group purchased a sod farm. And although it looks
pretty, it is a desperate thing, because we have to climb over
canals; and there is a creek that borders the trees; corn
fields, wheat fields; the airplanes disappear, and we can't
traverse and recover them. But, thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I can't see why anyone would say ``No'' to
you.
Mr. Langelius. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mrs. Bordallo. Engleside is not
too far from where I live.
Mr. Langelius. That's right.
Mr. Gilchrest. In fact, just north of Chestertown.
Mr. Langelius. Exactly. That is where we eat.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where do you eat in Chestertown?
Mr. Langelius. Well, we go to that little restaurant on the
James River.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, that is the old----
Mr. Langelius. It washed away a couple of years ago.
Mr. Gilchrest. On the Chester River. On the Chester River.
Mr. Langelius. Yes, sir, Chester River.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Old Wharf.
Mr. Langelius. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Might I recommend, The Old Wharf is a good
place and I go there occasionally, but The Black-Eyed Susan,
two former students of mine run it, so you might want to try
that.
Mr. Langelius. Definitely on the agenda.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right in Kennedyville, though, there is a
place called ``Vonny's.''
Mr. Langelius. My familiarity with the area is not--there
is a hook that runs around back toward Delaware, and there was
a beautiful restaurant there, also--great steak house, also.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, that is on the C&D Canal, Chesapeake-
Delaware Canal. Next time you are in town, though, give me a
call. We will go canoeing.
Mr. Langelius. Oh, I would love share how those airplanes
fly.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, and I would like to come down there and
fly.
Mr. Langelius. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Farrell. Mr. Chairman, may I make one additional
comment?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, you can, sir.
Mr. Farrell. And I will make it brief. I want to just touch
on the issue of unexploded ordnance on Desecheo, because I
think it is very important. In my exchange of correspondence
with the Fish and Wildlife Service during my appeal process,
and the production by the agency of these, as I call them,
discovery materials for my appeal, the Fish and Wildlife
Service provided me with picture after picture, photograph
after photograph after photograph, of bombs on Desecheo.
No one disputes the fact that this island, Desecheo, is a
former bombing range. The issue here that is very important,
the question that needs to be asked that I have never gotten an
answer from the Fish and Wildlife Service on, is, having hiked
the island extensively by Fish and Wildlife personnel for 30
years, having camped out there regularly, having been to the
island and no injuries having ever occurred or mishaps of any
kind by amateur radio operators or anyone else or the Fish and
Wildlife Service, what changed in 1993, having allowed amateur
radio operators to go there many times before, that caused the
Fish and Wildlife Service to say, ``No go, and one of the
reasons is unexploded ordnance''? Were more bombs dropped? I
don't think so.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, that is a question we will pose to the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Farrell. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. I was just going to actually follow up on
that, what you just commented on. Is that denial unique? Have
you been allowed to broadcast from other refuges where
unexploded ordnance is present, to your knowledge?
Mr. Farrell. Well, I haven't applied for a special use
permit, or permission generally, for another refuge. But there
is another refuge in Massachusetts, the Ox Bow National
Wildlife Refuge, which has ordnance on its grounds. And
interestingly, the brochure that the Fish and Wildlife Service
provides to visitors to that refuge has a warning that says,
``Stay clear. If you see anything, report it to the refuge
office.'' I am summarizing.
There is no reason that that should not be the approach on
Desecheo; and was the approach, if you look at the old special
use permits issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
message may not have been worded exactly the same, but the
requirement for information was there.
Mr. Pallone. OK, that is a good point. Thank you.
Mr. Farrell. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you go to Viegas, the amateur radio
operators?
Mr. Farrell. To my knowledge, there is no prohibition on
going there. It does not fall under the category of a distant
entity or country, as we were discussing earlier, so the
interest in that island is not there. So I am not sure if you
can or not.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there are designated places within the
ham operators international association----
Mr. Farrell. National association.
Mr. Gilchrest. National association. There are a list of
places that are designated as points of interest to travel to
and communicate from?
Mr. Farrell. And I believe the number is 335. And that is
the American Radio Relay League, our national association. But
ham operators internationally pursue this challenge of
contacting those remote locations.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Farrell. And not so remote.
Mr. Gilchrest. I might recommend Engleside as one of those
places.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farrell. We will keep it in mind.
Mr. Gilchrest. Or Kennedyville.
Mr. Farrell. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will try to strike a balance and have
some better, clearer understanding as we pursue these questions
and places that you would like to visit and the public would
like to see; help sustain wildlife populations, and see how we
can make the mix compatible.
Mr. Farrell. You know, that is really all we ask for, is to
strike a balance and to observe and embrace the statute as it
is written.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Farrell. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Langelius. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hartwig. Our third panel, the gentleman
from Fish and Wildlife Service will come and give us all the
answers to all the questions that we have. Mr. Hartwig,
welcome, sir. Thank you very much for your patience. And you
may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HARTWIG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hartwig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am William Hartwig, Assistant Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Chief of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee and discuss the many
opportunities for public use on national wildlife refuges
throughout the country.
The National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history of
significant contributions to the conservation of our Nation's
wildlife. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt created the
first refuge when he set aside a 5-acre island, Pelican Island
in Florida, as a breeding ground for birds. Today, there are
545 national wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management
districts that protect more than 96 million acres of the best
fish and wildlife habitat in America.
America loves the National Wildlife Refuge System. A
national visitors' satisfaction survey found 95 percent of the
visitors were satisfied, or very satisfied, with the quality of
their experiences while visiting refuges. Last year, nearly 40
million people visited refuges. These visitors found great
hunting and angling opportunities, intriguing interpretive and
educational programs, and numerous wildlife to photograph and
enjoy. Visitation, volunteerism, and community support all
continue to grow.
The Refuge System has struggled at times in the past. There
were conflicting views about how the refuge system should be
managed. In 1989, the GAO issued a report entitled,
``Continuing Problems With Incompatible Uses Calls for Bold
Action.'' Congress took that bold action in 1997, when it
enacted the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
This new law gave the refuge system a clear mission:
wildlife conservation for the benefit of present and future
generations. It clearly states that all uses of refuges must be
compatible with the primary purposes of the individual refuge
and the mission of the refuge system.
The Service has published policy and regulations on how we
make compatibility determinations, and we ensure that the
public is involved in those determinations.
Through the Improvement Act, Congress recognized people
were essential to the wildlife conservation, and that citizens
who were involved in using and enjoying refuges were more
likely to become involved in their stewardship. The Act
recognized that wildlife-dependent recreation is often
compatible with wildlife refuge purposes and directly related
to the mission. It declared these activities as legitimate and
appropriate uses that help the American public develop an
appreciation for fish and wildlife.
As such, the Act made compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation the priority public use of the refuge system, and
directed the Service to provide increased opportunities;
particularly for hunting and fishing, interpretation,
environmental education, wildlife observation, and photography.
Most visitors to refuges participate in more than one type
of wildlife-dependent recreational activity. Over 495 national
wildlife refuges and wetland management districts are open to
at least one of the six priority public uses. Wherever it is
compatible, refuges are working to increase opportunities for
quality wildlife-dependent recreation activities for the public
to enjoy and appreciate their outdoor heritage. We expect
another 49 refuges to join this list in the near future,
depending on funding and staffing levels.
We have made great progress in providing increased
recreational opportunities on refuges. Yet refuges cannot be
all things to all people. When Congress determined that
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is an appropriate use
and should receive priority, it follows that other uses
appropriate elsewhere may not be appropriate on refuges.
Refuge managers are frequently asked to permit a wide
variety of such uses. Auto shows, concerts, flea markets, and
road races of all types have their place, but wildlife refuges
may not be the appropriate place for these types of activities.
In instances where a proposed use is found to be
appropriate, it is further reviewed to ensure it is compatible
with our wildlife conservation mission. Following this rigorous
examination, those non-wildlife-dependent uses found compatible
are allowed on refuges. An example of such non-wildlife-
dependent recreation is swimming and beach activities on
refuges.
In many instances, the use has been found both appropriate
and compatible, since such use would not materially interfere
with, or detract from, fulfillment of the refuge system mission
or a refuge's purpose.
In contrast, with Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife
Refuge, the Service determined that continued use of the refuge
for flying model airplanes was not compatible with the purposes
for which the refuge was established: managing migratory birds.
The model airplanes would have not only affected the
wildlife for which the refuge was established, but also the
visiting public seeking a wildlife-dependent experience. The
refuge is simply too small to accommodate the requested
activity, and refuge staff and funding resources are
insufficient to monitor and maintain the facility for anything
other than a low-impact wildlife-dependent use.
There are 27 refuges that are closed to all public entry
and use. They total 16,000 acres, less than 1/10th of 1 percent
of all of the refuge lands. Most of these refuges are remote
and isolated. In some cases, refuges are closed to the public
because of danger, such as unexploded ordnance left over from
past military exercise. Nomans Island National Wildlife Refuge
in Massachusetts is an example of the type of closure.
In other cases, refuges are closed to protect critical
wildlife populations; such as the case with the 798-acre Karl
Mundt National Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota, which is closed
to protect nesting bald eagles. Even though this refuge is
closed to public access, the Service, in cooperation with the
Corps of Engineers, has developed a nearby observation platform
and an interpretive kiosk just off the refuge to facilitate
public enjoyment of eagles in the area. Similarly, several
``refuges'' that are closed have observation or interpretive
opportunities.
To conclude, the conservation work of the Service depends
on the support of the citizens. Refuges are important to local
communities for recreation, and as a part of their natural
heritage. We have learned that people who use and enjoy refuges
are often the best advocates for cooperative conservation
efforts.
We will continue to look for additional opportunities for
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, while staying true to
our wildlife conservation mission. Mr. Chairman, this concludes
my prepared statement. I would be prepared to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartwig follows:]
Statement of The Honorable William Hartwig, Assistant Director,
National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am William
Hartwig, Assistant Director for the National Wildlife Refuge System for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee and discuss the many
opportunities for public use on National Wildlife Refuges throughout
the country.
The National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history of
significant contributions to the conservation of our nation's wildlife.
The Refuge System had humble beginnings. In 1903, President Theodore
Roosevelt set aside 5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as a breeding
ground for birds. The Refuge System has grown tremendously over the
past century. Today there are 545 national wildlife refuges and 37
wetland management districts that protect more than 96 million acres of
the best fish and wildlife habitat in America. These lands are home to
a spectacular collection of wildlife, from the giant moose of Kenai
Refuge in Alaska to the ancient alligators of Okefenokee Refuge in
Georgia. Millions upon millions of birds, more than 700 different
species, use refuges as breeding grounds, as stepping stones to rest on
their annual migrations, and as winter homes.
America loves the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year nearly
40 million people visited refuges. These visitors have found great
hunting and angling opportunities, intriguing interpretive and
educational programs, and numerous wildlife to photograph and enjoy.
Some 33,000 citizens volunteered their time to help care for these
lands and provide recreational opportunities for visitors. There are
245 Friends organizations that have incorporated to help support their
local refuge. Visitation, volunteerism, and community support all
continue to grow.
The Refuge System has struggled at times in the past. There were
conflicting views about how the Refuge System should be managed. In
1989, the General Accounting Office issued a report on the Refuge
System entitled, Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Calls for
Bold Action. Congress took that bold action in 1997 when it enacted the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act).
This new law gave the Refuge System a clear mission:
...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Through the Improvement Act, Congress recognized that people were
essential to wildlife conservation and that citizens who were involved
in using and enjoying refuges were more likely to become involved in
their stewardship. The Improvement Act also recognized that deeply-
rooted American traditions of hunting and fishing, and other forms of
wildlife-dependent recreation, were often compatible with wildlife
refuge purposes. Congress declared that with respect to the Refuge
System, it is the policy of the United States that compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use
of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the
purposes of many refuges. Congress recognized that these recreational
activities generally foster refuge management and help the American
public develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife.
The Improvement Act made compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses the priority public uses of the System and directed that they
receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management. It
directed the Service to provide increased opportunities for families to
experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly
opportunities for hunting, fishing, interpretation, environmental
education, wildlife observation, and photography.
In 2004, the Service selected the Refuge System to go through a
Program Assessment and Rating Tool, or PART, evaluation. As a result of
that evaluation, the Refuge System is developing a five year strategic
plan to be released later this year that will serve as the basis for
any future PART analysis. A primary component of the strategic plan
will examine and outline how to better measure quality opportunities
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. This examination will
determine how many such opportunities currently exist, and establish
goals for increasing priority public uses throughout the System.
As stated earlier, in 2004 the Refuge System welcomed nearly 40
million visitors, a 6 percent increase from 2001. Within the 40 million
visits to refuges, this included approximately 2.3 million hunting
visits, 7 million fishing visits, nearly 34 million wildlife
observation and photography visits, and about 29 million visits
involving interpretive and environmental education programs. As you can
see, most visitors to refuges participate in more than one type of
wildlife dependent recreational activity. Over 495 national wildlife
refuges and wetland management districts are open to at least one of
the six priority public uses.
The 2004 national visitor satisfaction survey, covering 47 refuges,
demonstrated that 95 percent of visitors were satisfied or very
satisfied with the quality of their experiences while visiting refuges.
Wherever it is compatible, refuges are working to increase
opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreational activities
for the public to enjoy and appreciate their outdoor heritage. One way
we have done this is through the construction of boardwalks, boat
ramps, interpretive kiosks, and observation blinds. Simple projects
such as these have proven to be a low cost, low maintenance, and highly
effective approach for providing visitors with greater access to
refuges.
The Refuge System also manages and maintains more than 2,500 miles
of foot and water trails and is aggressively pursuing partnerships at
the national and local levels to expand and improve our trails system.
Our volunteer workforce and Friends organizations are an integral
component of providing recreational opportunities. Many visitor centers
would close and interpretive programs halt without the efforts of the
citizen-stewards who volunteer their time at refuges.
We have made great progress in providing increased recreational
opportunities on refuges. Yet refuges cannot be all things to all
people.
The Improvement Act makes clear that the mission of the Refuge
System is wildlife conservation for the benefit of present and future
generations. It clearly states that all uses of refuges must be
compatible with the primary purposes of individual refuges and the
mission of the Refuge System. The Service has published policy and
regulations on how we make compatibility determinations and we ensure
the public is involved in those decisions.
In view of the fact that Congress determined that compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation is an appropriate use of the Refuge
System and should receive priority in our management, it follows that
other uses appropriate elsewhere may not be appropriate on refuges.
Refuge Managers are frequently asked to permit a wide variety of such
uses. Auto shows, concerts, flea markets, and road races all have their
place, but wildlife refuges may not be the appropriate place for these
types of activities.
The Service has drafted policy on how managers are to determine
when non-wildlife dependent recreational uses are appropriate. We have
involved the public and worked closely with our State fish and wildlife
agency partners to craft this policy. We look forward to issuing a
final policy to assure that managers are consistent in how they make
these decisions.
In addition, even appropriate uses such as wildlife dependent
recreation, are further reviewed to ensure they are compatible with our
wildlife conservation mission. Generally, priority uses such as hunting
or wildlife observation do not present any issues. In some cases
however, even priority uses are not found compatible. In those
instances, the Refuge Manager may need to balance between or among
competing uses or, if absolutely necessary, disallow one or more uses.
Compatibility determinations are made in writing, and identify the
anticipated effects of the proposed use on refuge resources.
This compatibility determination process also applies to non-
wildlife-dependent recreation activities. Through this rigorous
examination, in some cases compatible non-wildlife-dependent uses are
allowed on refuges, such as swimming and beach activities. In these
instances, the use has been found both compatible and appropriate,
since such use would not materially interfere with or detract from
fulfillment of the Refuge System Mission or refuge purposes.
In contrast, at Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge, the
Service determined that continued use of the refuge for flying model
airplanes was not compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established, managing migratory birds. The model airplanes would have
not only affected the wildlife for which the refuge was established,
but also the visiting public seeking a wildlife-dependent experience.
The refuge is simply too small to accommodate the requested activity,
and refuge staff and resources are designed to monitor and maintain the
facility for low impact, wildlife-dependent public uses only.
There are 27 refuges that are closed to all public entry and use.
They total 16,000 acres, less than 0.1 percent of refuge lands. Most of
these refuges are remote and isolated. In some cases, refuges are
closed to protect the public from danger, such as unexploded ordinance
left over from past military exercises. Nomans Land Island NWR in Dukes
County, Massachusetts, is one example. In other cases, refuges are
closed to protect critical wildlife populations. Such is the case for
the 798-acre Karl E. Mundt NWR in South Dakota which is closed to
protect nesting bald eagles. Even though this refuge is closed to
public access, the Service, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, has developed a nearby observation platform and interpretive
kiosk to facilitate the public enjoyment of eagles in the area.
Similarly, several closed refuges also have wildlife observation and
interpretive opportunities.
On other refuges which are considered open to public use, some
portions of the land may be closed to certain activities. Seasonal
closures and sanctuary areas are tools used to provide for public use,
not curtail it. These management techniques allow us to enjoy hunting
and fishing and other wildlife dependent recreation in ways that are
compatible with conservation, not in conflict with it. A great example
is at Pelican Island, where the original 5-acre island remains to this
day an inviolate sanctuary for breeding birds. But the Centennial
Trail, dedicated on the Refuge System's 100th birthday in 2003, leads
visitors by restored wetlands and native vegetation to an observation
tower that allows visitors to view the nesting pelicans, wood storks,
ibis, and egrets from a distance that protects the birds from
disturbance.
The conservation work of the Service depends on the support of
citizens. Refuges are important to local communities for recreation and
as part of their natural heritage. We have learned that people who use
and enjoy refuges are often the best advocates for cooperative
conservation efforts. We will continue to look for additional
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation while
staying true to our wildlife conservation mission.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE WAYNE GILCHREST
(1) Currently 88 refuges out of the 545 National Wildlife Refuges
are closed to the public. Since this represents 16 percent of the
entire system, what is the justification and rationale for closing them
to visitors?
Although sixteen percent of refuges are closed to the public, the
total area of all 87 closed refuges encompasses less than 54,000 acres,
or less than one-tenth of one percent of the area in the refuge system.
Consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1997, and to the extent that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has jurisdiction, national wildlife refuges (except those in
Alaska), are closed to all public access and use until they are
specifically opened for individual uses following analysis and
evaluation. Individual refuges are opened after the Service has
determined that a specific use can be offered in a safe and compatible
manner. When determined compatible, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act grants wildlife-dependent public uses priority over all
other public uses. In Alaska, national wildlife refuges are generally
open to wildlife-dependent recreational uses as long as such uses are
conducted in a manner compatible with the purposes for which the
refuges were established. Refuges in Alaska may be closed to specific
uses if those uses are determined to be incompatible with refuge
purposes. The subsistence uses of fish and wildlife by local rural
residents have priority over other consumptive uses.
The reason why individual refuges remain closed varies depending on
the situation, but typically can be attributed to public safety
concerns; the need to protect wildlife and its habitat (including
endangered species from harassment); and, a lack of legal access
rights. In addition, closed refuges may also be new refuges for which a
public use plan has yet to be completed. For a complete list of refuges
currently closed to public access, please see Tables 1-3 on pages 18-20
below.
(2) How often are these closures reviewed and what is the
likelihood that any of these units will be open in the future?
Administrative closures, resulting from a compatibility
determination, are reviewed whenever conditions change or significant
new information relative to the closure and its effects becomes
available. Closures are also reviewed during the comprehensive
conservation planning process, and at least every 10-15 years. Closures
due to deed restrictions are permanent unless the restrictions are
removed or changed. The tables on pages 18 through 20 below list the
refuges that are currently closed and the reasoning behind the
individual closures.
(3) Just prior to World War II, a significant number of refuges
were established in the State of North Dakota. What was the
significance of these designations in 1939? It appears the vast
majority of these refuges involve an easement or mixed fee easement. In
those cases, why where these lands declared part of the refuge system,
who controls access or determines compatible activities on those lands,
who maintains them and why are most of these units closed to the
public?
In the 1930s, the United States was faced with an economic
depression, massive drought, and declining waterfowl and other wildlife
populations. To address these crises, the federal government developed
several economic and conservation initiatives. Beginning in 1935, the
government worked with states and private landowners to sign dozens of
refuge easement agreements in North Dakota. These refuge and flowage
easements were established for the purposes of: (1) water conservation,
(2) drought relief, and (3) migratory bird and wildlife conservation
purposes. The Work Progress/Programs Administration and Civilian
Conservation Corps programs provided jobs to build the water control
structures needed to impound and manage water levels. Landowners were
given $l.00 for these easements, but greater value was realized in
reliable water sources for farming and provision of jobs for local
communities.
The government revised the status of these lands in the late 1930s
and 1940s. Easement lands in close proximity were combined,
establishing an approved acquisition boundary, and designated as
migratory bird sanctuaries (later changed to national wildlife refuges)
under the authorities of executive orders and various conservation
laws. Ninety-three percent of these lands still remain in private
ownership and the Service has no control over public access.
The North Dakota Easement National Wildlife Refuges encompass
47,296 easement acres within the boundaries of 39 individual refuges
ranging in size from 160 acres to 5,506 acres. There are currently no
Service personnel dedicated to managing these easement refuges. The
responsibility of management of these areas, including making
compatibility determinations, is assigned to refuge managers from
nearby staffed refuges.
A draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan is currently being
developed that will evaluate the easement refuges and determine each
refuge's worthiness to be part of the System. Some refuges may be
considered for management by the State of North Dakota, which owns some
of the fee title interests within the refuge lands.
(4) Where does it stipulate in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 that only hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation
are permissible activities within the system? Isn't it true that both
the Committee Report and House Floor debate make it clear that the so-
called Big Six are given priority but not exclusive use within the
system?
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 does
not stipulate that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
environmental education and interpretation are the only permissible
public activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act
states that these six activities are to be considered as the general
``priority public uses'' of the Refuge System and shall receive
priority consideration over other general public uses in planning and
refuge management.
(5) Describe for the Subcommittee what are Special Use Permits?
What is the statutory authority for these permits and what are the
necessary conditions to obtain one?
A Special Use Permit is required for uses of refuge services,
facilities, privileges, or products of the soil, that are provided at
refuge expense and not usually available to the general public under
the requirements of Title 50 CFR or other published regulations. Some
common examples of activities authorized by Special Use Permits include
grazing, cabin rentals, and rights-of-way uses for road or power-lines
across refuge land. Individual refuge managers are responsible for
identifying, evaluating, approving, and administering specialized uses
of the refuge consistent with Service policy and procedures.
Individuals or organizations interested in obtaining a Special Use
Permit for a specific activity must first submit an application to the
appropriate Refuge Manager. The application requests the full name,
address and phone number of the applicant; the period of requested use,
and a description of the requested use. The refuge manager (or his/her
designee) then evaluates the requested use and determines if it is
first, appropriate and secondly, compatible with the individual
refuge's purposes and management objectives. The refuge manager may add
special conditions to the permit to minimize conflicts with other
refuge management programs.
The issuance of a Special Use Permit is authorized by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, and the Refuge
Recreation Act.
(6) The Service currently has a contract with the Chugach Alaska
Corporation to operate the Midway Atoll infrastructure. Is this entity
interested and capable of operating a visitor concession program?
The current contract with Chugach McKinley, Inc., does not include
provisions for conducting a visitor concession program at Midway Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge. The contract includes operating the
infrastructure of the island (including the airfield), maintaining
facilities, conducting food services, providing transportation, and
some landscape maintenance that benefits wildlife (e.g., removing tall
vegetation around buildings, removing invasive Australian pines from
around the airfield).. Through their current activities, the contractor
will maintain lodging and provide meals for occasional visitors. The
Service did not contract with Chugach McKinley to provide for visitor
services, therefore we are unable to respond regarding their interest.
The Service is currently reviewing bids for a 2006 Base Operations
Support Services (BOSS) contract, which included 'placeholders' for the
eventuality of supporting a visitor services program at Midway Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge. However, the Service only recently received a
market analysis and feasibility study for a visitor service program at
Midway, and has not yet decided whether these services would be
provided by the Service, a concessionaire, or multiple concessionaires
(which may or may not be the BOSS contractor).
(7) What is the status of discussions involving which federal
agency is going to pay for the operation of the Midway Airport in the
next fiscal year?
Officials from DOT/FAA have assured their commitment to pay their
fair share of the cost to operate the airport and shared infrastructure
at Midway in FY 2005 and beyond. They have estimated their share this
year to be approximately $1.8 million, which they have provided.
Working with FAA, we have reduced total cost of Midway operations for
FY 2005 to $5.6 million, including $4.3 million for airport operations.
(8) For the bird species protected on Midway, including the two
species of albatross, please provide population numbers, times of year
when present in the area, and what habitat features and components
required by the species at these times, are being maintained by USFWS
management policies i.e., keeping open grass or sand habitats, removing
trees, and eliminating aerial hazards?
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for three
species of albatrosses: Laysan (441,000 pairs), Black-footed (20,400
pairs), and the endangered Short-tailed (1 individual). Albatrosses are
found at Midway nine months of the year (late October to early August)
and use a variety of habitats including grassy fields, sandy areas with
native vegetation, introduced ironwood forest, and native and
introduced shrub habitat. Highest densities of albatrosses are found in
grassy fields and sandy areas with native vegetation.
The refuge conducts the following management activities to maintain
high quality nesting habitat for these species: Requiring nighttime
airplane operation to avoid albatross strikes; replacing above ground
power and communication lines with below ground lines; and controlling
(through mechanical means such as mowing, herbicide application, and
hand pulling) introduced plants and replacing them with native species.
(9) How sensitive are albatross or other colonial nesting
waterbirds to disturbance during nesting season and what are the risks
to the survival of the population, eggs or chicks disturbed by human
activities during nesting periods? During other times of the year?
The type and level of risk to albatrosses and other waterbirds from
humans entering a colony varies by species, location, and nesting
habitat, however, most species are very sensitive to disturbance. Most
seabirds exhibit insular tameness, which is behavior characterized by a
lack of the wariness one might observe in birds living in areas with
terrestrial predators. Because of this trait, it sometimes appears as
if humans pose no problems for these species. In fact, there are a
number of potentially serious consequences every time a seabird colony
is entered, even by experienced researchers. For example:
Mechanical -- At most seabird colonies in the central
Pacific birds nest on three different levels, under the ground, on the
surface, and in the shrubs and trees. At many times of the year it is
difficult to walk in some parts of a colony without stepping on eggs or
caving in burrows below the surface.
Thermal -- Although the climate of the tropical and
subtropical islands seems mild, it can pose problems for nesting bird
species. Consequently, adults have evolved to virtually never leave
eggs and tiny chicks unattended. The presence of people can disrupt the
adults, and their displacement from the nest for more than 3 or 4
minutes may lead to the loss of the egg or chick.
Biological -- In some colonies, one species may take
advantage of human disturbance to prey upon other species when they are
disturbed and leave their nests. In general, there is a much lesser
chance of disturbing Albatrosses and other sea birds at times when they
are not nesting. However, humans can still cause damage to nesting
habitat which will have repercussions when the birds do return to nest.
(10) How much space does an albatross on land, need to become air
born or to land?
The amount of runway an albatross needs to become airborne depends
on wind speed and relative direction. On a windless day an adult Laysan
Albatross might need as much as 20-30 meters to get aloft; however, it
generally takes much less room to land (this is an anecdotal estimate
based on personal experience of local Service personnel and is not a
scientific measurement). When birds nest in thick trees or shrubbery
they must sometimes walk long distances out to the beach or a clear
area in order to take off.
(11) Amateur radio operators have requested Special Use Permits to
broadcast from the Desecheo, Navassa Island and Farallon National
Wildlife Refuges. These requests have been unanimously rejected. The
Service has indicated that Desecheo is closed because of unexploded
ordnance. Yet, Special Use Permits were routinely issued to the public
prior to 1998. Since this has been a refuge since 1976, what conditions
have changed during the past seven years that warrant denying any
public access?
Between 1994 and 1998, a total of 11 Special Use Permits were
issued for Desecheo. The only permit issued for amateur radio
operations was issued in 1994. All other permits were for research or
drug interdiction. The process for evaluating uses at refuges changed
significantly in 1998 with passage and implementation of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which presents a consistent
regulatory method for determining compatibility. This new process
required reevaluation of Special Use Permits issuance, and it was
determined in 1998 that public access should no longer be allowed on
Desecheo NWR because of safety considerations. The Service has issued
relatively few Special Use Permits at all three refuges because of the
agency's concerns regarding public safety. The issuance of a permit
authorizing use and access assumes that areas, facilities, and
operations that the permittee may be exposed to are free from
recognized hazards.
(12) In 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a report on
the unexploded ordinance on Desecheo, what were their findings? Is it
not true that the Army found that these unexploded ordnance did not
pose a catastrophic or critical risk to the public? If that is the
case, why not issue the permits?
The Service is unaware of any declaration by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) that unexploded ordnance poses no risk at Desecheo
National Wildlife Refuge. A 2002 Archives Search Report on this subject
does not reveal such a declaration. As referenced in a 2002 draft
report, the Corps conducted a site inspection with Service personnel
and relocated three UXO's on the surface that had been found
previously. These were detonated in 2002 by Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD) personnel from the U.S. Navy. Completion of this process does not
mean the area has been cleared or declared safe. No complete surface or
subsurface survey for UXO has been conducted on the island of Desecheo.
The Risk Assessment, included in the 2002 report, states that the
hazard severity is catastrophic although the probability is occasional.
The latter is based on factors such as distance to inhabited areas and
inaccessibility of the island.
(13) What does the USFWS believe is its liability for ``inviting''
the public to areas that have public hazards, for visitor ``invitee''
injuries when the USFWS did not know (or could not be expected to know)
about the hazards involved, for injuries to unauthorized visitors
caused by known or unknown hazards, and for employees in the course of
their duties on National Wildlife Refuges?
The United States Government has an affirmative duty for any known
hazard to provide warning or make safe areas where there is public
access. The level of this duty depends on the laws of the state or
jurisdiction in which the area is located. Liability may be limited by
external factors such as existence of a recreational use statute,
contributory negligence of the person entering the property, and other
defenses available to the United States under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (28 USC Sec. 2671 et. seq.) This duty extends only to hazard that
are known or are reasonably ascertainable, and therefore likely would
not apply in cases where a visitor is injured by hazards that the Fish
and Wildlife Service did not know about. In cases where unauthorized
visitors are injured, the liability of the government is governed by
state law.
The U.S. Government has full liability for all injuries received by
federal employees in the course of carrying out their official duties.
Although federal employees are not covered by the Federal Tort Claims
Act, employees injured while acting within their scope of employment
are entitled to coverage of all medical bills under the Federal
Employee Compensation Act (5 USC Sec. 8181 et. seq.)
(14) There are several amateur radio operators who desire to
obtain a Special Use Permit to broadcast from the Southeast Farallon
Island. This island is closed to the public. However, in the past three
years, 19 Special Use Permits have been issued affecting 44 different
people. What was the purpose of these Special Use Permits? Did any of
the permittees have an adverse effect or cause injuries to any of the
12 different bird species that inhabit that island?
All of the permits issued for Southeast Farallon Island were
directly related to management and supported the accomplishment of
refuge goals and objectives. For example, allowing a small number of
media visits per year provides the general public with more
information, photos, and video so that the can learn more about and
appreciate this public resource. It provides a view of the refuge to
members of the public that are unable to take a Farallon boat tour,
which gives a first-hand experience. Specific information on the
permits issued over the last 3 years is as follows:
In 2002, a total of seven permits were issued. Five permits (13
people) were for research and involved the following agencies/
organizations: Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (inter-
tidal monitoring), U.S. Geological Survey (bat survey), National
Weather Service (service equipment located on the island), and State of
California Water Quality Control Board (discharge monitoring). The
latter two permits were one-day visits. Two one-day permits (4 people)
were issued to the British Broadcasting Co. for filming a wildlife
documentary on gulls. In 2003, a total of six permits were issued.
Three permits (9 people) were for research and involved the following
agencies: Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (inter-tidal
monitoring), National Weather Service (service equipment located on the
island), and UC Berkeley Lawrence Hall of Science (collect educational
material for geology exhibit). The later two permits were one-day
visits. Three permits (4 people) were media related and involved the
following entities: NBC News, Time Warner, Inc, and a photographer.
In 2004, a total of six permits were issued. Five permits (13
people) were for research and involved the following agencies/
organizations: Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (inter-
tidal monitoring), National Weather Service (service equipment located
on the island), UC Berkeley Seismology (maintain seismographic
instruments), Center for Ecology and Hydrology (tick study), and
Stanford University (shark research). One permit was issued for a 1-day
media visit (1 person) by the Los Angeles Times.
The Service expects that some minor disturbances such as flushing
of western gulls or other individual birds occurred during these
visits. The Service also knows that occasionally permittees crush
individual auklet burrows or step on gull eggs/nests, even though
Service staff try to minimize those effects by training and orientation
of all visitors.
(15) There are also a number of biologists, researchers,
contractors, interns, photographers and reporters who either live on or
have visited the Southeast Farallon Island in the past three years. Did
any of these individuals adversely impact the bird populations? How was
this prevented?
When South Farallon Islands were added to the National Wildlife
Refuge System in 1969 the number of people allowed on the island at any
one time was reduced to the minimum number needed to monitor and
protect the wildlife and maintain a minimal infrastructure. The Service
closed most of the island to all human contact, even to researchers and
residents, and restricted activities to a few footpaths.
The Service recognizes that any level of human activity will cause
some wildlife disturbance. However, the Service believes that the
benefits of having a minimal human presence to monitor wildlife,
restore habitat and protect the Refuge from more damaging disturbance
outweighs the costs. The Service has established stringent standard
operating procedures for staff and all visitors to ensure that bird and
marine mammal populations are impacted to the least extent possible. In
addition, a variety of conditions are attached to all Special Use
Permits. As detailed above, all photographers, reporters and
researchers (other than Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff) who conduct
monitoring and care-taking duties on Southeast Farallon Island must
have a Special Use Permit and meet certain criteria to visit the
island.
(16) Since model airplanes were flown at the exact site for twenty
eight years, without according to the Department of the Army any
adverse effects on wildlife, what dramatic changes occurred in 1999
that caused the Fish and Wildlife to conclude that model airplane
flying could never be a compatible activity at the Galeville Airport?
Although we do not have the specific justification, the West Point
Military Academy suspended model airplane flying in 1995. On July 27,
1999, the General Services Administration (GSA) transferred 566 acres
of the former Galeville Military Airstrip to the Service to create
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge. A memorandum dated
October 17, 1997, to the GSA from the Regional Director formally
requested the transfer of land and defines the purpose for establishing
the refuge as follows, ``[the site] provides critical habitat for
migratory birds and raptors. More than 120 species of birds have been
identified at the site. It supports approximately 20 bird species which
are designated as species of Federal or State `management or special
concern'.''
The Department of the Army and the Service each have a distinct and
unique mission. As such, it is to be expected that the criteria and
methodology for determining wildlife impacts differ. As the purposes
for which the property is managed changed, so have the uses compatible
with that management strategy. As outlined above, the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, requires that an affirmative
finding by the refuge manager be made of the compatibility of an
activity before it is allowed on an individual national wildlife
refuge. Service policy establishes the process for determining
compatibility, including the procedures for documentation. It defines a
compatible use as ``a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent
recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that,
based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge
System or the purposes of the refuge.''
At Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge a compatibility
determination for the proposed use of model airplane flying and model
airplane competitive events written by the former refuge manager and
signed by the Regional Refuge Chief on February 20, 2002, found that
model airplane flying and model airplane competitive events are not
compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established.
(17) How does the Fish and Wildlife Service respond to the
comments of Dr. Patrick Redig who analyzed the flying of model
airplanes at Galeville and concluded that: ``My experience and my
knowledge of birds says that none of these activities will have serious
or measurable negative impacts''. Dr. Redig is a veterinary, Professor
of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Minnesota and Director of
the Raptor Center.
The compatibility determination for model airplane flying and model
airplane competitive events on Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife
Refuge contains eight pages of detailed information describing the
direct and indirect impacts of aircrafts on migratory birds. Various
model airplane activities have differing impacts on bird species. While
we are not aware of any studies that specifically describe the impact
of model airplanes on birds, it has been demonstrated that grassland
birds have modified their behavior in response to kite-flying. Studies
on impacts of passenger aircraft indicate that smaller, slower moving
craft that fly at low altitudes have the highest impact on birds,
perhaps because of their similarity to predators. In some places, model
airplanes are used to deter birds from occupying runways and flight
paths. In addition to the impacts of the models themselves, there has
been a history of using motor vehicles or bicycles to recover the
models. While this may not impact raptors, ground-nesting birds are
vulnerable to such disturbances.
(18) Did the Service conduct a scientific analysis of the impact
of free-flight planes on the six unlisted species of migratory birds at
Galeville? Why not? Isn't it true that by their very nature, free-
flight planes, unlike motorboats, motorcycles and personal water craft,
produce almost no noise? Have you prohibited people from riding
motorcycles or driving loud automobiles on the grounds of the
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge or other refuge units?
As stated in the compatibility determination, impacts to migratory
birds from model airplane flying and competitions are both direct and
indirect. These impacts stem from both the act of model airplane flying
and its associated activities, such as retrieval of planes, which can
involve motor vehicle and bicycles employed in nesting areas. Although
no specific studies of free-flight planes have been conducted at
Galeville, as mentioned above, even kite-flying has been demonstrated
to have an impact on bird behavior. The Service determined there was
enough existing scientific literature on this subject to make a
compatibility determination.
Motorized vehicles such as motorcycles and cars are prohibited on
the Refuge. Since the Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge
was established, activities such as walking dogs, jogging, bicycling,
riding horses, and use of all-terrain vehicles have also been
prohibited.
(19) What is the current condition of the 8,000 foot runways at
the Galeville Airport? Are the press reports accurate that the original
refuge manager publicly stated that the runways should be destroyed? Is
it the Service's view that this runaway should be destroyed?
Almost 30 acres of land on the refuge are occupied by old airport
runways and taxiways. The runways are made of slabs of concrete and the
taxiways and connectors are made of asphalt. The runways, taxiways and
connectors are all in various states of disrepair and continue to
deteriorate. A drainage system underneath the old runway system has not
been maintained and the site is getting wetter every year.
The Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge is currently in
the process of developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and
Environmental Assessment (EA), as required by federal law. The planning
process for the Refuge started several years ago and the refuge manager
at the time publicly stated her intention for the developing CCP. Her
intentions included removing the old airport runways and restoring the
site to grassland habitat. When the CCP is released to the public, the
Service will hold public meetings to hear comments on the proposals
contained within this plan.
(20) Are there any conditions, restrictions or limitations that
the Eastern U.S. Free Flight Conference could agree to that would cause
the Fish and Wildlife Service to reexamine whether this activity could
occur at Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge?
As noted in the response to question 16, the refuge manager
conducted a compatibility determination and found that the activity is
not compatible. However, the Service would reexamine that determination
if the Conference submits a proposal that is significantly different
than that which has previously been reviewed.
(21) How sensitive are grassland birds to model airplane or other
aerial activity during nesting periods? Other human activity? What is
their sensitivity to human activities during other times of the year?
As described in the responses to questions 17 and 18, the
compatibility determination for model airplane flying made at
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge addresses the
sensitivity of grassland birds to model airplanes at that site. The
compatibility determination also addresses the frequency of disturbance
from model airplanes to grasslands birds at the refuge during the
breeding season, which occurs earlier than the nesting season. The
Refuge is important to various bird species at different times of the
year. Grassland birds use the Refuge for breeding and wintering, giving
them a year-round presence. Migratory birds are observed there in the
spring and fall, while the Refuge provides open grasslands in which
raptors hunt during the winter. The Service has not comprehensively
examined the sensitivity of grassland birds to model airplanes across
the entire National Wildlife Refuge System.
(22) If the USFWS were to make arrangements to allow seasonal
access to the refuges that support migratory birds, how would this
access be enforced? How is the no access policy enforced now?
As mentioned in the answer to the previous question, the Refuge is
an important resource for birds throughout the year. Therefore seasonal
use would not be an effective method to decrease impacts on bird
populations. There is no policy of ``no access'' on Shawangunk
Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is open for wildlife
observation, photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. A full-time law enforcement officer is assigned to
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and Shawangunk Grasslands
National Wildlife Refuge who is responsible for patrol and enforcement
on both refuges. Similar situations exist on other National Wildlife
Refuges throughout the country.
______
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR.
A. Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge
(1) When was the image created of Desecheo Island showing the
locations of unexploded ordnance (UXO which was displayed for the
Subcommittee on Fisheries during its hearing on May 26, 2005)?
This image was taken from the 2002 Archives Search for Desecheo
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(2) Have any of the UXO identified on the Desecheo Slide been
detonated by the government? On what date(s) was the UXO detonated?
Three unexploded ordnance were detonated by Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) personnel in 2002.
(3) Which government entity recommended to the FWS that FWS use
signs and other means to post warnings about UXO on Desecheo? Why was
this information not provided to the Subcommittee on May 26? When was
the recommendation made? Has FWS satisfied any of the recommendations?
Which recommendations have not been satisfied? Why not?
The recommendation was made by EOD personnel to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in a memorandum dated December 2002. This is the same
memorandum that documented the detonation of ordnance on Desecheo. The
Service has not installed signs specific to ordnance, but has installed
boundary signs stating no unauthorized entry. The Service has posted
notices in public locations advising the public that the Desecheo
National Wildlife Refuge is closed. Closure information is also
available on fact sheets published by the Service. These fact sheets
are available both in hard copy as well as on the internet. These fact
sheets specifically refer to the presence of unexploded ordnance on the
island and the fact that the refuge is closed.
(4) What evidence can Mr. Hartwig point to in support of his
statement to the Subcommittee on Fisheries on May 26 that there are UXO
buried in Desecheo? Why has the FWS previously reported to applicants
for permits that it does not know whether any UXO exists beneath the
surface of Desecheo?
The island of Desecheo is known to have been utilized by the
military for bombing practice. This is clearly documented by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Archives. Based on observations by Service and
Corps personnel, the Service knows that there are UXO on the surface
and partially buried on Desecheo. However, the entire island has not
been surveyed for the presence of UXO on the surface or subsurface. No
geophysical surveys have been conducted to detect metal objects beneath
the surface. Therefore we cannot say with absolute certainty that there
is UXO present beneath the surface, however it is most likely.
(5) Has Desecheo refuge manager Susan Silander or any other FWS
personnel or authorized visitors taken a member or members of their
family(s) or other non-FWS personnel to Desecheo for any reason after
the Desecheo Refuge was closed? What were the reasons for the visit(s)
and when did the visits occur?
Refuge Manager Susan Silander has not taken her family to the
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge. No other Service personnel have made
unofficial visits or taken family to the island.
(6) Has the FWS authorized visits to Desecheo by school groups or
by anyone else since the Desecheo Refuge was closed? What were the
reasons for the visit(s) and when did the visits occur?
The Service has not authorized visits by school groups to Desecheo
National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has authorized select research
missions, which have included university professors and graduate
students. All permittees granted access to Desecheo are required to be
accompanied by Service personnel.
(7) If the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts has no
unexploded ordnance UXO on the grounds, then why does the Oxbow refuge
brochure mention UXO in its brochure? How do you reconcile this with
your position on Desecheo?
The Service received three transfers of land from the U.S. Army at
Fort Devens, Massachusetts (1974, 1988, and 1999). These lands now
comprise approximately 1,547 acres of the 1,677 acre Oxbow National
Wildlife Refuge. The transfers were made with the appropriate DOD
ordnance clearance certification. The statement in the Refuge brochure
is purely cautionary since no clearance certification can be absolute.
There are no known firing ranges, no known weapons firing impact areas,
and there have been no reports of UXO being located on Oxbow National
Wildlife Refuge, which is in contrast to Desecheo National Wildlife
Refuge.
(8) Why has the FWS not responded to Members of Congress who
enquired about the current status of the UXO on Desecheo? If the FWS
has responded, please include copies of such correspondence.
The Service has responded to all inquiries that it has received
from Members of Congress about the current status of UXO on Desecheo
National Wildlife Refuge. Copies of correspondence received by the
Service from Congressional Members, and the accompanying responses,
over the past 2 years are attached (Attachment #1).
(9) Has the FWS given consideration to the proposal set forth in
Mr. Farrell's initial administrative appeal filed with the FWS in June
2004 for decreasing the burden on FWS personnel in handling requests
from Amateur Radio operators for special use permits for Desecheo or
Navassa islands? Has the FWS considered any other means of decreasing
such burden other than closure of the Desecheo and Navassa refuges?
Mr. Farrell proposes the establishment of a narrow application
window for special use permits and that each year two permits be
authorized. Each permittee would need to follow reasonable, but
stringent regulations on their visits and would have to execute ``hold
harmless'' documents. Under this scenario access would be allowed
initially on a test basis and would be closely supervised by Service
personnel. If necessary, the Service would be reimbursed for the cost
of personnel required to accompany them.
The establishment of a narrow window would not eliminate the safety
issue that is the reason for closure. While strict measures may be
incorporated into the permit, this will not eliminate the issue of
safety and liability.
(10) Have any FWS personnel or authorized visitors to Desecheo or
Navassa ever been suspected or investigated by any agency, including
FWS, for suspicion of engaging in any illegal or unauthorized activity
related in any way to the Desecheo and/or Navassa refuges? What were
the suspected activities? Specifically, what charges or disciplinary
actions were they subject to?
No, the Service is not aware of any violations by Service personnel
or authorized visitors.
B. Navassa National Wildlife Refuge
(1) Have any FWS personnel or authorized visitors to Navassa been
harmed landing or departing Navassa Island at any time? If so, please
provide all supporting reports and/or other evidence.
The Service is not aware of any Service personnel or other
authorized visitors being seriously harmed landing or departing Navassa
Island. However, even without incident, access to Navassa is still
considered extremely hazardous.
(2) Have FWS personnel used helicopters to land on Navassa, and if
so, did any problems result from helicopter landings? Was FWS aware of
U.S. Geological Survey's landing on Navassa using helicopter?
The Service has accessed Navassa by means of helicopter in the
past. When doing so the Service must consider potential impacts to
natural resources. Unauthorized landing of aircraft on any national
wildlife refuge is forbidden. Helicopter pilots consider Navassa to be
a risky landing site due to the uneven terrain, sharp limestone and
loose sharp rocks. There was one instance of a problem during a
helicopter landing where the helicopter landing skids and rear tail
rotor were damaged. Given the hazards of landing on Navassa and the
presence of fragile natural resources, the Service tries to keep
helicopter landings to an absolute minimum.
The Service is aware that the U.S. Geological Survey landed by
helicopter at Navassa prior to the establishment of the refuge.
(3) Mr. Hartwig testified that the ladder on Navassa Island was
removed. Did the FWS remove the ladder? Did the FWS request that the
U.S. Coast Guard remove the ladder? If so, why?
The ladder was semi-functional until 2001 and then fell apart due
to deterioration. Since then, access has been limited and the island
can only be accessed by approaching in a small boat and climbing up a
cliff face. The U.S. Coast Guard was never notified and asked to remove
the ladder, because their activities related to the island ceased many
years ago.
(4) Members of Congress have enquired into whether Haitian
fishermen who camp on Navassa are encouraged to do so by the FWS. Does
the FWS allow this activity to occur or does the agency otherwise
encourage it?
The Service does not encourage Haitian fishermen to camp on the
island. Some fishermen do access the island inappropriately and
illegally, but typically they sleep on their boats.
C. Pacific Wildlife Refuges
(1) In regard to Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean, when was the
FWS policy on travel to Midway changed? Citizens have been told they
could only visit Midway using FWS aircraft at a cost of $1,500/person
and $7/pound of luggage. Is this correct?
The Service has provided limited access to Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge since January 2002. In June 2002, access was further
limited when Aloha Airlines ceased operating the aircraft the Service
regularly chartered to bring people, supplies, and materials to Midway
Atoll. Since then, the Service's only regular access to Midway Atoll is
by a chartered Gulfstream G-1 aircraft, which carries a maximum of 19
passengers and a total of 3,200 pounds (passengers and cargo). Almost
all food supplies for Midway must be flown in, which uses a significant
portion of the available weight. Thus the number of passengers that can
be accommodated on each flight is extremely limited.
Visitors are not required to come to Midway aboard our chartered
aircraft. Since 2002, most of Midway's visitors have arrived via cruise
ships, but a few additional people have traveled there via privately
owned sailboats and aircraft.
The fees of $1,500 for a round trip flight and $7/pound for cargo
that exceeds the 50 pound per person limit, are accurate. Similar to
major airlines, excess cargo fees are charged to discourage travelers
from bringing more luggage than required.
(2) Please produce all lists of fees for visiting any NWR in the
United States and its territories and/or possessions, including Midway
Island, and include the legal basis for each fee, and the rationale for
all fee structures?
The legal basis for the fee collection across the National Wildlife
Refuge System is primarily the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
(REA) (P. L. 108-447), and its predecessor, the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Some sites previously collected fees
under other authorities such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act (LWCFA) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (EWRA). Both of
these authorities were repealed by the REA and previously involved
sites will either be required to terminate their programs or transfer
to the new Recreation Fee Program by September 30, 2005. Many of our
current REA-authorized sites were previously authorized by Fee Demo
authority and many of those Fee Demo sites were initially authorized by
either LWCFA or EWRA. However, the continuing sites are those
collecting under REA and they all must conform to the fee criteria laid
out in Section 3(b) of that Act.
There are currently 112 refuges covered under the REA program. The
Service estimates that there were an additional 59 refuges authorized
under the LWCFA or EWRA to collect fees. The Service is currently
developing a national list of fees for all refuges which will be
available by the end of the current fiscal year. In addition,
throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service has been
authorized to collect administrative fees for issuance of Special Use
Permits, and to a limited degree, also been authorized to collect
quarters fees from approved residents.
At Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, fees have been collected
under various authorities since the Service assumed jurisdiction of
Midway in 1996. Midway developed its first comprehensive fee schedule
in 2002. The fee schedule was developed after the Service was provided
with permanent receipt authority for Midway Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge (Public Law 107-206). The Service also developed these fee
schedules in an attempt to be responsive to Congressional direction
that the agency must recover costs from other entities using the
airfield and the atoll for non-refuge purposes. The current Midway fee
schedule is attached (Attachment #2).
Midway's $5,000 fee for a Special Use Permit is not standard across
the National Wildlife Refuge System and is only applicable at Midway
due to very high direct and indirect operating costs. The staff at
Midway must devote significant time in reviewing applications, writing
individual permits, monitoring their implementation, and ensuring
compliance with terms. Time spent on these activities reduces time
spent on refuge management activities.
Midway Atoll also charges a $5,000 fee to develop individual-
specific compatibility determinations. In general, if the use at Midway
is something that all the general public has access to such as yachting
and yacht tie-down, the Service develops the compatibility
determination at no charge. Within the last 2 years, the Service has
only written one compatibility determination for Midway where a fee was
charged. In that case, the Service charged the Missile Defense Agency
the $5,000 fee for limited use associated with tracking missiles as
they pass over the Refuge.
The fee schedule also lists a $25,000 infrastructure fee. The basis
for this fee is the cost to overhaul the electrical generator at
specified times ($120,000), the cost to inspect and clean fuel tanks
regularly ($110,000), the cost to maintain water and sewer service to
all facilities on the island ($100,000), the costs associated with
providing general services to user agencies (e.g., storage space,
transportation on-island, telephones, faxes) and costs associated with
covering the expense of Refuge staff who routinely support the user
agency.
Costs for lodging ($100/day) and meals ($32/day) are based on the
Federal Travel Regulations government per diem rates for Midway Atoll.
Transportation fees of $1,500 per person for a round trip flight and $7
per pound for excess cargo were derived from actual costs for
chartering the Gulfstream G-1. Aircraft service fees, port service
fees, and labor and equipment fees are based on covering the contract
costs associated with providing those services or, in the case of
equipment, to cover depreciation costs.
Cruise ship visitors pay a Refuge Access fee of $25 to help cover
costs of additional Refuge staff and contractor time. Other costs paid
by the cruise lines are a chartered flight to Midway to bring
interpretive staff from our offices in Hawaii ($22,000 per flight) plus
lodging and food for the interpreters while they are on Midway.
(3) Please also identify anyone who was allowed to access Midway
Island or any other NWR under a waiver of the applicable fees, and
please explain the rationale justifying the waiver?
Attached is a table indicating Special Use Permits issued for
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge over the past three years
(Attachment #3). In the cases where fees were waived, the projects
generally were either conducted by Service personnel not stationed at
Midway and/or were for activities that benefit the refuge, including
historical preservation. Fees have been waived for educational
activities that have included both environmental education, consistent
with the core mission of the Service, as well as historical
interpretation related to the Battle of Midway. For example, recently,
access and interpretation were provided to a cruise group of veterans
touring important World War II sites.
The Service does not maintain a comprehensive list of individuals
who have been allowed access to refuges under fee waivers. However,
both the recreation fee collection authority under the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) and now the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (REA) allow fee waivers. These include free access for
those visiting on official business, farmers covered under cooperative
farming agreements, and volunteers. In addition, our entrance fee sites
host Fee Free days. The rationale for these waivers includes courtesy
to those benefiting our sites, the importance of educational
opportunities, and outreach to those with low incomes. The REA contains
similar language to that in the previous Fee Demo authority. The REA
fee waivers/prohibitions include those under 16 years of age; outings
conducted for noncommercial educational purposes by schools or bona
fide academic institutions; units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System created, expanded, or modified by the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (Public Law 96-487); and, those engaged in a
non-recreational activity authorized under a valid permit issued under
any other Act, including a valid grazing permit.
(4) When was the FWS web site for Midway Island changed to
indicate a more liberal policy of traveling there?
Although the Service changed the text on the Midway Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge website on June 9, 2005, the Service is still unable to
facilitate the visitation of many people to the atoll at one time, due
to transportation and staffing limitations. As described above, the
charter aircraft available to the Service carries only 3,200 pounds of
passengers and cargo, including the food needed to sustain the 45
residents working on Midway. Because the Service does not wish to
mislead the public, the website continues to indicate that visitors
must make their own way to Midway and have advance approval from the
refuge manager before they can visit.
(5) When were Kingman Reef, Johnston Island and Palmyra Atoll
closed to public access? What were the specific dates and reasons that
the FWS web site information was changed to reflect these closures?
Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1926, but
placed under the primary jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy (subject to use
as a refuge) in 1934. The Department of Defense still has primary
jurisdiction at Johnston; any public use on the atoll would require the
permission of both the Air Force and the Service. Due to the presence
of environmental contaminants, public safety remains a significant
concern.
Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuges were
established by Secretary's Orders on January 18, 2001. Although public
use was considered in the Palmyra Atoll Conceptual Management Plan, it
was decided that safe and compatible public use was not possible due to
higher priority needs for refuge personnel elsewhere in the Refuge
System. Due to the remote location of Kingman Reef National Wildlife
Refuge, the lack of a land base and support facilities to operate a
visitor program, and the nearly pristine condition of the coral reef
ecosystem, the Service determined that that Refuge would not be opened
to public use in the interim period before development of a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Service is now in the process of
developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kingman Reef and is
scheduled to start a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Palmyra later
this year. Public use will again be addressed in these planning
documents, and the public will have an opportunity to participate in
the planning process.
D. National Wildlife Refuges Generally
(1) Please provide a list of all refuges closed as of September
14, 2004 and the reasons for their closure? Please reconcile these
numbers the revised list of closed refuges provided in Mr. Hartwig's
statement to the Subcommittee on May 26?
In preparation for the May 26, 2005 hearing on public access within
the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service obtained information
concerning the number of refuges closed to public access. The
information was obtained from a number of sources including refuge fact
sheets, websites, existing databases, and in some cases, interviews
with refuge managers. This data was obtained in May 2005 and should be
similar to conditions as they existed on September 14, 2004.
Based on this information, a total of 87 units of the national
wildlife refuge system are closed to public access. Of these, Table 1
lists 53 such units that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally
does not hold authority to regulate public access. Table 2 lists those
refuges which are currently closed to public access but will likely be
open to public use following the completion of their respective
comprehensive conservation plans. Finally, Table 3 lists those refuges
which are closed to public access for either public safety or wildlife
protection reasons.
Although Mr. Hartwig did provide rough estimates at the meeting in
September, those estimates represented the total number of both closed
and unstaffed refuges--which are not mutually inclusive. There are
currently over 200 refuges that are unstaffed, at least partially, but
still considered open and have some type of limited public use.
(2) Please identify which NWRs over which the FWS does not control
access (i.e., control is retained by the landowners)? Please identify
the landowners and describe the conditions of these agreements between
FWS and these landowners in regards to access and control of the site?
The list of 53 refuges over which the FWS does not control access
is included in Table 1 of the previous question. The authority to
provide public use on these tracts remains with the private landowner.
Generally, on those areas that the Service acquired fee title the
agency controls access and on those areas where the Service acquired an
easement interest, it does not control public access. Beyond rights to
control public access to an easement property, the primary condition of
a typical easement agreement is that the landowner agrees not to drain,
burn, or mow wildlife habitat in order to maintain or restore waterfowl
nesting habitat. The Service holds tens of thousands of easement
agreements with individual landowners.
The Service continually works to identify landowners and public
access opportunities to refuges that contain a mixture of fee and
easement holdings. For example, in the Mountain-Prairie Region, the
Service conducts an annual audit of all holding to reconcile land
ownership changes with the Region's records. When changes in land
ownership are identified, the new landowners are contacted and advised
of their rights and responsibilities under the easement agreement, thus
ensuring that easement provisions are not violated. In addition, this
Region also conducts aerial reconnaissance multiple times a year and
conducts extensive mapping to track the status of easements and refuge
access.
______
QUESTION FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE RON KIND
(1) The statute, Committee Report and House Floor debate make it
clear that the Big Six recreational uses are given priority, but not
exclusive use within the System. In light of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, how will the Service weigh the
concerns raised by citizens about the possible curtailment of these
activities in the CCP finalization process?
The Service recognizes that the Big Six recreational uses are
legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge System and are to receive
enhanced consideration in planning and management. It is rare that the
Service would curtail such uses on a refuge. Typically, this only
occurs in instances where the resource impacts are unacceptable, public
safety is a concern, or the use is deemed incompatible with the
purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. Before the Service
curtails any use, the public will be informed of the Service's
intentions and allowed several opportunities to provide input during
the planning process. All comments received from the public will be
considered fully before finalizing any Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE NEIL ABERCROMBIE
Protection of Historic Resources:
(1) Testimony from the International Midway Memorial Foundation
makes several allegations about the Fish and Wildlife Service's role in
identifying historic structures to be maintained on Midway Atoll before
it was transferred to the Service in 1996. Could you please clarify the
various roles of the Service, the Navy, and the National Park Service
in evaluating Midway's historic resources?
The role of the National Park Service on Midway Atoll is through
their management of the National Historic Landmark (NHL) program,
whereby they develop theme studies and look for examples to designate
as NHLs. Study of Midway's heritage resources was initiated in 1986
when the National Park Service conducted a survey of World War II-era
properties eligible for designation as an NHL. Nine structures, all
defensive positions, were identified on Midway associated with the
pivotal Battle of Midway, including ammunition magazines (ARMCO huts),
a pillbox, and gun emplacements. All of the resources are located on
the west side of Sand Island, on relatively undisturbed terrain. A
buffer zone around the individual structures was included in the NHL.
No resources were identified on Eastern Island for inclusion in the
NHL.
The National Park Service also oversees compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act through the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers. The
National Park Service has no legal authority for managing the historic
resources on Midway.
The role of the Navy was to comply with the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and to consider the impacts of
their activities on historic properties. This is the same
responsibility that the Service assumed when it acquired Midway Atoll.
It was the Navy's responsibility to identify the historic properties
that would be affected by their base closure activities, which included
lead paint removal and demolishing buildings and structures.
Between 1992 and 1994, the Navy sponsored studies of the Naval Air
Facility on Midway carried out in conjunction with the Department of
Defense Legacy Resources Management Program. The initial field effort
consisted of an architectural history survey of the structures,
buildings, and objects located on Sand and Eastern Islands. A military
historian specializing in Cold War history performed archival research
and surveyed resources on Eastern and Sand islands that were
constructed after 1945. The historian concluded that none of the Cold
War facilities at Midway were eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places because they lacked the exceptional importance
necessary for resources less than 50 years old. In addition to the nine
NHL structures, 69 buildings, structures, and objects associated with
the 1903-1945 historic period on Sand and Eastern Islands were
determined eligible according to criteria established by the National
Register of Historic Places.
The Navy proposed demolishing 40 of the historic buildings during
the base closure process. This action was considered an adverse effect
and required consultation with the Advisory Council, National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and interested parties. Therefore,
the Navy hosted a meeting in August 1995 with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, Advisory Council, Hawaii State Historic
Preservation Office, International Midway Memorial Foundation, 6th
Defense Battalion U.S. Marine Corps, and Defenders of Midway Reunion
Association. Many of the participants registered opinions that more of
the historic buildings should be left standing. This led to a follow-up
session with the Navy, Advisory Council, Service, and interested
parties who reviewed all of the historic properties and recommended
keeping more of the buildings to ensure the historic context of Midway
was maintained. The results of this discussion were implemented in the
1996 Programmatic Agreement amongst the Navy, Service, and Advisory
Council.
The Programmatic Agreement defined the historic properties and six
types of preservation treatments: reuse, secure, leave as-is, fill,
demolish, or relocate. According to the terms of the Agreement, only 15
properties were demolished in 1996, prior to the transfer of Midway to
the Service. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, the Service
completed the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Historic
Preservation Plan in June 1999.
Has the Fish and Wildlife Service destroyed any historic
resources since Midway Phoenix Corporation left in 2002?
No, the Fish and Wildlife Service is not aware of the destruction
of any historic resources since Midway Phoenix Corporation left.
Does the Service provide any interpretation of these
historic resources?
Yes. Since 2002, more than 5,200 visitors have enjoyed the historic
resources at Midway Atoll. In June 2002, The Service brought 100
visitors to Midway to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Battle of
Midway. Since then, seven cruise ships have visited Midway, bringing
more than 5,100 visitors to Sand Island. Three other ships were
scheduled to stop but were precluded by weather and rough seas. Cruise
ship passengers, many of whom are World War II veterans, come ashore
for a 2 1/2-hour guided tour, primarily of the historic ``downtown''
area. Service staff and volunteers, occasionally accompanied by a
National Park Service interpreter, are stationed at specific stops to
provide information about the atoll's historic and natural resources. A
series of interpretive panels providing historic information were
completed in 2002 and are displayed when visitors are on the island.
Does the Service put the needs of the Refuge above those
of the National Memorial?
Consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, as amended, every National Wildlife Refuge is managed
first to conserve, manage, and, where appropriate, restore America's
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. However, the
Act also requires that individual refuges be managed in accordance with
the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. Executive
Order 13022, which transferred Midway Atoll from U.S. Navy jurisdiction
to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996, specifies that the Service
``in a manner compatible with refuge purposes, shall recognize and
maintain the historic significance of the Midway Islands'' Thus the
Service takes its administration of the Battle of Midway National
Memorial very seriously, and the agency is proud to share Midway's
history with visitors.
Fuel Spill:
(2) The Fisheries Subcommittee heard testimony that the fuel spill
at Midway Atoll NWR was caused by contractor negligence. Could you
please explain what caused the fuel spill and what actions were taken
to clean it up?
In February 2003, approximately 100,000 gallons of JP5 fuel leaked
from an underground pipeline near the fuel farm on Sand Island. The
cause of the spill was found 2 feet below the surface where an old
aluminum camlock fitting capping a steel spigot on an 8-inch fuel
pipeline had corroded. The pipeline was in place during the Navy's
occupancy of Midway.
As the primary land manager in 2003, the Service took immediate
action to reduce the spread of fuel and to recover as much of the fuel
as possible in order to limit the effects on natural resources. Service
activities were coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Response Team and the U.S. Coast Guard. The
Service received $4.5 million in emergency supplemental funds for the
fuel spill cleanup effort. Recovery efforts have been completed though
some monitoring will continue indefinitely. In addition to the JP5
fuel, significant pockets of contamination from earlier spills dating
back to Navy operations were discovered and cleaned up to the extent
possible. In terms of obligations, about 95% of the funds ($4.3
million) have been obligated, and the remainder will soon be expended
to clean a tank that was storing recovered fuel and for related final
expenses.
The fuel release affected only one Laysan albatross that was
sitting on the ground at the site where the fuel bubbled up from the
subsurface. The bird was cleaned and placed near its original site. No
fuel was released into the marine environment and no historic resources
were affected.
FWS/Midway Phoenix Corporation Relationship:
(3) The Fisheries Subcommittee heard testimony explaining how the
contractual agreement between the Midway Phoenix Corporation and the
Service was terminated.
Please explain and clarify how was relationship between
the Service and MPC ended?
It became apparent the Service and Midway Phoenix Corporation (MPC)
disagreed over a variety of management issues and implementation of the
cooperative agreement between the two parties. MPC defaulted on, and
subsequently terminated, a fuels contract with the Service. In an
effort to resolve the situation without further contention, the Service
entered into a No Fault Settlement Agreement with MPC. There were no
financial liabilities to either party.
Did the FWS force MPC out of business, or did it ask MPC
to leave Midway for violations or non-performance under the operative
agreement?
The Service did not force MPC out of business. The Service expected
MPC to meet the requirements of the Cooperative Agreement, but did not
ask them to leave Midway Atoll. Both parties agreed it was in their
best interest to terminate the agreement.
Airfield Status:
(4) Please describe the current status of the airfield, its
operations and maintenance, and the costs associated with its present
operation?
Midway's airport is fully operational and managed to meet the
requirements of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 139 Airport
Certification criteria (the same criteria used at most international
airports in the United States). It is managed by American Airports
Corporation under a subcontract to Chugach McKinley Inc. However, in an
effort to lower costs associated with its operation and maintenance,
Midway no longer has refueling operations available. The airport is
open to emergency landings and Midway support flights, as well as other
aircraft not needing fuel if they have prior permission to land. In
early 2005, the Service and the FAA agreed that the airport should no
longer be open to general air traffic because of its sporadic and
insufficient use, as well as the substantial cost to the Government to
operate an airplane fueling facility in the middle of the Pacific
Ocean.
In FY 2005, the bulk of the cost for airfield and supporting
infrastructure is being shared by the Service and FAA. The FY 2005
Service Budget included $4.0 million in operations and annual
maintenance funding for Midway to cover refuge operational costs and
the Service's share of airport, infrastructure, and fuel costs. The
Service's current share of costs is based on a cost distribution
methodology developed in FY 2004. This cost distribution methodology is
currently being reviewed and, as required in FY 2005 Appropriations
language, the Office of Management and Budget will decide on an
equitable allocation of costs among executive department agencies to
operate Midway.
Visitor Program:
(5) Please describe the current visitor program at Midway Atoll
NWR? Do you have any plans to provide more opportunities for the public
to visit the atoll? What is the current status of planned cruise ship
visits to the refuge?
Due to the limited availability of air transportation to Midway,
almost all of the current visitor program is based on the arrival of
scheduled cruise ships. As indicated above, during the past few years
we have welcomed seven cruise ships and more than 5,100 visitors to
Sand Island. The most recent cruise ship, the Pacific Princess, arrived
on June 1, 2005. Two more cruise ships are scheduled in March 2006, the
Crystal Symphony and the Saga Ruby.
In September 2004, the Service contracted with Pandion Systems,
Inc., to conduct a Midway visitor program market analysis and
feasibility study. This study was to serve as a basis for future
visitor services planning for Midway. The Service received the final
report in May and is still evaluating its recommendations.
The Service is supportive of making regularly scheduled visitor
opportunities available again once the basic infrastructure issues on
Midway are resolved. Sharing Midway's unsurpassed wildlife resources
and its varied history with visitors is important to the Service.
Attachment #1
Congressional Correspondence re: Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) on
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge
Congressman Cliff Stearns, February 5, 2003
Congressman Cliff Stearns, May 16, 2003
Congressman David Price, August 5, 2003
Senator Don Nickles, April 29, 2004
Congressman David Vitter, August 23, 2004
Senator John Warner, August 23, 2004
Congressman Nick Rahall, September 1, 2004
Senator Robert Byrd, September 7, 2004
Congressman Mark Souder, September 10, 2004
Congressman Richard Pombo, September 23, 2004
Congressman Betty McCollum, May 6, 2005
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hartwig. Just a
couple of sort of direct questions; Midway first. Is there
access to the public? What kind of access to the public is
there on Midway right now?
Mr. Hartwig. Midway is open for the public to arrive and
visit. As you pointed out in your earlier remarks, there will
be a Princess Line cruise ship that shows up there next week,
with about 700 passengers. All we ask is that the visiting
public make arrangements ahead of time; as we don't have
interpretive staff onsite, and we make arrangements well in
advance. And most of these cruises are made a year in advance.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there are interpreters that will
accompany that cruise ship?
Mr. Hartwig. They will fly out and be there when the
passengers debark from the cruise ship, and be able to
interpret both the military history as well as the wildlife
activities on the refuge.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. I am just reading this for the first
time. On the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service website, ``Due to operator's decision to
leave Midway Atoll, the visitor program closed in January '02.
Although our vision to maintain Midway as the only remote
island national wildlife refuge open to public visitation has
not changed, it may be some time before we can once again
welcome visitors to the atoll on a regular basis. In the
meantime, those able to provide their own transportation to
Midway should contact the refuge manager for more
information.''
Could there be a line added to there to say, ``We still
welcome visitors; we don't have a program; there is no
contractor; but there are other means to arrive''? I guess what
I am saying is some people have told me that this is confusing,
and people assume that when they read this they cannot get to
Midway, even though there are other means and other ways to get
there.
Mr. Hartwig. Well, Mr. Chairman, immediately after this
hearing, I am going to fire the web master.
Mr. Gilchrest. Please, I think it is my brother-in-law, so
don't.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Please don't fire the web master. I don't
want you to fire the web master.
Mr. Hartwig. Actually, your comment is well taken.
Actually, today even the runway could be utilized, as long as
an airplane could get out there and get back without refueling.
And of course, that is a major impact for most airplanes, to be
able to do so at this time. But who knows what will happen in
the years to come?
We certainly will modify that to indicate that the public
is welcome. In fact, beyond cruise ships, we do happen to have
others that do stop by in their private boats of all types;
mostly larger yachts, etcetera. So we certainly are willing to
modify it.
Mr. Gilchrest. And to the degree that I can, I understand
the difficulties to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The original
intent highest priority is a refuge for wildlife; bring back
endangered species. And that is beginning to happen out there,
so that is a very positive thing.
Midway, though, in particular, is there a system that can
be if someone chooses to? You know, if some contractor from
Hawaii, San Francisco, Florida, or wherever, decides that they
want to begin regular excursions to Midway, that is possible,
though, for people to have access to Midway that way?
Mr. Hartwig. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. On the Caribbean Islands, the ham radio
operators two specific reasons for not being able to go to the
two islands that they mentioned. One is safety, because the
island is difficult to get on because of the high cliffs. And
the other one, because of the unexploded ordnance. Not because
of the incompatibility of the activity.
Is there any way to work out those safety issues and ensure
that the ham operators can conduct themselves in a compatible
fashion? For example, I am not sure how to pronounce that one
island, where the Army Corps of Engineers----
Mr. Hartwig. Desecheo.
Mr. Gilchrest. Desecheo. You mentioned Massachusetts had a
problem in a refuge where there was unexploded ordnance. And so
there was an observation tower or a designated area selected
for people to visit that refuge; not walk around on it, but
there was a specific site that they could go to. Is that
possible on Desecheo?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, certainly, people are allowed to go by
boat and circle the island, and they can see some things from
the boat. I do happen to have with me a few photographs that I
would be happy to show, to explain. We will talk about one, and
then the other. But Desecheo, I would like to show you the
picture.
This is Desecheo. You can see that it is a fairly small
island. It is only a mile across.
Mr. Gilchrest. How many acres?
Mr. Hartwig. Total acres, 350, about 350.
Mr. Gilchrest. Three hundred and fifty acres?
Mr. Hartwig. Three hundred and fifty acres. It is a little
dot in the Caribbean, a mile across. I want to address a couple
of things here that are really problematic.
The first thing is that we generally do not invite the
public or encourage the public to come to areas where there is
still unexploded ordnance remaining. We do not have the
authority or the expertise to determine where these bombs or
other unexploded ordnance are located, or when the area is
totally clean. That is usually the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any activity ongoing now to remove
those unexploded ordnance?
Mr. Hartwig. The island still is listed on the FUDS list,
which is the military's list of unexploded ordnance that needs
to be cleaned up. We checked as recently as two days ago. They
are confident that there are still problems located there.
They did an initial screening of the area, just surface
screening, and indicated they didn't see very many problems
other than ordnance that had been exploded; but they could not
guarantee, and in fact they are knowledgeable that there are
unexploded ordnance under the ground.
And in effect, we have on trips to the island discovered
after heavy rains that some of these bombs are in fact exposed.
As you can see by the dot up there in the left-hand side of the
island, a 100-pound bomb was discovered very close to the area
where the helipad was referred to by prior speakers.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was it live, do you know?
Mr. Hartwig. It was live.
Mr. Gilchrest. Live ordnance?
Mr. Hartwig. And there were others throughout the island
that have been suspected, or have been uncovered over time. It
is not known exactly how many are there, or where they are
located.
Mr. Gilchrest. My time has expired, but we may have a
second round. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Let me just ask about Desecheo, and then I
have some more general questions. Are there any other refuges
that have unexploded ordnance onsite?
Mr. Hartwig. There are other refuges that do have
unexploded ordnance onsite. One was referred to in a prior
panel. Ox Bow does not have unexploded ordnance onsite. That
may be some relic of a sign. But I can tell you that we do have
a nominal number of refuges that are closed for specific
reasons, and some of those are unexploded ordnance that we have
inherited through transfer.
Mr. Pallone. But they are not all closed, the ones that
have them?
Mr. Hartwig. Every one that has unexploded ordnance, either
the refuge is closed or, if it is large enough, portions of
that refuge are open and other portions that have unexploded
ordnance are closed. One such example, when I was regional
director in the Midwest we inherited the Jefferson Proving
Ground. It is a huge refuge, now called Big Oaks National
Wildlife Refuge. And there are areas that are open to the
public, and there are other areas that are closed to the public
because of unexploded ordnance.
Mr. Pallone. But even on these ones that are closed, don't
you have sites, you know, like safe areas, for your own
personnel to operate from?
Mr. Hartwig. For management purposes, we do have some of
our staff that will go to closed refuges, whether they are
closed for unexploded ordnance purposes or they are closed for
other reasons that conflict with our wildlife mission. Our
management will still go there to do activities that are
required to either know more about the area, so that we can in
fact do a better study to understand if the area could be
opened up to the public----
Mr. Pallone. Because I was just going to suggest that the
permit holders, like the ham operators, could broadcast from
those safe areas where your own personnel are.
Mr. Hartwig. That is possible. And in fact, that has been
done in some locations, some of which have been mentioned
earlier today. This island being only one mile across, and with
unknown knowledge of where the unexploded ordnance is, we take
a chance when we send our people out. There is no way that we
would take the risk or liability, or encourage the public to be
able to come there and go through the same possibility.
Mr. Pallone. Let me ask a more general question. It has
been mentioned that the Fish and Wildlife Service considers all
refuges closed unless expressly open for use. Is that true? And
if so, where specifically does the Service draw its authority
for that?
Mr. Hartwig. Our act, Refuge Improvement Act, as well as
our establishing legislation, calls for all refuges to be
closed until open, except those that are in Alaska. And of
course, the wildlife management districts I referred to are
open as well, as opposed to closed.
We go through a process immediately. Those activities that
are ongoing, that we can do a fairly quick compatibility
determination because they are maybe a ``big six'' activity or
another wildlife-dependent activity, we make those early
rulings to open those areas up to continuing use.
An example of this is Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge, where hunting is a major activity for local citizens.
We have already determined that hunting will continue on that
refuge, even though the full CCP process and compatibility
determinations for all activities have not been completed.
Mr. Pallone. So it seems like the term ``closed'' means
different things, depending on the time of the year, or the
purpose for which the refuge was established, the type of use.
It is confusing to me, as to when the Service considers a
refuge closed.
Mr. Hartwig. Congressman Pallone, let me make an effort at
trying to explain this, because it is very confusing to most
people. Our act does not give us a term ``closed.'' Basically,
it says all refuges are closed until open.
We have 495 of our 582 refuge units that are open. To some
activity, they are open. Twenty-seven are closed for public
use, because of public safety or because the area is so small
that there is not an ability to handle both the wildlife
mission and the public.
We have two other groups of lands. Eleven of our refuges we
have no authority to open, because when we purchased the
easement on the lands associated with these refuges, there was
not the public entry as a right that was purchased. In other
words, the refuge is there for wildlife, but not for the
public.
We have 49 other refuges that are currently undergoing
study to determine whether those refuges can in fact be opened
up to the public, in part or for all uses. About ten of those
refuges are fairly new refuges. And I gave you the example of
Detroit River. We have already predetermined that hunting will
be a compatible wildlife-dependent use and will be authorized,
but we have not determined other uses, and we will do so when
we go through the CCP process, the comprehensive conservation
fund process.
Thirty-nine of those areas are located in our wetland
management districts, where we are working with our solicitor
to determine whether those areas could in fact be opened up to
the public. Prior opinions by our solicitor did not give us
that ability.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but just
related to this, I guess my question is, do you think it is
best to leave it like this, on a refuge-by-refuge basis? Or
would you have some consistency or some change in the law
perhaps to make it more consistent?
Mr. Hartwig. Congressman Pallone, I find that to be a
totally effective way of doing things: the fact that each
refuge is an individual refuge; has its own authorizing
legislation, either general or specific; and has its own
community that it sits within; each refuge has its own
capability to handle a certain amount of the public.
As the Chairman has indicated, within his own district,
Susquehanna Refuge, which used to be 4 acres in size, has now
dwindled to about an acre and a half; has a difficult time
handling people and birds that are on that island, as well.
So I think we have to look at each one of these at one
moment in time each. Again, the good news is, 495 of the 582
areas are in fact open to the public for a wildlife-dependent
activity. And we are looking at 49 more, to see if they can
join that list.
Only 11 do we have no authority to be able to have public
activity, whether we would like it or not, because those are
easement refuges that public access was not a part of what was
purchased when those easements were purchased.
And as I say, the 27 areas, most of those areas, they
occupy in total less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the entire
National Wildlife Refuge System by acre, less than 16,000 acres
of the total almost 100 million acres. These are often very,
very small areas that it is difficult to have both people and
wildlife in those very small areas. Some of these are an acre
or two in size.
One I will give you as an example is our first refuge,
Pelican Island. Pelican Island on the shore has a very nice
observation walkway and deck. But the Pelican Island itself,
which was a mere 5 acres in size, has dwindled in size as well.
And that island is closed, because it is a nesting area for
wading birds and pelicans.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going
to follow up on Mr. Pallone's questioning here on the closure
of the refuges.
Mr. Hartwig, you said that a total of 27 refuges are closed
to all public entry and use. Now, this is a different number
than the committee staff provided us as background for the
hearing today; which was, based on their analysis, 88, or
roughly 16 percent, are closed to public access.
So I want to reconcile this. I think you mentioned other
numbers here: 11 and 49; which if you add that to the 27, adds
up to 87. But you stated actually they are closed. They are all
closed, then, 87 of them, rather than the 27; which is not a
real accurate number. Is that correct?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, let me respond, Congresswoman. The total
number we have right now today is about 87. Twenty-seven, we
have determined, are closed, 27. Forty-nine, we are still
determining through our CCP process, should they be open or
not.
Ms. Bordallo. But at this time----
Mr. Hartwig. Right now, they are closed.
Ms. Bordallo. That is right.
Mr. Hartwig. But once we complete that, I feel confident
that many of those will in fact move over to the open column.
And 11, we cannot open, even if we wanted to. This august body
could not open them.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Hartwig. We do not have the wherewithal, as the current
landowners contain the right of entry to the property. We did
not purchase that when we purchased the easement.
Ms. Bordallo. I just want to point out that a more accurate
number to the committee would have been the 87, rather than the
27. Because they are closed now.
Mr. Hartwig. They are technically closed now. And I would
agree, 87 would be a better number.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. How many units in your system
today do not have the CCPs, or for which CCPs are pending final
approval?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, we have somewhere in the neighborhood of
about 85 to 90 CCPs that have been completed, of the 545
national wildlife refuges. And we have another 60 or 80 that
are well underway, and we expect to have those done within
another year, year and a half. And each year following has a
similar number of refuges that are going through that CCP
process.
Ms. Bordallo. All right, a follow-up. Is public use and
access policy in a particular refuge really driven by the CCP
process? And how does the process involve the public and ensure
that their input is gained?
Mr. Hartwig. The actual operation and use of the refuge by
the public is driven by the compatibility determination
process, which is backed up by the Refuge Improvement Act of
1997. The CCP should address all of those compatibility
determinations in an open, public forum. Compatibility
determinations themselves, as you heard from earlier witnesses,
are open for public response when in fact they are issued in
draft, before they are finalized.
Ms. Bordallo. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I think it
would be helpful if Mr. Hartwig could provide a list of which
refuges have UXOs and are on the Army Corps' FUDS list.
Mr. Hartwig. We would be happy to do so.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have another
round?
Mr. Gilchrest. You can keep going, Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. I can? Thank you. Since I have the gentleman
here, this is something that is a very serious concern on Guam.
And I am not so sure if you are aware. Is Guam part of your
jurisdiction?
Mr. Hartwig. Yes, it is. We have a refuge there.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good, yes. Guam is home to a national
wildlife refuge that was established in 1993 on land that was
declared excess by the Department of the Navy. The mission and
public access policies of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge,
since its establishment, have remained a source of serious,
serious concern in Guam. It is now a court case.
Public access to and through the Guam National Wildlife
Refuge directly impacts the rights and ability of private
landowners in northern Guam to access, develop, and use their
property. Certain private landowners at Jinapsan Beach continue
to contend with unfavorable and restrictive access policies,
because their property is accessible only by crossing land
owned by the Federal Government at Anderson Air Force Base, or
alternatively, through the Guam National Wildlife Refuge.
And as a result, some landowners who operate eco-tourism
operations have been adversely economically impacted;
particularly in light of the heightened access restrictions
imposed at Anderson immediately following September 11th.
It has now been over a decade since the Guam National
Wildlife Refuge was established, and nearly five years since
base access restrictions were imposed, and the issue of access
to federally land-locked private property in Guam remains an
unresolved matter. Landowners continue to seek a resolution of
access for their property.
This hearing presents another opportunity for me to again
raise this matter to the attention of the Department of
Interior, and to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Department of the Air Force to cooperate in determining
a permanent alternative route of access for these landowners.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a court issue, and we are
awaiting an environmental study. And I understand that process
is in your agency's hands. And there is no report forthcoming,
and this is a very serious situation. Do you have anything to
say to that?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, I am familiar with the issue. I believe
we have talked about this issue. Part of the solution is the
military granting access. I understand their concern for not
doing that, relative to their security issues.
The other potential solution is, obviously, granting a
right-of-way through the refuge. And we are pursuing the
biological studies, as you know, to make sure that this is done
in a straightforward manner, and that we have an environmental
impact statement that allows us to pursue that. And the court
has entered and will have some say-so as to what the ultimate
solution is in this case.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I certainly hope the process moves
forward--we have waited a long time, and the landowners there
are very anxious, and this is a very serious concern.
Second, I want to mention to you that the Guam National
Wildlife Refuge was previously open to the public until 5:00
p.m. each day. However, a change in policy last year has
reduced the public access hours, and the gate is now closed at
4:00 p.m.
And this is another concern, with these reduced hours and
the refuge's policy for public access within the boundaries,
that has been raised with me at many local meetings; my
constituents, the mayors, the government officials. And what is
the reason for reducing the working hours by one hour?
Mr. Hartwig. I am unfamiliar with that issue,
Congresswoman. I will be happy to get that information for you
and get back to you. I just don't know why. I mean, I certainly
can tell you, throughout the refuge system we are reducing
hours in some places, and that is directly related to
capability to pay staff to be there for longer periods of time.
But I don't know if that is the case here.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to have this
statement and some of the accompanying documents placed into
the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection. Without objection.
[The information submitted by Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a Delegate in
Congress from Guam
Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing today to examine
the policies and practices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding public access to our nation's 545 Wildlife Refuges. This is
an important subject and an area where I believe this Subcommittee's
oversight responsibility should be exercised to the fullest extent
possible in order to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and consistency
in public access and public use policies across the National Wildlife
Refuge System. Public access to, through, and within National Wildlife
Refuges is also a subject of interest to my constituency.
My district, Guam, is home to a National Wildlife Refuge that was
established in 1993 on land that was declared excess by the Department
of the Navy. The mission and public access policies of the Guam
National Wildlife Refuge since its establishment have remained a source
of concern in Guam. Public access to and through the Guam National
Wildlife Refuge directly impacts the rights and ability of private
landowners in northern Guam to access, develop, and use their property.
Certain private landowners at Jinapsan Beach continue to contend
with unfavorable and restrictive access policies because their property
is accessible only by crossing land owned by the Federal Government at
Andersen Air Force Base, or alternatively through the Guam National
Wildlife Refuge. As a result, some landowners who operate eco-tourism
operations have been adversely economically impacted, particularly in
light of the heightened access restrictions imposed on Andersen Air
Force Base immediately following September 11, 2001. It has now been
over a decade since the Guam National Wildlife Refuge was established,
and three years since base access restrictions were imposed and the
issue of access to Federally land-locked private property in Guam
remains an unresolved matter. Landowners continue to seek a resolution
of access for their property. This hearing presents another opportunity
for me to again raise this matter to the attention of the Department of
the Interior, and to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Department of the Air Force to cooperative in determining a
permanent alternative route of access for these landowners.
A June 30, 2000, stipulation by the U.S. District Court in Guam and
landowners provided that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Department of the Air Force would prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to ``afford an alternative permanent easement for a
route of access.'' On August 15, 2000, the Department of the Air Force
printed its notice of intent in the Federal Register to prepare an EIS
for access. Prior to September 11, 2001, access was via base roads.
However, the EIS is still not completed due to disagreement between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Air Force. One
of the three access alternatives that was proposed and studied by the
initiated EIS was a road along an old bull cart trail through the Guam
National Wildlife Refuge. I understand that this road was the preferred
alternative, but that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not
concurred. I have secured committee report language in the Fiscal Year
2005 National Defense Authorization Act that supports a resolution to
this issue and which encourages the services of an outside
organization, conversant with these issues in order to expedite
completion of the EIS and to determine a permanent alternative route of
public access to privately-owned properties at Jinapsan Beach. I ask
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service embrace this process and
cooperate in the work to complete the EIS as soon as possible.
Additionally, I ask that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider
the Federal Lands Highway Program administered by the U.S. Department
of Transportation as a means to providing for the construction of a
public road within the Guam National Wildlife Refuge for access to
Jinapsan Beach for private landowners, their sponsored guests, and
visitors.
Lastly, I want to state my specific concern with the current public
access hours at the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The Guam National
Wildlife Refuge was previously opened to the public until 5:00 p.m.
each day. However, a change in policy last year has reduced the public
access hours. The gate is now closed at 4:00 p.m. Concerns with these
reduced hours and the Refuge's policy for public access within the
boundaries have been raised with me at local village meetings, by
constituents and Mayors, as well as by the Guam Boonie Stompers, a non-
profit corporation in Guam organized to lead weekly recreational hikes
for the general public. I ask that testimony on this issue from the
Guam Boonie Stompers be included in the record for today's hearing. I
would appreciate the attention of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Headquarters to the issue of public access hours at the Guam National
Wildlife Refuge. I would hope the Administration's budget request for
Fiscal Year 2007 would budget accordingly to allow for the hours at the
Guam National Wildlife Refuge to be more conducive to the public
interest in Guam.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these issues at today's
hearing.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mrs. Bordallo from
David T. Lotz, President, Guam Boonie Stompers, follows:]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hartwig, can you tell us when the compatibility study
determined that--is it Shawangunk? Am I saying that right?
Mr. Hartwig. Shawangunk.
Mr. Gilchrest. Shawangunk. The compatibility determination,
when was that made, as far as the model airplanes were
concerned?
Mr. Hartwig. In 2002.
Mr. Gilchrest. In 2002. And you took over the site in what
year?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, I think, as it was talked about on the
earlier panel without a lot of the detail, the refuge was
established in 1999, after a GSA transfer, and it was a result
of the BRAC closure. This was an area that was put up. And in
that process, we took over 566 acres. There were additional
acres that the community did get through the normal BRAC
process. I think that was referred to by one of the other
speakers.
So the actual use for model airplanes was curtailed by the
military prior to the transfer, four years prior to the
transfer. So there was no use for the four years prior to when
we operated it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any reason that the military
canceled that use? Do you know what the reason was for it?
Mr. Hartwig. I don't know the reason why they canceled the
use. But I know that the use was not ongoing when we took over
the land.
Mr. Gilchrest. And the issue with the incompatibility
determination is the airplanes, or the number of people on the
site, or a combination of the two?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, I think it is a combination. It is a
fairly small site, 566 acres. It is a wet meadow area. As the
usage of the runway has diminished, we are seeing the area
wetter; which is better for what we are doing with the neotrop
birds and others.
There is a direct conflict between people who would like to
go out there in a nice, quiet, pristine area and watch birds,
as opposed to someone who would like to go out there and fly a
model airplane, no matter how little noise it makes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any idea of the type of
neotropical birds that fly through?
Mr. Hartwig. I can certainly provide a list. I don't happen
to have that off the top of my head.
Mr. Gilchrest. You said that 11 refuges are closed,
permanently.
Mr. Hartwig. Absolutely. Eleven refuges are closed because
we do not have the authority to have the public set foot on the
property.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, those are the easements?
Mr. Hartwig. Those are the easements.
Mr. Gilchrest. Those are the easements. I see.
Mr. Hartwig. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. And that is because you purchased the
easement, but the people still live there?
Mr. Hartwig. Right. They are still farming in many cases,
and so it is private land. We have the right to have that
property not developed.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right.
Mr. Hartwig. And so they can continue to farm it.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the budget for that in the Refuge
System, every year.
Mr. Hartwig. For--?
Mr. Gilchrest. For purchasing easements. Is there a line
item for that?
Mr. Hartwig. We don't have a line item for it. It comes out
of the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hartwig. About in the neighborhood of 50 percent of the
annual receipts in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund go to
the waterfowl production area of the United States, which is in
the north-central part: western Minnesota; northwest Iowa;
North, South Dakota; and Montana. And I would say approximately
a third to a half of those funds go into purchase of easements.
It is a very robust program that we have there in the
easements.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. The two islands in the Caribbean that
we were talking about, Desecheo and Navassa----
Mr. Hartwig. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are these pretty well determined to remain
closed? Is there an ongoing study or determination of the
possibility of opening part of them for the ham operators?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, I think there is always a possibility. I
think Desecheo, the situation we have, as you can see here, is
as soon as the military has this location come up to its top of
the list, where they are able to provide the funding to clean
the area up so that we can in fact have the public arrive
there, then my feeling is that we would certainly want to go
through that compatibility determination again. And I would
suspect that activities that we have heard about today would
probably have a much better opportunity of doing that. I can't
determine that today.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who is responsible, from your understanding,
for cleaning up the unexploded ordnance on Desecheo?
Mr. Hartwig. That is the Corps of Engineers, the military.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Hartwig. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So then it would be likely that they
wouldn't do it unless they received a specific appropriation
for the island?
Mr. Hartwig. My understanding of how they do their cleanup
is they have a list, from top to bottom, most important to
least important. And this is fairly low on their list. If it
were moved to the top of the list, I am sure they would clean
it up sooner than later. But like all government agencies, they
are limited in funding.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right.
Mr. Hartwig. And they only clean up so many per year.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have any other pictures of Desecheo?
Mr. Hartwig. Yes, we do. You can see the nice rugged
coastline; makes it kind of fun landing a boat. OK, here is
Navassa. And this is the underwater coral reef area, which is
very robust and something we are very concerned about making
sure is there in the future.
Here is another picture of Navassa. It shows the landing
site, if you can see it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Hartwig. It is kind of right in the middle, where there
is a sheer rock cliff there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Couldn't you put some ropes, and people
could climb up those ropes to get to the top of those cliffs?
Mr. Hartwig. Well, actually, you can see right here they
are coming off the boat on a cable that is hooked up.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, is that how they dock?
Mr. Hartwig. Yes, until--the cable is now gone, actually,
today. But my understanding is that is how people had to get
onto the island, was via that.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is how the ham operators got onto the
island? That is fascinating. I guess they were all former
Marines or Navy SEALS.
Well, Mr. Hartwig, thank you very much. Oh, there is
another.
Mr. Hartwig. Well, we are moving out to the Hawaiian
Islands.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hartwig. And we are showing you a little bit of Midway.
And incidentally, if the Chair would beg some indulgence here,
I do want to address just very briefly some of the----
Mr. Gilchrest. You want me to beg indulgence? Or how does
that work? I'm sorry. Please.
Mr. Hartwig. If you would, sir. I just wanted to explain an
offer to the committee recent photographs and descriptions of
all of the historic preservation activities that we have
undertaken in recent years since we have been there.
You can see how difficult this area is. This was, of
course, essentially a town of 5,000, in the middle of the
ocean; which is now basically uninhabited, except by bird life
and other wildlife.
There in the background, there is certainly a historic gun
emplacement, but also one of the memorials, which we keep up,
and keep up the sidewalk around it. And when our visitors next
week come off of the Princess Line, they will go over and take
a look at this area, and see that it is maintained in good
stead.
There is one of our guardians. You can see that the area
has changed. It doesn't look the same as it might have looked
in the 1940s, when planes were taking off and people were
scurrying around, doing lots of things. Birds are now there.
And our mission is to do both the historic preservation and our
wildlife mission, and we believe we are doing both.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hartwig.
Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Just a few more questions. It appears that the
public access status of these remote Pacific island refuges has
recently been changed to closed for public use. That is getting
back to what I was asking before. When was that change made,
and was it made after the completion of a comprehensive
conservation plan? And what factors led the Service to conclude
that these refuges must now be closed?
Mr. Hartwig. Most of the changes from open to closed--and
you have heard some discussion earlier by panels--were made
after the 1997 Improvement Act, and after the GAO report, and
after the lawsuit that we had that told us that we had
somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 20,000 incompatible
uses that had to cease and desist.
And so these were areas where we wanted to make sure we do
the CCP, to fully analyze the activity, as they weren't
ongoing, regular activities. And so each of these activities
will be addressed, as those CCPs are completed. In most cases,
the CCPs have not been completed.
Mr. Pallone. And then, according to Mr. Farrell and Mr.
Allphin, ham radio operators have a fairly long history of
using refuges for training broadcast expeditions. And just for
the record, have you any knowledge of any instance where a ham
radio group operating under a permit was found in violation of
any permit condition?
And again for the record, has the Service compiled any
evidence demonstrating, or even indicating, that ham radio
operations have harmed wildlife?
Mr. Hartwig. I certainly have not received any evidence on
either of those points. Our concern, certainly, on Desecheo was
the safety concern. It had nothing to do with their activity
being compatible or not; it was unsafe.
Mr. Farrell in his Powerpoint presentation went over many
of those points--skipped over the one on safety, incidentally.
But that is a major concern of ours with the public. We do not
want to invite the public to an area that is unsafe, and we
know it is unsafe.
Mr. Pallone. And then, last, you know, I had mentioned
budget constraints. And obviously, they limit the ability of
the Service to provide coverage at all refuges. Could you
please tell us what strategies you have been taking to overcome
the lack of operating resources? And how has that affected law
enforcement within the refuge system?
Mr. Hartwig. We are trying to the best of our ability to
take the available dollars that the Administration and Congress
give us, to apply those most equitably where we have the
greatest demand by the public for entrance. And that is why
many of these remote areas in fact are closed to the public;
because they are very difficult to get to, they are very
expensive to maintain staffing there. And so we have
concentrated in areas where they are closer to the public and
there is more public demand for their access.
Mr. Pallone. So I mean, the answer is, obviously, it is
difficult to enforce. I mean, your lack of resources has
affected the law enforcement within the refuges. That is some
of the reasons why you are not keeping a lot of them open.
Mr. Hartwig. That is correct. Our law enforcement
capability is not as large as we would like to have it. It is
as large as we can afford to have it. We do, in fact, have in
the neighborhood of 40,000 volunteers that do help us to keep
some areas open, where we are unable to have staffing there on
a permanent basis or to have those hours extended.
Mr. Pallone. What about these private enterprises, like was
mentioned with Midway? Is that looked at in any kind of
comprehensive way as a way of supplementing?
Mr. Hartwig. We have very few private enterprise activities
in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many of our friends
groups are private non-profits; are in fact doing some of this
activity. But we have very few relations with private profit-
making organizations.
Mr. Pallone. And is that the way you like it? I mean, I am
just asking. I am not taking a view on it.
Mr. Hartwig. It is fairly new for us. We certainly prefer
to manage the areas for the public, to make sure that what
public access is available--and as I said, most of our refuges,
there is public access--that that public access is free and
open to all.
Most of these ventures with private entities do entail some
public funding. That usually does not come at no cost to the
government. And so we have to consider those activities along
with other activities that we are funding as well.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Hartwig, thank you for your patience and indulgence
here this morning. We enjoyed your testimony and your pictures.
And to all of the other witnesses that came, we appreciate
your voice, as well. And we would like to continue to
communicate with all of you, as we find a resolution to this
issue.
Mr. Hartwig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Chairman Richard Pombo's statement be included in the record.
I would also ask that Dr. Robert Schmieder's statement be
included in the record; and Mr. Eric Hilding, that his
statement be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
Statement by The Honorable Richard W. Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
I want to compliment the Gentleman from Maryland, Chairman
Gilchrest, for conducting this oversight hearing on public access
within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Since coming to Congress, I have supported the passage of the
historic National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
served as a member of the Refuge Centennial Commission and have
consistently worked for increased funding for both refuge operations
and backlog maintenance.
The American people deserve the finest Refuge System in the world.
After all, they paid for those Federal lands with their hard-earned tax
dollars. It is my firm belief that every effort should be made to allow
the American people to visit and recreate within the 545 units of the
system.
In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the Fish and Wildlife Service
that reminds us that: ``Refuges belong to the American people. Each of
us has an ownership of these public lands''. From this hearing, I hope
to have a better understanding of why nearly 90 refuges are closed to
the public and what is the likelihood that some of these units will be
open in the future.
Furthermore, there are a number of Americans who are being denied
special use permits to visit a particular wildlife refuge or denied the
opportunity because their recreational activity is not one of the six
wildlife-dependent uses. As someone who was actively involved in the
drafting of the organic act, I can state without hesitation that
neither the letter nor the spirit of that law was designed to limit
visitation to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography or
environmental education and interpretation. These six were given
priority but they are not an exclusive list of permitted activities.
In fact, the author of P.L. 105-57, Chairman Don Young, stated on
the House Floor that: ``this bill neither mandates nor prohibits such
non-wildlife dependent activities such as grazing, jet skiing, or oil
and gas development''.
While no one is suggesting we abandon the conservation of refuge
fish and wildlife, or ignore compatibility determinations, the Fish and
Wildlife Service should make every effort to facilitate legitimate
recreational activities. It is frankly wrong that World War II veterans
are unable to visit the Battle of Midway National Memorial, or that
model airplane enthusiasts can no longer, after 30 years, fly their
noiseless free-flight planes at the Galeville Airport, or amateur radio
operators cannot obtain a special use permit to broadcast from the
Desecheo, Southeast Farallon and Navassa Island National Wildlife
Refuges. These ham operators have indicated that they are willing to
agree to almost any reasonable stipulation established by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Yet, their requests have been repeatedly denied.
To again quote the Fish and Wildlife Service: ``Refuges belong to
the American people''. I believe it is time we let them into more of
the System!
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and
hopefully I will hear a commitment from the Fish and Wildlife Service
that they will be more willing to facilitate greater refuge visitation
in the future. As President Theodore Roosevelt, the father of the
Refuge System, once said: ``It is not what we have that will make us a
great nation, it is the way in which we use it.''
______
[The list of National Wildlife Refuge System units closed
to the public submitted for the record by Chairman Pombo
follows:]
[The statement of Eric Hilding submitted for the record
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Eric R. Hilding, K6VVA
My name is Eric Hilding. I am a United States Citizen and Military
Veteran Honorably Discharged from completion of service in the U.S.
Army Security Agency. I am a member of Rotary International, The
Audubon Society, and have a great love of the outdoors and wildlife as
did both of my deceased parents. One of my Uncles was Superintendent of
a National Forest before his retirement. I am 61 years old, and have
been a licensed Amateur Radio operator for 48 years, holding an ``Extra
Class'' license designation. I also carry a valid ``Emergency Responder
ID Card'' for Emergency Services in the Santa Clara County (California)
Operational area.
Public Service has been an important part of my life, and my
contributions started as a young teenage ``Ham'' radio operator in the
late 1950's. I volunteered many after school hours to run ``phone patch
traffic'' for overseas Military personnel, enabling them to talk
directly with their families and loved ones without incurring the then
high costs of overseas telephone calls.. It was a great privilege to
have been able to do this with my low-powered Amateur Radio station for
the troops in Thule (Greenland), various bases in Antarctica, and many
of the Pacific Islands such as Midway Island, Johnston Island, Wake
Island, the Marshall Islands, Guam and others.
My specific area of interest within the Amateur Radio hobby was
International contacts with fellow ``Ham'' operators around the globe,
or what we termed ``DX'' (for ``distance''). Before taking a lengthy
hiatus from the ``DX bands'' in the 1970's, I had contacted every major
Island and country in the world except Iraq, which had no Amateur Radio
activity permitted for many years.
While the newspapers, nightly television newscasts and politicians
were perpetually focusing upon ``doom and gloom'' during the infamous
Cold War era, the majority of the public were unaware that many
thousands of U.S. Amateur Radio operators were contacting fellow Ham
operators in the former U.S.S. R. and other ``Iron Curtain'' countries
on a daily basis developing and maintaining friendships. I distinctly
recall one Russian Ham operator telling me ``Congratulations on the
successful flight of USA Astronaut John Glenn.'' Yes, Amateur Radio has
always been a primary source of International Goodwill and Friendship,
and is one reason for our proposed brief, several day only, mission-
specific Amateur Radio operation from the presently human inhabited
SouthEast Farallon Island. A copy of Special Use Permit proposal is in
your folders.
The image of America around the world has taken a serious beating.
This has been partially due, of course, to all of the misinformation
campaigns by our enemies including terrorist groups. All the more
reason why the Farallon Islands Amateur Radio ``Project NA-178''
International Goodwill IOTA Endeavor is in the highest best interests
of the United States of America. Since Mexico, Australia and other
countries have granted access permits to similar wildlife habitat
Islands for these special brief IOTA ``Expeditions'', the FWS access
denials do not reflect well upon American policies.
The IOTA (``Islands On The Air'') program, under the auspices of
the Radio Society of Great Britain, is International in scope with
approximately 20,000 serious participating Ham operators. Quite often
the small teams of operators activating Islands are Multi-National and
Multi-Cultural in composition, thus furthering the processes of
International cooperation. As of May, 2005, The Farallon Islands are
now in the Top 10 most needed Island entities out of approximately
1,200 in the program.. About two-thirds of the Top 500 IOTA enthusiasts
needing a two-way, interactive contact with NA-178 (The Farallon
Islands IOTA designation), are in European countries.
A copy of IOTA Chairman Martin Atherton's ``To Whom It May
Concern'' letter submitted to FWS in August, 2004, is in your folders.
As correctly noted in paragraph 3 therein:
We have never heard of any problems related to wildlife
disturbance and numerous radio operations have successfully
taken place from wildlife habitats, islands, reserves and sites
of scientific interest in North America, Europe and
Australasia.
A great misconception has been that Ham operators are all a bunch
of ``geeks and nerds''. I consider it a privilege to be in a hobby
where my peer group includes people such as former U.S. Senator Barry
Goldwater, respected television personality Arthur Godfrey, TV news
anchor Walter Cronkite, former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi,
U.S. Vice-Admiral Scott Redd, former Astronaut and Chief Scientist at
NOAA Kathy Sullivan, former King of Spain Juan Carlos, Governor George
Pataki, as well as Hugh Downs, Marlon Brando, Burl Ives, Chet Atkins,
Ronnie Milsap, Andy Devine and other well known personalities and Heads
of State, including former King Hussein of Jordan. After 48 years as a
Ham Radio operator, my only regret is that I passed up an amazing
opportunity to join a group of fellow ham operators who went to Jordan
at the invitation of former King Hussein, to operate in an
International Amateur Radio event years ago.
Unfortunately, many one-sided media stories have been perpetuating
a gross misinformation campaign by environmentalists that have misled
the public into believing that a Special Use Permit grant for Ham Radio
IOTA mission to The Farallon Islands would result in some catastrophic
upset of the ecological balance of the Universe. It does not take a
rocket scientist to see that many non-profit environmentalist groups
have capitalized on the situation for fundraising purposes.
Intelligent decisions can only be made by careful analysis of
facts. I applaud the diligent efforts of House Resources Committee
Chairman Richard Pombo, Fisheries Subcommittee Staff Director Harry
Burroughs and his associates for their investigations to get the real
facts about human activity on The Farallon Islands as pertains to
Public Access.
In correspondence from FWS Director Williams to Chairman Pombo
dated November 18, 2004, we see an entirely different picture of
reality pertaining to human activity on The Farallon Islands than what
others have tried to depict as some kind of totally sanctimonious
habitat. A copy of the correspondence is in your folders. The response
to question #1 yields some startling statistics about human access and
activity on the alleged ``pristine'' habitat. During 2002, 2003 and
2004, a total of 44 ``permittees'' and approximately 97 ``other''
individuals were physically on SouthEast Farallon Island (which
included plumbers, contractors and other workers). FWS also indicated
``We do not maintain a log of people who have visited the Island'',
which presumably includes those ``individuals involved with Refuge
management or support (e.g., [boat] skippers bringing supplies) for
very short, closely supervised visits.''
Regarding the existing structures on SouthEast Farallon Island
listed in response to question #9, it seems paradoxical that while
financially challenged families of six are forced to live in tiny 900
square foot apartments in the San Francisco Bay Area, that a handful of
researchers enjoy the benefits of a ``2,500 square foot residence''
building on what is supposed to be a ``pristine'' wildlife habitat. And
then there are the existing 8 communications antennas on SouthEast
Farallon as explained in question #11, which a U.S. Coast Guard
Lighthouse, power generation station and other buildings.
In further correspondence from FWS in response to Chairman Pombo's
letter dated March 3, 2005, is mention of ``bird strikes'' and
communications towers. All such studies generally involve AM Radio and
other major commercial communications towers and structures in excess
of 200 feet in height. I would like to direct your attention to
correspondence material from the Massachusetts Audubon Society and
MTechnology in your folders, as well as Exhibit 6 to our PROJECT NA-178
proposal to FWS. There is no evidence to suggest that less than 200
foot typical amateur radio antennas and towers of a permanent nature
constitute a major problem to birds.
Our proposed temporary antennas are of portable design in nature,
mostly ``verticals'' or special ``dipoles'' of slim, lightweight
aluminum 1.5' or less in diameter, including any support poles. Any
antennas would be 30 feet or less in height, either self-supporting, or
possibly guyed with ``Dacron'' material lines (vs. ``guy wire'').
Considering the fact that birds are routinely ``trapped'' in nets on
SouthEast Farallon Island for banding and research purposes, we do not
believe any serious threat exists during a limited three day
operational period from such minuscule antennae. Our objective, of
course, would be to arrive at a mutually workable solution with FWS.
As set forth in Exhibit 4 of our PROJECT NA-178 access request
application, the self-imposed and very stringent ``Proposed Terms &
Conditions of the Special Use Permit clearly demonstrated a concern and
sensitivity for the environment on SouthEast Farallon Island, and
willingness to adhere to FWS Supervisory restrictions while on the
Island. At The same time, a realistic understanding of the degree of
existing human activity there.
FWS reference to the brief Amateur Radio operation which took place
on SouthEast Farallon Island in September, 1992, made no mention of any
adverse impact on wildlife or bird kills, because there was none.
Similarly, we anticipate none. What did result were donations and
membership subscriptions to the wildlife research group with permanent
staff involved on SouthEast Farallon. Indeed, a positive outcome.
One of the reasons given by FWS for denial of access permission was
allegedly that the Secretary would not allow any new uses. For your
information, all wireless communication, whether cell phones, marine
radio or Amateur Radio are similar use and governed under Title 47 CFR.
A cell phone is really a miniature, low-power transmitter-receiver
similar to Amateur Radio ``Transceivers'' which we would utilize (and
had been used by the previous Ham operator on SouthEast Farallon Island
in 1992). The FWS objection was invalid, and entirely without merit.
The PROJECT NA-178 SUP proposal specifically indicated an ancillary
aspect of the activity would be Global promotion for the wildlife
research programs at the Farallon NWR via various means, which pursuant
to Exhibit 4, would include photographs and videos. This aspect of the
mission is clearly one of ``The Big Six'' uses FWS claims they only
need to cater to, yet still refused to acknowledge and grant a Special
Use Permit. The law does NOT give FWS authority to exclude other bona
fide public access purposes.
Just as many Amateur Radio operators are, or have been, heads of
State and Internationally recognized figures, many are also wildlife
enthusiasts. Our planned photographic and video documentary aspects of
the IOTA Expedition to The Farallons is clearly a ``Big Six'' category
permitted use. It is a documented fact that financial contributions to
wildlife research involving The Farallons resulted from the very brief
Amateur Radio operation there in 1992. I refer you again the letter
from IOTA Chairman Martin Atherton, where he specifically states:
There is considerable scope for education and fundraising as
the expedition operators will send small postcards to confirm
each radio contact made. These postcards contain information
about the island, and where appropriate, an appeal for funding
for the nature reserve.
As an additional ``media'' source, the World Wide Web provides the
ability share photographs and even streaming video. Our intentions are
to distribute a CD or DVD video (``Photographic'') documentary to key
Amateur Radio clubs and groups around the globe for presentation at
International, Regional and local Ham Radio conventions. As a speaker
at the International ``DX Convention'' last month, I gave a PowerPoint
presentation ``Progress Report'' on our efforts to obtain permission to
operate from SouthEast Farallon Island at the IOTA meeting. I also
asked how many other Amateur Radio operators in attendance had ever
sought to obtain access permission for an IOTA Expedition at The
Farallons over the years and were denied. Approximately 20 to 25 hands
were raised, and most were told ``no'' via an initial telephone inquiry
to FWS.
A rationale given by FWS was that the granting of an Amateur Radio
related Special Use Permit could possibly ``open the floodgates'' of
additional requests from the public at large. We can understand the
concern, but also believe FWS has overreacted in thought processes. The
majority of the public will have no interest in physically going to The
Farallon Islands. Considering FWS statistics that during 2002, 2003 and
2004 only a total of 35 permission requests were formally submitted for
access to The Farallon Islands (9 of which were denied), this thinking
is somewhat like having a mechanical problem with an automobile, but
avoiding a trip to the repair shop to solve the specific problem out of
fear of possibly having to replace every other part in the vehicle.
In the PROJECT NA-178 application proposal, it was clearly stated
that once IOTA specific mission had been completed successfully, it
would be ``most unlikely that another Amateur Radio IOTA team would
have interest in operating from The Farallons again for perhaps two to
three years or more.'' Aside from the IOTA program, in my opinion there
is no reason for any other type of Amateur Radio activity to take place
on The Farallons, with the exception of emergency needs. Suggestions
have been made to FWS as to a possible set of guidelines to be utilized
in review and approval of any subsequent IOTA-specific requests in the
future. On a limited and controlled basis with strict guidelines, I
believe IOTA-specific Amateur Radio operations can be structured to be
a ``win-win'' situation for the Amateur Radio Community, FWS and any
wildlife research organization involved. IOTA-specific access
guidelines should be incorporated into the Farallon NWR CCP.
The documented facts are that human beings and wildlife currently
co-exist on SouthEast Farallon Island. Last week, 12 members of the
media visited SouthEast Farallon Island with no adverse effects
resulting to our knowledge.
All members of our PROJECT NA-178 team are U.S. Military Veterans.
We served country to help insure that we would, in fact, have ``Public
Lands''. The Farallon Islands are Public Lands, and we do not
appreciate being treated as ``2nd Class Citizens'' behind the media who
frequently visit The Farallon Islands. In light of America's current
image in the International Geo-Political arena, we believe we have a
significant contribution to make in furthering International Goodwill
and Friendship, which is in the highest best Interests of the United
States of America. Every U.S. Citizen, in my opinion, has a
responsibility to contribute and as Amateur Radio operators, we have
the ability to do this. What is required is for the FWS to expand its
thought processes to include a Global Perspective.
For the reasons set forth herein, I find FWS denials of Special Use
Permits for specialized Amateur Radio ``IOTA Expeditions'' to The
Farallon NWR arbitrary and capricious misinterpretations of the intent
and ``Spirit'' of both the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act
of 1966 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997. Respectfully submitted, (VIA E-Mail) Eric R. Hilding, K6VVA P.O.
Box 1700 Morgan Hill, CA 95038 [email protected]
[Letters attached to Mr. Hilding's statement follow:]
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Evan Hirsche,
President, National Wildlife Refuge Association, follows:]
Statement of Evan Hirsche, President,
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Evan Hirsche, and I am the president of the National
Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA). On behalf of the NWRA and its
membership comprised of current and former refuge professionals and
members of the more than 200 refuge ``Friends'' group organizations
throughout the United States, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on the issue of access to America's national wildlife refuges.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal
lands managed for the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their
habitat. President Theodore Roosevelt created the first national
wildlife refuge in 1903 on Florida's Pelican Island to protect brown
pelicans as well as egrets and herons from commercial hunting. Today,
the Refuge System, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), consists of 545 refuges in all 50 states and the territories.
Fewer than 10 years ago, Congress passed, and the president signed,
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Improvement Act). The Act builds upon the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act (NWRSAA) by providing an ``organic'' act for
the Refuge System, a basic statute providing a mission for the System,
and policy and management guidance for all units of the System.
According to the House Resources Committee, the Improvement Act's
``principal focus is to establish clearly the conservation mission of
the System, provide clear Congressional guidance to the Secretary for
management of the System, provide a mechanism for unit-specific refuge
planning, and give refuge managers clear direction and procedures for
making determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses
of the System and individual refuges.''
According to the Improvement Act, the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is:
to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.
Prior to the Improvement Act, numerous incompatible uses took place
on national wildlife refuges. In 1992, the National Wildlife Refuge
Association, along with several other organizations, sued the Secretary
of the Interior for authorizing secondary uses on refuges without
ensuring that these uses were compatible with those refuges. As a
result, the FWS agreed to terminate secondary uses unless it determined
the uses were compatible with the purposes of the refuge on which they
occurred. The Improvement Act was written with the intent of remedying
compatibility issues on refuges and to avoid similar litigation in the
future.
The Improvement Act clearly requires that public use of a refuge
may be allowed only where the use is compatible with the mission of the
Refuge System and the purpose of the individual refuge. The Refuge
Association strongly supports this requirement.
More specifically, the Act defines a compatible use as ``a
wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that,
in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the
System or the purposes of the refuge.'' In choosing the term ``sound
professional judgment,'' the Committee intended for the refuge manager
to consider the biological resources and, based upon available science,
whether they can sustain reasonable use. Moreover, the manager must
determine if available resources, such as funding, personnel and
infrastructure, are adequate to support the proposed use.
The Act provides clear and explicit guidance on compatibility
determinations for refuges. The law plainly states that compatibility
determinations must be in writing and involve extensive public review
and comment. In fact, the Improvement Act was written with the intent
of increasing the opportunities for public participation. According to
the committee report that accompanied the Improvement Act,
``incompatible uses are to be eliminated or modified as expeditiously
as possible.''
Further, the Improvement Act establishes compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the
Refuge System. The law lists six priority wildlife-dependent
recreational uses for refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. These
activities are found to be directly related to the mission of the
Refuge System and the purpose of many refuges because they rely on
healthy wildlife populations.
None of the activities discussed during this hearing on public
access within the National Wildlife Refuge System are wildlife-
dependent uses as defined by Congress.
Ham Radio Use
Ham Radio operators are actively working to gain access to a number
of national wildlife refuges, island refuges in particular. Currently,
there is legislation in Congress to allow access to two specific island
refuges, Desecheo NWR in Puerto Rico and Navassa NWR in the Caribbean.
Desecheo NWR was established as a refuge for the purpose of
protecting historic breeding grounds for seabirds, including red-footed
boobies, white-bellied boobies, royal terns, bridled terns, and
laughing gulls. The refuge was closed to public access in 1992 due to
the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) on the refuge. In addition,
illegal aliens and drug traffickers frequent the island. Because the
island is ringed by steep, rocky cliffs, access to the refuge is
perilous. The FWS found public access incompatible in 1998 in response
to a request by amateur radio operators due to UXO, a lack of law
enforcement ability and other safety concerns. According to the
Improvement Act, the Secretary of the Interior must determine that the
use is not only compatible, but it must be consistent with public
safety.
Navassa NWR was established as a refuge for the purpose of
protecting the unique ecosystem of Navassa Island, the adjacent coral
reefs and marine waters. The island is an important nesting location
for seabirds, with thousands of breeding pairs of boobies, frigate
birds and tropicbirds. Navassa also contains some extremely rare
plants, such as the Navassa palm, whose only living specimen is found
on the island. Navassa was described as a unique preserve of Caribbean
biodiversity during a U.S. Geological Survey-led scientific expedition
in 1998. The FWS found public access to the island for wildlife-
dependent recreation incompatible in 1999, due to biological impacts to
terrestrial and marine plant and animal species, and a lack of law
enforcement capabilities due to the area's remoteness.
The NWRA believes the Service's compatibility determinations for
Desecheo and Navassa that find the use of the refuges by ham radio
operators incompatible are reasonable and justified.
Model Airplane Enthusiasts
Model airplane enthusiasts have tried to gain access to the
Shawangunk Grasslands NWR for many years. A compatibility determination
by the FWS found that model airplane flying at the refuge is not
compatible with its mission and purposes and those of the Refuge
System.
The purpose of the Shawangunk Grasslands refuge is to ``carry out
the national migratory bird management program,'' with a primary
management objective to ``provide large expanses of undisturbed
grasslands so that birds may nest, incubate their eggs, rear their
young, rest, and feed.'' Many grassland bird species inhabit the
refuge, including: northern harrier; upland sandpiper; short-eared owl;
horned lark; bobolink; grasshopper; Henslow's; and vesper sparrows. In
addition, fifty-eight bird species are found to nest on the refuge.
Model airplane flying--and associated activities such as plane
retrieval--in no conceivable way complements the mission or purposes of
Shawangunk Grasslands NWR or the broader Refuge System. This use would
clearly serve as an obstacle to species recovery efforts on the refuge
and it is not a wildlife-dependent public use. The NWRA supported the
FWS' compatibility determination that found model airplane use on the
refuge incompatible during the public decision process and we continue
to support that decision today.
Midway Atoll
As described earlier, the Improvement Act defines a compatible use
as ``a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge
that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.''
Located northwest of Hawaii in the Pacific, Midway Atoll NWR was
established as a national wildlife refuge for multiple purposes. One of
the established purposes requires the FWS to ``recognize and maintain
the historic significance of the Midway Islands''.'' As such, public
access to the refuge, especially by veterans of the historic battles
fought at Midway during World War II, is clearly compatible with the
establishing purposes of the refuge.
The NWRA supports visitation to Midway NWR. Unfortunately, the
limited budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System is insufficient
to maintain the landing field located on the island. In the absence of
the funds necessary to operate and maintain the airstrip and carry out
the other purposes of the refuge, the FWS cannot afford to accommodate
high numbers of visitors. Funding is the primary reason veterans groups
and others, such as bird watchers and wildlife enthusiasts, have had
recent difficulty accessing the Midway Atoll NWR.
Rather than transfer management of the entire island to another
agency, as recommended by groups like the International Midway Memorial
Foundation, the NWRA urges Congress instead to facilitate an
appropriate allocation of costs for airfield operations and maintenance
among those Federal agencies and other entities that currently use or
depend on this airfield.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the crown jewel of wildlife
conservation in America. Prior to the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997, many inconsistencies and incompatible uses
were present on national wildlife refuges. However, thanks to this
committee's leadership and that of Congress, along with an impressively
diverse group of stakeholders, organic legislation was enacted that
addressed these issues and shifted refuges from a collection of
disparate units to a true National Wildlife Refuge System. The NWRA
urges Congress to continue to stand behind this vital law when
assessing questions of public access.
______
Additional background information was submitted for the
record by Chairman Pombo follows:
A letter to Steven Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, submitted for the record by Chairman Pombo
follows:]
September 23, 2004
Mr. Steven A. Williams
Director
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dear Director Williams:
Last week, several members of my Committee staff met with Mr. Bill
Hartwig, the Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, to discuss
the Fish and Wildlife Service's ongoing efforts to deny U.S. citizens
access to the Desecheo and Navassa National Wildlife Refuges. In
addition, Mr. Hartwig was provided with information indicating that
certain amateur radio operators are also being denied access to the
Farallon National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. Director, you should know that the fundamental reason that I
supported the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
was because it helped to ensure access to our national wildlife refuge
units. The taxpayers of this nation paid for the acquisition of these
lands and unless there are extraordinary circumstances they should be
permitted to utilize those lands. Regrettably, it appears there is a
growing pattern by the Fish and Wildlife Service to deny access and the
latest examples of this policy are reflected at Descheo, Navassa and
Farallon National Wildlife Refuges.
In terms of the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, I have a number
of questions that I would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to answer
in a complete and expedited manner. Please categorize the information
by year, organization and purpose where appropriate.
The questions are:
(1) Since January 1, 1996, excluding Fish and Wildlife and Coast
Guard personnel, how many different individuals have been physically
allowed on the Farallon Islands?
(2) Since January 1, 1996, how many individual requests for
access permission has the Fish and Wildlife Service received for the
Farallon National Wildlife Refuge?
(3) Since January 1, 1996, how many Special Use Permits have been
granted involving access permission to the Farallon NWR? How many have
been denied and what was the justification?
(4) How many days per year are one or more individuals physically
at the Farallon NWR?
(5) Who owns the structure adjacent to the United States Coast
Guard Lighthouse, and do the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Fish and
Wildlife Service or other personnel have access to it?
(6) What criteria are utilized by the Fish and Wildlife Service
to evaluate the Point Reyes Bird Observatory activities at the Farallon
NWR or any other group or organization?
(7) Has there ever been ingress/egress to the Farallon NWR by
means other than the main ``crane'' on Southeast Farallon Island (SEFI)
or by way of a Coast Guard helicopter?
(8) Does the official Farallon National Wildlife Refuge also
include: Noonday Rock, North Farallon Island, Isle of St. James, Middle
Farallon Island, Maintop Island and Seal Rock?
(9) How many buildings or structures exist at the Farallon
National Wildlife Refuge? Please provide the total number by type, the
square footage of each structure, how and by whom are they utilized and
are there currently vacant structures?
(10) How do Fish and Wildlife Service and Point Reyes Bird
Observatory (PRBO) personnel communicate from the Farallon NWR?
(11) Are there communication antennas or antennas of any type
located at the Farallon NWR? If yes, who owns them and for what
purpose?
(12) Do PRBO personnel transmit and/or receive any type of radio,
satellite, cell phone, or direct television transmissions at the
Farallon NWR?
(13) How much rent does the PRBO pay for utilizing federal
property at the Farallon NWR?
(14) Does the Fish and Wildlife Service provide any transportation
for personnel, supplies or any services for PRBP or other organizations
that may utilize the Farallon NWR? What is the cost of those services
and what is the reimbursement policy?
(15) What has been the total number of PRBO personnel or other
groups that have spent time at the Farallon NWR?
(16) During annual maintenance, are any non-governmental
individuals or volunteers given access to the Farallon NWR?
(17) Does NOAA still maintain weather service or other equipment
at the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge? If so, how is data
transmitted?
(18) Are there any other federal or state agencies that have
equipment or structures of any type at the Farallon National Wildlife
Refuge? Please elaborate.
Mr. Director, I look forward to obtaining responses to these
questions in the very near future. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact Todd Willens or Harry Burroughs of my
staff at 225-2761. I want to thank you for your assistance in this
important matter.
Sincerely,
RICHARD W. POMBO
Chairman
______
[Mr. Williams' response to Chairman Pombo's letter
follows:]
Response to September 23, 2004 House Committee on Resources Questions
on Ham Radio Operator Access to Farallon National Wildlife Refuge
Background
The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1909 by
President Theodore Roosevelt, ``as a preserve and breeding ground for
native birds.'' The original Executive Order included only the Middle
and North Farallons and Noonday Rock, since the Lighthouse Service
maintained a lighthouse and support personnel on South Farallon
Islands. South Farallon Islands were added to the Refuge in 1969.
One of the goals of the Refuge is to restore the historic abundance
of wildlife. History has shown that the most important management
action we can take is to protect them from disturbance. This management
strategy is successful. These small rocky islands now support the
largest seabird breeding colonies south of Alaska. The current seabird
breeding population on South Farallon Islands is estimated at around
200,000 birds of 12 different species (up from 30,000 birds in the
early 1900s). These populations have recovered slowly. It took over 100
years for elephant seals and northern fur seals to begin breeding again
once they were extirpated. Common murres have increased from the low
point of 6,000 in 1959 to a current estimated population of nearly
150,000--still far from their historic population of 400,000.
The wildlife remains vulnerable to human disturbance. Virtually
every portion of the Refuge is used by some breeding bird or mammal
species. Murres and cormorants nest on rocky areas and cliffs. They
flush when humans on foot, boat or aircraft, approach too closely. An
entire colony can be lost when human disturbance flushes adults from
their nests, leaving chicks or eggs exposed. Pigeon guillemots and
petrels nest in rock crevices, and auklets burrow into the soft soil on
the marine terraces. Their burrows are difficult to see and can be
easily crushed. This kills the birds during the breeding season, and
destroys habitat even when the burrows are not occupied. Chaos results
when seals and sea lions are disturbed on their haul-out areas--small
pups can be crushed in the mad dash to escape into the ocean.
When South Farallon Islands were added to the Refuge in 1969, the
number of people allowed on the island at any one time was reduced to
the minimum number needed to monitor and protect wildlife, and maintain
facilities. Most of the South Farallon Islands, including all important
breeding areas, were made off-limits to even the few island residents.
The Refuge worked closely with the Coast Guard to limit helicopter
access (needed to maintain their lighthouse) to the non-breeding season
and established a flight path for landings and take-offs that would
avoid seabird colonies and marine mammal haul-outs.
While the purpose of the Refuge can only be fulfilled by limiting
human access, we also want to provide an opportunity for the public to
experience and appreciate the Refuge. As directed by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, our focus is on
wildlife-dependent uses. We provide limited opportunities for reporters
and photographers to visit the Farallon NWR under Special Use Permits
and television documentaries, news segments, magazine, and newspaper
articles have all been published over the years. Visits are carefully
supervised--an island resident must accompany the visitor at all times.
The general public can also experience the Refuge's wildlife by taking
a day-long boat tour. Boats that tour around the Farallon Islands are
often able to show visitors better views of the Refuge's wildlife
species and colonies that are located on rocky cliffs and hidden from
view on land. In addition, since many of the Refuge's species are
nocturnal, or nest underground or on inaccessible cliffs, they are not
easily observed from the Refuge itself and are better observed at sea.
Logistics and safety are additional reasons for limiting public
access. Access is very difficult. The islands are rocks rising sharply
from the Pacific Ocean. The area is characterized by heavy fog, drastic
fluctuations in water level (swell), high winds, and sudden changes in
ocean state. These all combine to make boat landings hazardous and
often impossible. There is no dock facility on the island; cargo and
personnel are unloaded by use of a derrick, and a labor-intensive
transfer from a shuttle boat to a personnel lifting device. The
transfer operation requires a minimum of 3 island personnel to operate
the equipment, and a boat landing typically takes a minimum of 6-8
hours staff time to prepare for and complete. Because only certain
weather and sea conditions permit a safe landing, many scheduled
landings are canceled, often after considerable staff time has been
spent in preparation, and sometimes after the boat has traveled 5 hours
or more from the mainland. Any visitor (e.g., media, contractors,
researchers) not familiar with the island must be under the strict
supervision of resident staff from Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO),
to prevent crushing of seabird burrows or flushing of wildlife. Because
the number of island personnel is limited to minimize disturbance,
resident staff may not be available to accommodate additional visitors
who are not providing support to the Refuge.
Response to Specific Questions
(1) Since January 1, 1996, excluding Fish and Wildlife and Coast Guard
personnel, how many different individuals have been physically allowed
on the Farallon Islands?
We do not maintain a log of people who have visited the island.
However, we went back through our maintenance records, contracts,
Special Use Permits, and other documents in our Farallon files for the
past 3 years. In 2004, 14 permittees and approximately 38 other
individuals (contractors, cooperators involved in habitat restoration,
and other government employees) visited the island to work on Refuge
projects. In 2003, 13 permittees and approximately 27 other individuals
visited the island to work on Refuge projects. In 2002, 17 permittees
and approximately 32 other individuals visited the island to work on
Refuge projects.
In addition, we have a Cooperative Agreement with the PRBO which
requires them to staff the island with sufficient personnel to conduct
biological monitoring and caretaking duties. One to 2 paid staff and 2
to 6 interns are on the island at any one time, and the shift of any
one individual ranges from 1 to 3 months. We estimate 25-35 individuals
are involved in accomplishing the work outlined in the cooperative
agreement over a 1-year period. Also, the Cooperative Agreement allows
the PRBO to land individuals involved with Refuge management or support
(e.g., skippers bringing supplies) for very short, closely supervised
visits.
(2) Since January 1, 1996, how many individual requests for access
permission has the Fish and Wildlife Service received for the Farallon
National Wildlife Refuge?
We do not keep a log of such requests. However, in reviewing our
letters and e-mail files for the past 3 years, we received 14 written
requests in 2004, 10 requests in 2003, and 11 in 2002. (Note that we do
not have e-mail records of all requests from 2002.)
We do not tabulate the number of people who contact us by phone
about access to the Farallon NWR. Most people who call are interested
in seeing wildlife on the Refuge, and since the birds, marine mammals,
geology, and other features of the Refuge are more easily and reliably
viewed from a boat than from the Refuge itself, they are given
information on Farallon Natural History Tours that operate out of the
San Francisco Bay area. Over the last 4 years, the number of people
touring the Refuge by boat has averaged 3,350 per year.
(3) Since January 1, 1996, how many Special Use Permits have been
granted involving access permission to the Farallon NWR? How many have
been denied and what was the justification?
Permits were denied because they did not meet the Refuge's primary
or secondary criteria for access as determined by Compatibility
Determinations required by law. There are two primary criteria: 1)
research or study that is focused on Refuge resources, the results of
which can aid in refuge management; or 2) media coverage of a unique
aspect of Refuge resources that will reach the general public in
newspaper, magazine, or television.
Secondary criteria include: 1) the activity will not interfere with
any ongoing studies or Refuge operations; 2) the research is not
intrusive or manipulative; 3) a research proposal following the format
described in Refuge Manual is submitted and approved; 4) disturbance to
wildlife and habitat can be minimized; and 5) the permittee can work
out the logistics of getting from mainland to island (sometimes this
involves chartering a boat).
(4) How many days per year are one or more individuals physically at
the Farallon NWR?
Our Cooperative Agreement requires PRBO to maintain staff on the
refuge 365 days per year for wildlife protection and safety purposes.
(5) Who owns the structure adjacent to the United States Coast Guard
Lighthouse, and do Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Fish and Wildlife
Service or other personnel have access to it?
The structure you refer to is actually part of the Lighthouse and
it is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). PRBO and the Service have
access to it.
(6) What criteria are utilized by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
evaluate the Point Reyes Bird Observatory activities at the Farallon
NWR or any other group or organization?
PRBO must submit a research proposal for any studies that go beyond
the monitoring data the Service requires them to collect per the terms
of the Cooperative Agreement. Proposals are evaluated per the criteria
listed in the response to Question 3.
(7) Has there ever been ingress/egress to the Farallon NWR by means
other than the main ``crane'' on Southeast Farallon Island (SEFI) or by
way of a Coast Guard helicopter?
Yes. There is an ``alternate'' landing site on the north side of
the island which is accessible only during certain tidal and weather
conditions. However, there is increased disturbance to Stellar sea
lions when this site is used.
(8) Does the official Farallon National Wildlife Refuge also include:
Noonday Rock. North Farallon Island, Isle of St. James, Middle Farallon
Island, Maintop Island and Seal Rock?
Yes.
(9) How many buildings or structures exist at the Farallon National
Wildlife Refuge? Please provide the total number by type, square
footage of each structure, how and by whom are they utilized and are
there currently vacant structures?
All the structures are on Southeast Farallon Island. There are no
vacant structures.
(10) How do Fish and Wildlife Service and Point Reyes Bird Observatory
(PRBO) personnel communicate from the Farallon NWR?
The Service and PRBO personnel communicate via VHS (Marine Radio),
Radio-Phone, and e-mail.
(11) Are there communication antennas or antennas of any type located
at the Farallon NWR? If yes, who owns them and for what purpose?
There are eight antennas. Three are owned by the USCG for
lighthouse communications, three are owned by the Service for radio/
phone communications, and two are owned by UC Berkeley for transmission
of seismographic data and e-mail.
(12) Do PRBO personnel transmit and/or receive any type of radio,
satellite, cell phone, or direct television transmissions at the
Farallon NWR?
PRBO personnel use radio transmissions as per answer 10, but no
direct TV, although there is a TV with ``rabbit-ears'' antenna. Cell
phone reception is poor and seldom used.
(13) How much rent does PRBO pay for utilizing federal property at the
Farallon NWR?
Per the terms of our cooperative agreement, the Service furnishes
housing to the PRBO staff conducting the monitoring, protective
services, and maintenance duties required of them.
(14) Does the Fish and Wildlife Service provide any transportation for
personnel, supplies or any services for PRBO or other organizations
that may utilize the Farallon NWR? What is the cost of those services
and what is the reimbursement policy?
No. PRBO and other organizations are responsible for arranging
their own transportation.
(15) What has been the total number of PRBO personnel or other groups
that have spent time at the Farallon NWR?
See response to Question 1.
(16) During annual maintenance, are any non-governmental individuals
or volunteers given access to the Farallon NWR?
On occasion, volunteers with particular skills have accompanied
Service staff to accomplish maintenance tasks on the Refuge. For
example, plumbers have helped repair our water system, electricians
have worked on our generators, and individuals with carpentry skills
have helped build various structures.
(17) Does NOAA still maintain weather service or other equipment at
the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge? If so, how is data transmitted?
Yes. NOAA has a small wind meter and small box with some
instruments. PRBO personnel collect weather data from these devices
daily and phone the results to the National Weather Service via our
radio-phone.
(18) Are there any other federal or state agencies that have equipment
or structures of any type at the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge?
Please elaborate.
Yes. UC Berkeley Seismology Laboratory has two small (approximately
2 square feet each) instruments that record the Earth's vertical and
horizontal movement. Also, see the response to Question 5.
______
A letter to Steve Thompson, Operations Manager, California/
Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
submitted for the record by Chairman Pombo follows:]
March 3, 2005
Mr. Steve Thompson
Operations Manager
California/Nevada Operations Office
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, California 95825
Dear Steve:
As you are aware, my Committee is continuing to investigate various
allegations that citizens are being denied legitimate opportunities to
engage in various activities within units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
In an effort to assist me, I would like responses to the following
list of questions:
(1) Are there currently any seabird islands on the West Coast
that allow public access? If there are, please list them and describe
the uses?
(2) Has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the California/
Nevada region ever experienced a problem with an employee or volunteer
of a non-governmental organization on the Farallon NWR? What was the
outcome and circumstances surrounding those cases?
(3) According to Director Steve Williams, there are currently
eight radio antennas located on the Farallon NWR. Are these licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission? What are the terms and length of
the licenses? When do they expire and have they been previously
renewed?
(4) What frequencies have been used by the Point Reyes Bird
Conservancy during``the last four years for communications?
(5) Please describe specifically how the Point Reyes Bird
Conservancy staff on the Farallon NWR insures wildlife protection and
safety?
(6) For what purpose does UC Berkeley require ``email''
communications from the Farallons, and how frequently are UC Berkeley
personnel on Southeast Farallon?
(7) Are you aware of any examples where radio antennas, cell
phones or emails have adversely affected the seabird populations on the
Farallon NWR? If there are examples, what were the impacts? If that is
the case, why then are these transmissions still taking place?
(8) Are the Farallon Islands NWR so fragile and unique that the
Fish and Wildlife Service has contemplated banning all human activity
and presence on the Islands?
(9) In your professional judgement, is the Farallon Islands NWR
more fragile and environmentally sensitive than the Galapagos Islands
that received 90,533 human visits in 2003 and has built a commercial
infrastructure including visitor accommodations?
(10) In Director Williams' response of November 18, 2004, he
indicated that there are a number of existing structures in the
Farallon Islands NWR including office/lab, powerhouse, carpenter's
shop, living quarters, north landing boathouse and others. Could you
please provide for me pictures of each of these structures, if they are
available, or at least a diagram of where each of these facilities are
located in the refuge?
Steve, I would appreciate complete responses to these important
questions and hope that you can make every effort to expedite this
process. Should you have any questions or require clarification, please
feel free to contact either Todd Willens or Harry Burroughs on my
Committee staff at (202) 225-2761. I look forward to hearing from you
soon.
Sincerely,
RICHARD W. POMBO
Chairman
______
[Mr. Thompson's response to Chairman Pombo's letter
follows:]
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
California/Nevada Operations Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2610
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
April 5, 2005
Honorable Richard W. Pombo
Chairman, Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Pombo:
Thank you for your March 3, 2005, letter regarding activities at
the Farallon NWR. Based on your request that we provide an expedited
response to the questions posed in your letter, the following responses
are based on the best information available at this time:
1. Are there currently any seabird islands on the West Coast that
allow public access? If there are, please list them and
describe the uses.
California: There are approximately 500 rocks and islands off the
California coast that contain nesting seabirds. Included in this figure
are small islets off larger islands. The vast majority of these
islands/islets are administered by the Bureau of Land Management as the
California Coastal National Monument. The National Park Service manages
some seabird nesting islands as part of the Channel Islands National
Park in southern California, and as part of Point Reyes National
Seashore in northern California. Some seabird nesting islands are
within the California State Park System (e.g., Ano Nuevo Island,
Mendocino Headlands), and at least one nesting island is privately
owned. Besides the Farallon Islands, USFWS also manages Castle Rock
NWR. We are aware of public access on 6 of these islands: San Miguel,
Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara (part of the Channel
Islands National Park), and on the privately owned and managed Santa
Catalina Island. On the Channel Islands, public access consists of day
use, hiking, guided interpretive walks, and overnight camping. These
islands are large in comparison to the Farallon Islands, and seabird
nesting occurs on a relatively small portion of the islands. Trail
systems route people away from nesting cliffs and seasonal closures
keeps the public away from other nesting areas. Seabird populations are
small on Santa Catalina Island; public access occurs on the main
island, while the small seabird population is mostly concentrated on
the offshore islets.
Oregon\1\: USFWS manages 1,853 rocks, reefs and islands, along the
Oregon coast as part of Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. All of
the rocks, reefs and islands are included as the Oregon Island
Wilderness except Tillamook Rock. The USFWS also manages Three Arch
Rocks NWR on the Oregon north coast and this 15-acre refuge includes 9
rocks and islands and is also a wilderness area (Three Arch Rocks
Wilderness). Not all these locations host sea bird colonies. Some serve
as haul out and breeding sites for marine mammals. There is no public
access on any of the 1,862 rocks, reefs and islands. Two active
research projects are currently being conducted by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and NOAA-Fisheries through Special Use
Permits and are related to the recovery program for the threatened
Steller sea lion. The researchers are allowed to access a limited
number of sites under conditions of the SUP. The refuge also has an
active, on-going Leach's storm-petrel research project, but public
access to the site is prohibited. Seabird surveys conducted by USFWS
normally rely on surveys conducted by boat, on the mainland by viewing
from a distance using scopes and through the use of aerial photography
taken at high altitude. Access to any of the 1,862 rocks, reefs and
islands by USFWS staff is very rare.
Washington\2\: USFWS manages 600 to 800 rocks, reefs and islands
along the outer coast of Washington encompassing 60-acre Copallis NWR,
125-acre Flattery Rocks NWR and 300-acre Quillayute Needles NWR. The
other islands range in size from less than one acre to about 36 acres,
and most drop abruptly into the sea. There is no public access to these
rocks, reefs and islands though occasional trespass has been reported.
These rocks, reefs and islands serve as habitat for 14 species of
nesting seabirds. Marine mammals---sea lions, harbor and fur seals, sea
otters and whales occur around the island. Destruction Island hosts the
largest, breeding rhinoceros auklet colony outside of Alaska. All of
the islands except Destruction Island are designated wilderness areas.
Surveys conducted by USFWS normally rely on data obtained through
aerial flyovers and related aerial photography. Other access to these
protected areas by USFWS staff is very rare.
USFWS manages 83 of the approximately 700 rocks, reefs and islands
along the inner coast of Washington scattered throughout the San Juan
Islands of northern Puget Sound. The 83 islands making up the San Juan
Islands NWR total almost 450 acres. They were set aside primarily to
protect colonies of nesting seabirds, including pigeon guillemots,
puffins, auklets, double-crested and pelagic cormorants. In order to
help maintain the natural character of these islands, all the refuge
islands, except Matia and Turn Islands, are closed to the public. The
latter islands, which do not support colonies of nesting seabirds, are
managed under a long-term agreement with Washington State Parks.
Moorage and camping are allowed on Turn Island and on a 5-acre
designated campground on Matia Island, which also has 1 mile of
wilderness trail.
Lastly, Protection Island is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and serves as nesting habitat for 70-75% of Puget Sound seabirds. It
hosts the second largest rhinoceros auklet population outside Alaska,
the largest colony of glaucous-winged gulls in Washington, and one of
the last two nesting colonies of tufted puffins in the Puget Sound
area. Forty-eight acres was purchased by the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in 1975 and designated the Zella M. Schultz
Seabird Sanctuary. It is managed by the USFWS and the WDFW under a
memorandum of understanding. The remainder of the island was acquired
in the 1980's by the USFWS and designated Protection Island NWR. Its
acquisition came with some limited easements to existing owners/
residents. There is one lifetime user, and 3-4 users with 25-year
leases that are due to expire soon. They are permitted limited walking
access to a beach in the winter and the use of their lots and access
roads to the lots. There are some structures on Protection Island
associated with previous and present landowners. In addition, there are
two research programs currently active on Protection Island being
implemented under terms of Special Use Permits by Andrew's University
and Walla Walla College. There are also occasional USFWS-sponsored
habitat management work parties to Protection Island in the non-
breeding season to clean-up beach debris.
2. Has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in California/Nevada region
ever experienced a problem with an employee or volunteer of a
non-governmental organization on the Farallon NWR? What was the
outcome and circumstances surrounding those cases?
Yes. There are two incidents of which we are aware. During October
2003 an employee of PRBO brought a media person onto South East
Farallon Island (SEFI) without a Special Use Permit (SUP), which
violated one of the terms of our Cooperative Agreement. When PRBO's
executive director became aware of the incident, she immediately
informed the Refuge Manager and Project Leader, and a decision was made
to remove the employee from SEFI that day (PRBO chartered a helicopter
at their expense). The employee was fired as a result of the incident.
The media person, an employee of Times Warner Inc., had obtained a
Refuge SUP in August 2003 for the stated purpose of writing a series of
magazine articles on Farallon seabirds. Unbeknownst to the Refuge at
that time, her true motive for gaining access to the island was to
write a book on white shark tagging research, which occurred during
September-October. We understand that the book, which includes details
of the October 2003 incident, as well as another time she was on the
island without a permit but with the knowledge of the same PRBO
employee (in 2001 or 2002), will be published by Random House in May,
2005. The Refuge terminated the permitting of boat-based shark research
from the Farallon Islands partially as a result of this incident.
In a second incident in September, 1992, an individual was issued a
SUP to collect insects and soil samples. Although he was told by the
Refuge Manager that he did not have permission to do so the individual
brought his ham radio onto the island, and broadcast from the island..
While not a violation of the cooperative agreement, the PRBO staff
person in charge of the island should have contacted the Refuge Manager
when the permittee began broadcasting. As a result, the permittee was
sent a letter saying that he had violated the terms of his SUP and was
banned from doing future scientific work on the island.
3. According to Director Steve Williams, there are currently eight
radio antennas located on the Farallon NWR. Are these licensed
by the Federal Communications Commission? What are the terms
and lengths of the licenses? When do they expire and have they
been previously renewed?
The antennas are too small to require FCC licensing. However,
licensing details for the radios and other communication equipment that
these antennas support are given in the table below. The National
Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), rather than the
FCC, is the agency responsible for licensing communications for
government purposes. PRBO has a station license from the FCC to operate
a marine radio. UC Berkeley data transmissions take place in the
unlicenced band of the spectrum.
We have taken the following steps in locating and designing these
antennas in order to minimize birdstrike hazards: 1) Several antennas
are co-located on the same pole, such that only 3 poles are needed to
support all of these antennas; 2) Antennas are mounted at the base or
side of existing buildings so that the length of antenna protruding
above the roofline is no more than 5-6 feet; 3) Some antennas are used
for multiple purposes (e.g., operation of a radio/telephone;
transmitting seismology and e-mail data). Also, we are in the process
of installing a wireless phone/internet system, which will eliminate
the need for antennas #1, #2, and #7 on the table below. During the
Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process for the Farallons, we
will re-evaluate the bird strike issue and identify additional actions
we can take to remove antennas, poles and other infrastructure that
pose hazards to wildlife.
4. What frequencies have been used by Point Reyes Bird Conservancy
during the last four years for communications?
PRBO operates on VHF Marine Radio Channels 16, 22, 68, and 80. They
also use the field station's radio/phone, operating on the 411.7
Megahertz frequency.
5. Please describe specifically how the Point Reyes Bird Conservancy
staff on the Farallon NWR insures wildlife protection and
safety?
PRBO Conservation Science, founded as Point Reyes Bird Observatory
in 1969, is a scientific organization that employees highly trained and
skilled scientists and field technicians to conduct research and long
term monitoring on birds and marine ecosystem functions. They have
partnerships with many federal and state agencies to collect biological
data and implement projects that benefit wildlife. Specifically, on the
Farallon Islands under the terms our Cooperative Agreement, PRBO is
required to: 1) staff the island 365 days per year, 2) monitor seabird/
marine mammal population sizes and breeding, 3) implement safety and
fire plans, 4) provide protective services for wildlife, promptly
notifying the USFWS of any violation or infringement of Refuge
regulations; 5) supervise/escort visitors under Special Use Permits
(for example, media), so that they don't crush nesting burrows, flush
seabirds or pinnipeds, or otherwise disturb wildlife; 6) organize the
volunteer Farallon (boat) Patrol to deliver provisions and equipment to
the island; 7) perform other caretaking duties such as preventative
maintenance of equipment/facilities and invasive weed control.
Some specific examples of how PRBO staff has insured wildlife
protection are:
PRBO maintains a human presence on the island that deters
trespassers and minimizes wildlife disturbance. PRBO island staff
routinely hail boaters or pilots that approach the island too closely
and are in danger of scaring wildlife.
PRBO staff documents and reports violations of USFWS
regulations and the California Fish and Game Code to appropriate
enforcement personnel.
PRBO collects biological data that the USFWS relies on to
implement management programs that protect wildlife, and allows us to
assess the effectiveness of our management actions.
PRBO research on the Farallon Islands has contributed to
the establishment of 3 National Marine Sanctuaries, a state law
protecting California's great white sharks, and fishing regulations to
protect seabirds.
PRBO shares Farallon data through numerous scientific
publications, and with National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, University of California, and
other institutions involved in developing policies and implementing
actions to understand and conserve marine resources.
PRBO reports observations of oiled wildlife to the Oil
Spill Prevention and Response Division of CA Department of Fish and
Game. This has resulted in the discovery and cleanup of sunken, leaking
vessels such as the SS Luckenbach in 2002, and apprehension of parties
responsible for oil spills.
In addition, the following are specific examples of how PRBO staff
insures human safety on Farallon NWR:
PRBO reports malfunctions, and troubleshoots, and repairs
navigational lights at the U.S. Coast Guard maintained automated
lighthouse on Southeast Farallon Island, contributing to general
maritime safety. They also report vessels in distress to USCG Search
and Rescue office.
PRBO collects Farallon Island weather data four times
daily and sends it to the National Weather Service where it is used in
marine and coastal weather forecasting.
PRBO communicates current weather and sea conditions
daily to fishermen and other boaters planning boat trips offshore,
enhancing public boater safety.
PRBO staff are trained to operate the Refuge's boat,
which transfers people (including Refuge staff, contractors, Special
Use Permittees) from the transit vessel to the island via the crane and
personnel lifting device. This is a difficult task that requires
specialized training and experience in reading/evaluating dynamic sea
and weather conditions.
PRBO staff escort Special Use Permittees around the
island, ensuring that they avoid terrain or paths which are
treacherous, and keep a safe distance from wildlife (e.g., elephant
seals) which look ``friendly'' but can be inflict injury.
6. For what purposes does UC Berkeley require ``email'' communications
from the Farallons, and how frequently are UC Berkeley
personnel on Southeast Farallon?
UC Berkeley Seismology Lab has two small instruments on Southeast
Farallon Island (SEFI) which are part of a worldwide earthquake
prediction and warning system. (SEFI is a critical location for this
seismographic equipment because it is situated on the Pacific Plate.)
The wireless data link that transmits seismographic information from
SEFI to the mainland also has e-mail capabilities. Although e-mail
communication is not required by UC Berkeley, it was installed with
their data link as a way to reduce the frequency that UC Berkeley
personnel would need to visit SEFI to fix problems. E-mail facilitates
field station personnel being able to maintain, operate and
troubleshoot the seismographic equipment. UC Berkeley personnel visit
SEFI on average about once every other year for a stay of 1 or 2 days.
Visits are authorized by Special Use Permit (SUP) after UC Berkeley
submits a request (with sufficient justification) in writing. The e-
mail is also an important communication link between FWS Refuge
personnel on the mainland and personnel stationed at this remote island
field station, and is considered essential to safe operations.
7. Are you aware of any examples where radio antennas, cell phones, or
emails have adversely affected the seabird populations on the
Farallon NWR? If there are examples, what were the impacts? If
that is the case, why then are these transmissions still taking
place?
The birdstrike hazard of communication towers and antennas is a
national, well-documented bird conservation concern. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates at least five million birds and as
many as 50 million birds are killed annually in collisions with
communications towers in the U.S. Birds die when they collide with
towers, their guy wires and related structures, and the ground. A
recent report that summarized 149 papers dealing with this birdstrike
hazard over the last 50 years found that 230 species of birds have been
documented as being killed in collisions with antennas and
communication towers--they included both land and water birds\3\.
We are aware of no studies documenting the effect of antennas on
seabirds specifically. However, personnel stationed on Southeast
Farallon Island (SEFI) have witnessed many incidents of seabirds
colliding with objects, including poles, antennas, wires, buildings and
other structures. The ``impacts'' that have resulted include: 1)
immediate death of the individual bird from the collision; 2) the bird
being stunned or disoriented, falling to the ground and falling prey to
predatory gulls which nest on the island; or; 3) bird is temporarily
stunned and disoriented, but is able to resume flight and return to its
nesting burrow. The nocturnal, smaller seabirds such as auklets and
storm-petrels are most prone to collisions. They return to the island
to feed their young (which live in underground burrows or crevices)
under the cover of darkness to avoid predation by gulls. They have
evolved in an environment free of manmade objects, and are either
unable to see, or are not able to avoid such objects.
Since SEFI was added to the Farallon NWR in 1969, the Refuge has
been working to eliminate the number of human structures on the island
to the extent practicable, and as funding permits. As noted in the
response to Question #3 above, we plan to eliminate 3 radio antennas
this year. In 1998 we converted to solar power, which eliminated the
need for approximately 1,000 feet of pipe. In 2002 and 2003 we worked
with the U.S. Coast Guard to remove several hundred additional feet of
unneeded water piping, a concrete containment berm which was a bird
entrapment hazard, and a large wooden boom. During the 1980s and 1990s
numerous buildings, light poles, wires, and other objects left over
from previous human occupation have been removed. We cover all windows
at night because we have observed that nocturnal seabirds collide with
lighted windows.
We have chosen not to eliminate the remaining antennas because they
provide communications essential to human safety, such as our radio and
phone system, and the seismographic equipment, but we have tried to
reduce their impact on wildlife as much as possible. As mentioned in
the response to Question 3, antennas are co-located on the same poles,
and with other structures so that their profile is reduced to the
greatest extent possible. The birdstrike issue will be re-evaluated
during the CCP process and we will consider removing additional
antennas or other infrastructure.
8. Are the Farallon Islands so fragile and unique that the Fish and
Wildlife Service has contemplated banning all human activity
and presence on the Islands?
We have considered this possibility, both for wildlife protection
and budgetary purposes. Based on concerns for impacts due to
uncontrolled trespass without a human presence as well as the need to
monitor the status of seabird nesting colonies and to manage nesting
habitat, we chose not to ban all human activity on the Farallon NWR.
However, this management alternative may receive more formal
consideration during the CCP process, which is currently in the
preliminary planning stages.
9. In your professional judgment, is the Farallon NWR more fragile and
environmentally sensitive than the Galapagos Islands that
received 90,533 human visits in 2003 and has built a commercial
infrastructure including visitor accommodations.
Yes. The nesting seabird populations on the Farallon Islands are
more sensitive to human disturbance because of several factors. First,
the land area of the Galapagos Islands is much larger, and the seabird
nesting density is much less, so that visitors can be managed to avoid
areas where sensitive wildlife would be disturbed. The Farallon Islands
total 211 acres and support 300,000 nesting seabirds (amounting to
1,422 birds per acre). The Galapagos Island total roughly 2 million
acres (8000 km2) and support an estimated 750,000 nesting seabirds
(0.42 birds per acre). The Farallon Islands are 3,000 times more
densely populated with nesting seabirds than the Galapagos. In the
Galapagos, many areas of land are unoccupied by nesting seabirds,
making it possible for humans to access the islands without getting too
close to nesting colonies and causing disturbance. This is not the case
on the Farallon Islands.
Secondly, there are behavior differences between the seabird
species nesting on the Galapagos and those nesting on the Farallon
Islands. Boobies, tropicbirds, and albatross that nest on the Galapagos
are very tolerant of humans approaching closely on foot. In contrast,
the murres, cormorants and puffins that nest on the Farallons are
frightened from their nests--usually an entire colony en masse--if a
human walks near their nest. When the birds flush, their eggs are
exposed to predatory gulls, or roll away and are subsequently abandoned
by the birds when they return.
Marine mammals such as the Galapagos fur seal have evolved without
land predators, do not recognize humans as a threat, and hence are very
approachable. One of the Farallon breeding marine mammal species, the
northern elephant seal, is fairly tolerant of humans. However, the
majority of marine mammals on the Farallon Islands, including the
threatened Steller's sea lion, stampede quickly into the water in
response to human activity, sometimes crushing small pups in the way.
10. In Director Williams' response of November 18, 2004, he indicated
that there are a number of existing structures in the Farallon
NWR including office/lab, powerhouse, carpenter's shop, living
quarters, north landing boathouse, and others. Could you please
provide me pictures of these structures, or a diagram of where
they are located?
We hope this letter is responsive to all your concerns. If you have
questions or need clarification, please contact me at (916) 414-6464.
References & Citations:
\1\ Personal communication with Roy Lowe, Project Leader of Oregon
Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, on March 7, 2005.
\2\ Personal communication with Kevin Ryan, Project Leader of
Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex, on March 7 and
March 28, 2005.
\3\ Shire, G.G., K. Brown, G. Winegrad. 2000. Communication
Towers: A Deadly Hazard to Birds. Document on Internet: http://
www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkillweb.PDF
______
The following information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files:
Catherwood, Leslie, Wildlife Refuge Program
Associate, The Wilderness Society, Testimony submitted for the
record;
Garcia, Frank S. Gonzalez, President, Puerto
Rican Ornithological Society, Letter Submitted for the record;
McLaughlin, Eileen, Project Director, Wildlife
Stewards, Letter submitted for the record;
Schaffner, Fred C., Lajas, Puerto Rico, Letter
submitted for the record; and
Schmieder, Robert W. Letter submitted for the
record.
------
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you all very much. And we will be
submitting follow-up questions from both sides. Thank you very
much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]