[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
IMPROVEMENT ACT: HAS THE
PROMISE BEEN FULFILLED?
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-48
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural 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
38-316 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
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 Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Vacancy
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 66
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Former Secretary of the Interior........ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Browner, Carol M., Chairwoman, Board of Directors, National
Audubon Society............................................ 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 26
Frampton, John, Director, South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Hall, H. Dale, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Hirsche, Evan, President, National Wildlife Refuge
Association................................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Horn, William P., Counsel, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance......... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 55
Additional materials supplied:
Bishop, Paul, Founder, Friends of the National Bison Range,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 69
Steele, James, Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council, The
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Nation, Pablo, Montana, Statement submitted for the record. 70
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
IMPROVEMENT ACT: HAS THE PROMISE BEEN FULFILLED?
----------
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ron Kind
presiding.
Present: Representatives Kind, Kildee, Faleomavaega, Brown,
Saxton and Young (Ex Officio).
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Young, for joining us.
I want to thank you all, and I want to apologize. We had a
little mechanical problem with the plane coming in today, but
we are here safe now and ready to kick off the hearing.
I am honored to be able to chair this Subcommittee hearing
today about the status of our Refuge System coinciding with the
10-year anniversary of the Refuge Improvement Act. It is hard
to believe it has been 10 years already. This not only gives us
a chance to look back but also a chance to look forward to
where we are going as a Nation and as an institution in our
support of these tremendously valuable public lands called the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
I earlier in this session of Congress helped form a
bipartisan caucus with our good friend, Jim Saxton, who is also
on the committee, along with Mike Castle and Mike Thompson, to
have the first-ever Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus in
order to attract more attention and more focus on the status of
refuges and what we need to be working on in a bipartisan
fashion to support this very valuable system.
I do have a written statement that I would like to, without
objection, submit for the record, but I especially want to
welcome our panel of guests today, starting with Secretary
Babbitt. He was here and very instrumental in helping shepherd
through the Improvement Act in 1997, the first real organic act
for our Refuge System, and did a tremendous job in his
stewardship as Secretary of the Interior during the Clinton
Administration, along with the other guests who will be
represented in the second panel.
But let me just say there are some very, I think, positive
things that are going on with the Refuge System. All too often
we hear some of the reports and studies coming out talking
about the shortfalls and the strapped resources and what is not
getting done. But as someone who represents an area of western
Wisconsin that has, I think--and I am biased--three of the most
beautiful wildlife refuges in the Nation--the Upper Miss, the
Trempealeau and also the Necedah--and having a chance to visit
them and others in the country, I am always very impressed with
the quality and professionalism of the managers, the officers,
and the staff of the refuges. You can feel their passion and
energy every time you step on those refuges and listen to the
work that they are doing, and the impact they are having in the
community and with the people--not to mention the wildlife that
depend on those refuges.
I think it is exciting seeing the refuge association and
the friends group and the volunteers that come in to offer
their help and assistance. Certainly there are valuable
resources for the wildlife that depend on it, the quality of
water supplies, which is essential for this Nation, and the
educational opportunities that have really been ramped up, too,
in recent years.
I think the outreach campaign--and I am going to ask Mr.
Hall for a little more information during your testimony--on
how we are going to tap into the youth of our country to get
them more involved in outdoor recreation generally, but also in
educational opportunities in the Refuge System, more
specifically.
But, of course, we do have other very important reports:
``Refuges at Risk'', the latest 2007 report, talking about some
of the shortfalls in regard to the operation and maintenance
budget, some of the staff reductions that have occurred, and
the quasi-mothballing of some of the refuges that has taken
place because of limited resources.
We did have a nice ramp-up in funding, I felt, leading up
to the 2003 centennial anniversary of the Refuge System, but
since then it has been relatively flat-lined. I am happy that
with this next fiscal year's Interior Appropriations bill,
working closely with Norm Dicks on the Subcommittee, we have
had the first significant increase in funding for the Refuge
System for a number of years.
We are just trying to play catch-up right now. Hopefully,
we will be able to convince the President and the
administration that this is the right type of investment that
we have to make. I know there are some funding issues and
threatened vetoes out there, but this is something I think we
have to come together on.
We also face a serious risk in regard to global warming and
the impact that is going to have in the refuge, on the
ecosystem, but also on the habitat and wildlife that depend on
these refuges and how we are going to combat that.
We have had a virtual freeze in new funding for new
buildings recently. It has been very difficult to move forward;
and, hopefully, we will have some perspective on the state of
our infrastructure in the Refuge System and what we are facing
there. So certainly we have had some big challenges that can't
be ignored.
Also, earlier this year, we had the report from the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, the CARE report,
again, highlighting their survey and the issues that they think
that we have to be engaged in.
So I think the hearing is very important. It is timely. It
is a 10-year anniversary. It also coincides nicely with
National Refuge Week this year. And we are bringing back some
former alums who have considerable expertise in dealing with
refuge maintenance, along with those currently who are serving
our country.
So, with that, I would like to yield at this time to my
distinguished friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, for
any opening statements that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin
This afternoon's hearing will focus on the efforts of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to implement the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act since its passage in 1997.
Ten years ago today, President Clinton signed the Improvement Act
into law. Noting then that the Refuge System was the world's greatest
system of lands devoted to wildlife conservation, President Clinton
added:
``It is a system founded in faith; a belief that in a country as
bountiful and diverse as ours, there ought to be special places that
are set aside exclusively for the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources. These special places are National Wildlife Refuges.''
That statement remains true today. Our National Wildlife Refuge
System--larger than our National Park System--contains the finest
wildlife habitat on the North American continent, bar none. The System
continues to provide sanctuary for many threatened and endangered
species, resting habitat for millions of migratory birds, and abundant
opportunities for virtually anyone, anywhere to rekindle a spirit for
wildlife and wild places.
Hailed at the time of its passage as the first true organic act for
the Refuge System, the Improvement Act has ensured that the Refuge
System will remain, first and foremost, now and forever, devoted to
fish and wildlife conservation.
Aside from the ``wildlife first'' mission established in the
Improvement Act, important provisions establishing wildlife-dependent
recreation as priority public uses, compatibility standards,
comprehensive planning, and the maintenance of biological integrity and
environmental health have all contributed to keep the Fish and Wildlife
Service focused on this vital mission.
But all is not well with the Refuge System. Only last week,
Defenders of Wildlife released their most recent report, Refuges at
Risk, detailing the plight of the Nation's 10 most threatened refuges
ranging from Alaska to the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Certainly, as the co-chair of the House National Wildlife Refuge
Caucus, I am painfully aware of ongoing problems created by
insufficient funding for operations and maintenance, and of the Service
falling woefully behind schedule in the completion of comprehensive
conservation plans for every refuge or refuge complex. Climate change,
invasive species, and water shortages are creating additional
challenges.
The point of today's hearing is not only to look back to see where
we have come, but more important, to look forward to see where the
Refuge System must go to meet the challenges ahead. The Improvement Act
has provided a sure footing for the Refuge System. How we build on this
foundation from here on out, however, will determine the wildlife
legacy that we bequeath to our descendants.
I look forward to hearing from former Secretary Babbitt, from Ms.
Browner, and from our other distinguished witnesses assembled here this
afternoon to discuss the hope and potential of this very special system
of Federal lands.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Chairwoman Bordallo and, of course, the Chairman of the full
committee. At my request, this hearing is being held. I want to
stress that, because this hearing is about the state of our
refuges and where we are going under the Act that was passed 10
years ago, signed into law by President Clinton. It was
landmark legislation then and is today.
Very humbly, when you think about the beginning of the
Refuge System on Pelican Island, it has grown to 96 million
acres. And I want to stress that 96 million acres is the total
amount of acreage, which is a considerable amount of Federally
owned land.
In my State of Alaska, we have 16 National Wildlife
Refuges, representing 76.2 million acres. So if you look at it,
we have over 80 percent of the refuge lands in the State of
Alaska, so I am quite interested in this issue.
These units allow hunting, fishing and other forms of
wildlife-dependent recreation. Prior to the Act, the individual
refuge managers had little if any guidance as to what was
compatible activity. There was no designated priority uses
within the system, no ability to review existing activities
prior to Federal land acquisition, no comprehensive inventory
of the archeological natural resources or wildlife natural
resources values within each unit.
I was the proud sponsor of this legislation to remove these
shortcomings. There was a fundamental need to revitalize the
Refuge System, to end arbitrary or inconsistent compatibility
determination, to establish priority uses and to respect
historic activities occurring on private lands.
Getting this legislation enacted was a long and difficult
journey. It took more than 3 years and months of intense
negotiations. I am pleased that some of these people are still
here. The organizations that were partners in the process are
testifying today. It is also remarkable this bill passed both
the House, and I say this for your benefit, and the Senate with
only one dissenting vote.
It is now appropriate to reflect upon this Act and examine
the current state of the Refuge System. I am frankly amazed
that not a single provision of this law has been changed.
Apparently, we got it right and the operation of the Refuge
System has improved. In fact, in the past 10 years, the number
of refuge units have grown from 514 to 548; the amount of
refuge lands have been increased by more than 3 million acres;
visitation has increased by more than 11 million people each
year; and 317 of the 452 open refuges allow hunting. And this
is a historic level. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service
is working hard to complete the required comprehensive
conservation plan.
Why I stress the hunting aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the fact
that it was the original idea of the refuge, and we are their
biggest supporters, and to change that policy now or on a
future date would be wrong.
Before blowing out the birthday candles, however, we must
acknowledge that funding for the Refuge System is currently
inadequate, and I will be the first one to agree to that, but
when you think you have 96 million acres of land, and I think
we are generating $17 million, then that is not good
management. We must figure out another way to help fund these
systems that serve so many people.
We also recognize a lot of the refuges because of other
acts of law are being overgrown by foreign invasive species and
the maintenance backlog continues to grow to a staggering
level. It is my hope that this hearing will be just the first
of a series ever to address these problems of true management
in the refuge.
Nevertheless, I do welcome my distinguished witnesses. My
hope is that we continue to work together.
And the only thing I would like to say is, when you bring
and hold this up, Mr. Chairman, I think you also identify who
wrote it, the Defenders of Wildlife. We have a group of people
in this room that do not believe in the Refuge System as I
envision it and do not want any hunting or really recreation
other than looking and they want the government to control it.
And when you do that you lose the support of the people, you
lose the intent of what the Refuge System was set up for.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and Chairman
Rahall for agreeing to my request to schedule an oversight hearing on
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Exactly ten years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed this
landmark legislation into law thus creating for the first time in
nearly 100 years a ``Mission'' and an organic framework for this unique
system of federal lands.
From its humble beginning on Pelican Island, Florida, the refuge
system has grown to over 96 million acres of federal lands with refuge
units in every state and U.S. territory. In my own State of Alaska, we
have 16 national wildlife refuges representing 76.2 million acres and
each of these units allows hunting, fishing and other forms of wildlife
dependent recreation.
Prior to this Act, individual refuge managers had little, if any,
guidance as to what was a ``compatible'' activity, there were no
designated priority uses within the system, no ability to review
existing activities prior to federal land acquisition and no
comprehensive inventory of the archaeological, natural resource or
wildlife resources values within each unit.
I was proud to sponsor this legislation to remove these
shortcomings. There was a fundamental need to revitalize the refuge
system, to end arbitrary or inconsistent compatibility determinations,
to establish priority uses and to respect historic activities occurring
on private lands.
Getting this legislation enacted was a long and difficult journey.
It took more than three years and months of intense negotiations. I am
pleased that some of the same individuals, like former Secretary Bruce
Babbitt, and organizations who were partners in this process are
testifying today. It is also remarkable that this bill passed both the
House and the Senate with only one dissenting vote.
It is now appropriate to reflect upon this Act and to examine the
current state of the refuge system. I am frankly amazed that not a
single provision of this law has been changed. Apparently, we got it
right and the operation of the refuge system has improved.
In fact, in the past ten years, the number of refuge units has
grown from 514 to 548, the amount of refuge land has increased by more
than 3 million acres, visitation has increased by more than 11 million
people each year and 317 of the 452 open refuges allow hunting. This is
an historic level. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
working hard to complete the required Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Before blowing out the birthday candles, however, we must
acknowledge that funding for the refuge system is currently inadequate,
an increasing number of refuges are being overgrown by foreign invasive
species and the maintenance backlog continues to grow to a staggering
level. It is my hope that this hearing will be just the first in a
series of efforts to address these problems.
Nevertheless, I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and it
is my hope that we will continue to work together to ensure that the
American people do indeed have the finest refuge system in the world.
After all, it is a system that sportsmen have paid for with the
billions of dollars in excise taxes and federal duck stamp fees. Public
Law 105-57 is a true legacy to the vision first articulated by
President Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Young.
I want to thank you personally, too, for your concern and
interest and support of the Refuge System. You have been a real
champion on this issue.
Now we are going to turn to our first witness today, former
Secretary Bruce Babbitt. On a personal note, you may recall, or
you may not, that you were the first public official in my
congressional district in the 1996 campaign to help me
campaign. We did an event called the Environmental Management
Program, which, of course, is spearheaded by USGS. I enjoyed
that thoroughly.
Of course, you were the principal architect of the
Improvement Act of 1997 and very fully engaged in helping
shepherd that through the Congress. And now we sit here 10
years later to look back and see what has worked and what
hasn't and where we need to go from here. So it is a great
honor to be able to welcome back to the committee here today
Secretary Babbitt. Thank you.
I think everyone is familiar with the lighting system that
we have here in the committee, the 5-minute rule. Rest assured
all your written statements will be fully submitted for the
record.
So thank you, Secretary Babbitt; and we will turn it over
to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE BABBITT,
FORMER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Babbitt. Chairman, you have amply fulfilled my
expectations. That resulted from that first visit and my
clairvoyant judgment that you would rise to an outstanding role
in this body.
Mr. Young, I recall the hearing that gave rise to this
legislation. I recall it as a somewhat contentious and
unproductive hearing which was followed by a discussion that we
had in your office which resulted in my recognition that I
would have to deal with the forces of darkness led by my good
friend Mr. Horn and get all of the stakeholders into this
process. And as you yourself have said, it is quite
extraordinary, the degree of consensus and the fact that 10
years later there have been no amendments necessary for the
bill.
As I reread the legislation and the report last night, what
comes back quite clearly is the three-cornered premise of this
bill: First of all, a strong mission definition; second, a
strong statement of compatibility that any use of the refuge
had to be compatible with that primary mission; and, third, the
mandate for comprehensive plans which would provide the public
input and the analytical framework for making these
compatibility decisions.
I think it has all worked quite well. I think the most
interesting example of that is a recent court decision on the
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in eastern
Washington in which Judge Stevens analyzes the Act, affirms
this kind of triangular structure and strongly affirms
compatibility, a decision made by the refuge manager.
Mr. Chairman, you have alluded, both you and Mr. Young, to
the budget shortfall issues; and I won't add anything to that.
I have something to say in my testimony. It is getting pretty
desperate out there. I think the staff reductions are ominous,
and it is also slowing the completion of the comprehensive
conservation plans.
The compatibility decisions are not going to be well-made,
and they may not survive judicial scrutiny unless they are made
by managers in the context of the analytical framework of those
plans. Only a third of the plans have been done in 10 years.
The deadline is 5 years away. We still have two-thirds of the
plans to go. It is important; and, as Mr. Young says, we must
find some way to resolve that issue.
I would like to devote my remaining 1 minute and 54 seconds
to two minor topics: global warming and land use. Let me just
say with respect to global warming, it is going to impact
migratory species most ominously. That includes most of the
waterfowl, which are at the base of this refuge, in the refuges
in Alaska, on the Pacific, the Atlantic flyway, the gulf of the
Mississippi Flyway.
If you look at the sea level rise maps--get those maps. EPA
has put them out. Overlay them on two places, Pamlico Sound in
North Carolina and the Delta of the Mississippi River. You will
see that by the middle to the end of this century on facts
already in place, sea level rise is simply going to erase a
number of the units in the Refuge System. We need to begin a
process of systematically analyzing that, because the whole
Refuge System is at enormous risk.
Let me conclude with just one example that I happen to have
been involved in very recently. It is the Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge and the wildlife complex on Pamlico
Sound. If you look at the EPA maps and the current consensus
estimates of sea level rise, half of that 100,000 acre refuge
will be gone in this century. Pea Island is likely to perish,
as are areas in the Outer Banks. Now, what that means is we are
going to have to come to grips with how these refuges migrate
along with the coastal ecosystems of which they are a part. I
don't have a lot of answers, but we haven't even started asking
the questions.
Now, to make matters worse, as I conclude, in North
Carolina, the Navy selected the western margin of that refuge
for an outlying landing field. It was a decision not made with
careful analysis. There are many alternatives. The landing
field has been opposed by most of the North Carolina
delegation, by the Governor and it has now come before this
Congress in footnotes to the appropriations bill.
The reason I cite that is because it is a perfect example
of the land use conflicts that we are going to see as these
refuge systems begin--or at least the wildlife begin either to
migrate with the shifting coastlines or to perish or at least
be at risk of extinction.
That underlines my final point. Even as we expand them, as
we must, most of the wildlife refuges outside of Alaska are
postage stamps on large landscape ecosystems; and they are
continually going to be threatened by growth, development,
inconsistent uses unless we find some way of engaging States
and local governments in comprehensive State-centered land use
planning with the refuges in mind.
I would leave for your consideration some other interesting
Federal examples: the Coastal Zone Management Act, which has a
State Federal process. You should look at the wildlife action
plans, which have induced the States to begin that process.
But I would conclude by saying we could do a much more
robust statutory and budgetary job of looking beyond the
borders of these refuges at the changes that are going to take
place and finding inventive ways to engage States, local
communities and the Fish and Wildlife Service in looking ahead
for the next century.
Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babbitt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bruce Babbitt,
Former Secretary of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for
inviting me to testify at this important hearing. As Secretary of
Interior I worked closely with this Subcommittee, Congress, and the
President on crafting and passing the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act in 1997. And I am keenly interested in how the
administration, Congress, and the public can work together to ensure
that the ideals exemplified in the Refuge Improvement Act are fully
implemented in order to for the Refuge System, and the wildlife it
supports, to thrive for the next century.
Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``Wild beasts and birds are by right not
the property merely of the people who are alive today, but the property
of unknown generations, whose belongs we have no right to squander.''
By creating the first refuge at Pelican Island in 1903, President
Roosevelt delivered on that statement. And thanks to the leadership of
presidents who followed, of wildlife champions in Congress, of the
unsung employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and of citizens
banding together to protect wild places, the Refuge System has grown to
encompass more than 500 units: a magnificent system of lands and
waters, unique in the world, enjoyed by almost 40 million visitors a
year.
Upon taking office in 1993 I encountered a system in peril, its
problems documented in innumerable GAO reports, Fish and Wildlife
Service reports, lawsuits, and Congressional hearings. Then after
several more congressional hearings, the clouds parted and we began a
serious dialog with this Committee under the personal leadership of Mr.
Young and with the active participation of several members here today.
The result was the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act. That title, however, belies the significance of the legislation,
for it is much more than just another ``improvement''; it is the first
ever organic act for the Refuge System, comparable to the celebrated
1916 organic act of the National Park Service.
For most of the time since the Act became law, I have been back in
private life, most recently as Chairman of the Board of the World
Wildlife Fund. During that time I have had many occasions to visit and
enjoy the refuges, meandering quietly and reflectively, without the
overhang of staff, security and press, spending time with dedicated
refuge staff and the marvelous corps of citizen volunteers that you can
encounter at most refuges.
In the process I have observed first hand many positive
improvements, notably the changes driven by the compatibility
requirements of the Act. However, I have also seen that the promise of
the Refuge Act, that we would elevate the Refuge System and administer
it to the highest standards, has not been fulfilled.
The Refuge Improvement Act, overwhelmingly passed by Congress, was
a promise to the American people: that the system of lands and waters
that had been set aside for wildlife for the benefit of the citizens of
this country would be properly cared for. I fear this promise has not
been fulfilled. Today we find a refuge system crumbling from the weight
of an immense backlog of operational expenses. Today we find a refuge
system hemorrhaging a fifth of its hardworking staff. Today we find a
refuge system having to choose between restoring habitat or educating
children about the wonders of the natural world. Today we find a refuge
system that has been neglected, and, unhappily, in some cases, a refuge
system where the sound management decisions of its professionals have
been undermined by political meddling.
In my testimony today I will attempt to document some of these
unfulfilled promises--not to dwell on the past, but to move the refuge
system forward. And I will conclude with several observations about
what needs to be done in a broader context to involve our states and
local governments in the protection and enhancement of wildlife and
their habitat.
Unfulfilled Promise: Compatibility
Of all the improvements mandated by the Act, the ``compatibility''
requirement is perhaps the most important. Refuges are where wildlife
come first, they are closed to all other uses unless it can be
demonstrated that such uses will not be harmful to the wildlife
conservation purpose of the refuge system. In 1989, the GAO found that
over half of all refuge managers reported harmful secondary uses
occurring on their refuges. It was clear that comprehensive legislation
was needed to fix this and other problems facing the refuge system.
The Refuge Improvement Act strengthened the compatibility standard
and process, requiring greater transparency and public input into Fish
and Wildlife Service decisions. The Fish and Wildlife Service responded
by promulgating strong regulations and policy to implement the new
standards.
To date, however, many compatibility determinations remain weak and
lack strong scientific justification. More disturbing, cases are coming
to light where correct compatibility decisions are being subverted by
political directives from above. A particularly egregious example is
occurring at Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska where the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the native Alaskan Doyon corporation are
negotiating a land exchange within the refuge to get around a
compatibility determination against oil and gas development within the
refuge. By removing lands out of the refuge, compatibility will no
longer apply. Drilling will have devastating consequences for the
refuge, and this maneuver sets a terrible precedent for refuges
throughout the country.
At Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, again
with strong scientific evidence of the impacts of the road running
through the refuge, the refuge manager determined that a number of
proposed alternatives for bridge replacement and road maintenance would
be incompatible with the refuge's purposes. Under intense political
pressure, the Interior Department has acquiesced in a compatibility
evaluation process that ignores the impacts of additional road building
within the Refuge.
There are more examples of this type of meddling in the sound
professional judgment of dedicated refuge managers, reflecting
administration policies contrary to the Congressional mandate embodied
in the compatibility standard at the hear of the Refuge Improvement Act
Unfulfilled Promise: Planning
The Refuge Improvement Act provided the public the opportunity to
engage in refuge management for the first time. The comprehensive
conservation planning requirement of the Improvement Act is the main
avenue for implementing many of the provisions of the Act, and it is an
opportunity for the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform the public
about each refuge, gain support from the surrounding communities, and
obtain valuable input into the management of these precious lands. Many
refuges have been able to use the planning process to solve complex
problems.
The Refuge Improvement Act called for all refuges to have
comprehensive conservation plans by 2012. Unfortunately, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has only completed one third of the plans while two
thirds of the time has elapsed. Yet, instead of proposing a strong
investment in the planning process, the administration actually
proposed cutting the planning budget in its Fiscal Year 2008 request.
Unfulfilled Promise: Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health
Twenty some years ago, selenium contamination from surrounding
agricultural runoff had become so bad on Kesterson National Wildlife
Refuge in California that the Fish and Wildlife Service had to harass
waterfowl to keep them off the refuge's toxic ponds after more than
1,000 ducks died from selenium poisoning. Almost all the fish had
disappeared. The refuge had died. This episode raised important
questions about the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to address
conservation issues beyond their refuge boundaries and whether the Fish
and Wildlife Service had an affirmative duty to sustain wildlife on a
national wildlife refuge.
The Refuge Improvement Act addressed these questions, particularly
its provision requiring the Secretary of Interior to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge
system. Many external actions and threats impact the refuge system's
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Yet this
core provision of the Act has never been adequately implemented.
Water, essential for life, is an example. The vast majority of the
refuge system contains important wetland and aquatic habitat, habitat
that is vital to the millions of migratory birds and other species that
depend on refuges. Congress recognized the importance of water to the
refuge system, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the
maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality to achieve the
refuge system mission and the purposes of each refuge. Yet very little
has been done to identify threats to refuge waters, secure adequate
quantities of water to meet refuge objectives, or even maintain water
quality, as exemplified at Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge in
Montana where ducks are once again dying from selenium poisoning and
toxic brine. Refuges in the Central Valley of California cannot compete
on the open market for available water, leaving many of their lands
dry. In Nevada, the Fish and Wildlife Service has virtually given away
water rights at the Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge, succumbing
to the largest groundwater development in the country's history
threatening a refuge designed solely around the water and aquatic
habitat it provides for an endangered fish.
Equally alarming is virtual take-over of the refuge system by
invasive exotic plants and animals, threatening the biological
integrity of each and every refuge. Some refuges today are virtual
monocultures of plants from Asia, or Australia, instead of the native
plants and unique habitats of North America that have evolved with the
wild beasts and birds the refuge system was set aside for. On top of
this, due to budget shortfalls the Fish and Wildlife Service is being
forced to completely de-staff entire refuges--refuges that may quickly
succumb to damaging invasive species in the absence of adequate control
efforts.
Global warming is a serious threat to the System. Warming
temperature and changing patterns of precipitation will require many
species assemblages to migrate northward or upward in elevation, a
process that is visibly underway in the West and in Alaska. Along the
Atlantic and Gulf coastlines, rising sea levels will inundate large
areas of existing refuges. Water will become even scarcer in many
regions. The Fish and Wildlife Service must have the mandate and the
resources to assess these changes and to analyze them in detail in the
comprehensive plans for individual refuges. The National Park Service
has already initiated such a process, and there is no time to be lost
in getting this process underway in the Refuge system.
Unfulfilled Promise: Monitoring
The Refuge Improvement Act recognized that you can't manage a
refuge if you don't know what wildlife and habitat is present or how
wildlife and habitat is responding to management and external threats.
Congress required the Secretary to ``monitor the status and trends of
fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge'' and required the Fish and
Wildlife Service to manage the system using modern scientific resource
programs. Though some regions of the Fish and Wildlife Service are
beginning to invest in monitoring programs; overall, monitoring, if it
is occurring at all, has been poorly planned, lacks scientific rigor,
and is not providing the Fish and Wildlife Service the information it
needs to adequately manage the refuge system. Robust monitoring
programs are especially important as climate change alters habitats,
predator-prey relationships, and other ecological functions. The refuge
system should be our early warning system for these types of effects,
but today these effects remain largely undetected and misunderstood.
Unfulfilled Promise: Strategic Growth
Amid an era of increasing population growth, virtually unchecked
suburban sprawl, and rapid intensification of agriculture, it is
critically important that we protect our increasingly isolated wildlife
and last remaining wild places. Congress recognized this urgent need in
the Improvement Act a decade ago, when it directed me and all future
Interior Secretaries to strategically expand the refuge system in a
manner that would protect and restore the unique wildlife and
ecosystems of America. Never before has the need to prioritize such a
visionary directive been so great.
Barely a two hour drive south of Washington, D.C. lies a refuge
that is practically begging for land acquisition funds before the clock
runs out. Rappahannock River Valley refuge is one of those rare and
special places in the East, where river otters still swim freely, where
endangered fish and plants still thrive, and bald eagles still soar in
tremendous numbers. But how long can this condition persist as
commercial enterprise and housing developments begin to overtake the
area, as they threaten to do in many parts of our country? It was
Congress's intent to avoid situations such as this, where the very
integrity and purpose of our treasured wildlife refuges are severely
undermined. Because of years of funding neglect by the administration
and Congress, private partners and land donors have done their best to
pick up the slack, but even these noble efforts have barely managed to
cobble together a few thousand acres, well short of this refuge's
21,000 acre acquisition goal. As is, Rappahannock River Valley refuge
exists as a handful of scattered parcels, and unless those tracts can
be connected and expanded soon, America will have a few more housing
developments and a lot less of its natural heritage.
Rappahannock River Valley refuge is unfortunately not unique. All
across America, our refuges are feeling the pressure from encroachment,
fragmentation, and global warming. If America wishes to retain wild
places well into the future, and I believe it does, it is now time for
this administration and Congress to make a renewed commitment to the
vision of 10 years ago. That vision saw a refuge system where not only
wildlife thrive and find safe harbor, but also where our children learn
of natural history, hunting, fishing, and to simply play in the woods.
We owe it to our future generations to grant them the opportunity to
see a bald eagle fly, or a river otter frolic, and to do so, full
implementation of the strategic growth directives in the Improvement
Act are vital to America's success in this important endeavor.
Unfulfilled Promise: Public Use and Enjoyment
Fish and wildlife come first on national wildlife refuges so they
will be sustained for the benefit of the American public. Ninety-eight
percent of the refuge system is open to the public. The Refuge
Improvement Act created a unique system of prioritized uses: wildlife
refuges are places where compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is
facilitated over other uses. This makes sense. National wildlife
refuges should be places where the public can hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, and most importantly, learn about wildlife. There
is a refuge within an hour's drive of every major urban area in the
country. What a fantastic opportunity to welcome the public, especially
children, to learn and experience the wonders of the natural world. If
we don't teach our children to appreciate and understand wildlife and
our natural resources, who will be tomorrow's stewards of these
precious resources? Environmental education programs and other visitor
programs are being slashed due to budget shortfalls. One school in
Washington state had been working hand in hand with the Nisqually
National Wildlife Refuge on a reforestation project. Each year, the
entire school of 750 students would take a trip to the refuge to learn
about the wildlife and habitat, and assist staff in its restoration.
But the Fish and Wildlife Service had to drop this tremendous
experiential learning opportunity because of lack of funds. We can't
let opportunities like these fade. National wildlife refuges should be
the centers for combating what author Richard Louv calls ``nature
deficit disorder'' in our children.
Unfulfilled Promise: Law Enforcement
The protection of refuge wildlife, facilities, and public safety is
the most basic function of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2006,
there were over 95,000 law enforcement incidents ranging from stolen
property to violent assaults. Every crime that occurs in America also
occurs on national wildlife refuges. In 2005 an International
Association of Chiefs of Police study of the Refuge System found that
refuge law enforcement was woefully inadequate and recommended a 133%
increase in law enforcement officers to respond to vandalism, poaching
of wildlife, drug trafficking and myriad other crimes.
In New Jersey, budget cuts have left just one law enforcement
officer at Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, covering 47,000 acres.
The refuge manager there responded by saying, ``there's going to be
more partying and more illegal ATV use on the refuge. There's going to
be more illegal trash dumping.'' In some areas of the West, huge swaths
of land are left to lone law enforcement officers. This is no way to
treat this great system of lands or the public.
Unfulfilled Promise: Funding
While refuges continue to operate under the tight constraints of a
federal appropriation that has declined or remained flat in recent
years, their expenses continue to increase. Each year, refuge expenses
must grow by $15 million just to meet ever-escalating fixed costs for
salary adjustments, fuel, utilities, facilities rent and maintenance,
and more. But because the refuge system cannot even keep pace with
inflationary costs, the System is in serious financial trouble.
Let us not equivocate. The refuge system is reeling from years of
fiscal starvation. The Fish and Wildlife Service has made public its
intent to slash 20 percent of its refuge workforce, resulting in the
permanent loss of more than 560 employees at a time when most refuges
are short-staffed to begin with. In fact, a third of our nation's
refuges already have no staff whatsoever. The refuge system is losing
its biologists, its maintenance workers, its educational outreach
staff, even its refuge managers. Years of inadequate budgets have
forced FWS not only to shed staff, but as I've already testified, to
cut education for school groups, to scale back on biological monitoring
and strategic planning, and to shelve scores of important conservation
and restoration activities. Maintenance projects are backlogged,
visitor centers are closing, and invasive species are, in some cases,
literally taking over.
There is, of course, a remedy for these deficiencies. The Refuge
Improvement Act established robust standards that would have ensured
the health of the Refuge System for generations to come. It's now time
to empower the Fish and Wildlife Service and the refuge system with the
fiscal resources they need to provide another century of wildlife
protection and education to current and future Americans. To live up to
the standards of the Refuge Improvement Act, to address the $2.5
billion operations and maintenance backlog, to stop the hemorrhaging of
staff, to strategically grow the System, and to ensure adequate law
enforcement, ecosystem health and a positive visitor experience for
generations to come, I call upon the administration and this Congress
to fund refuges at a level that is commensurate with the enormous
ecological and economic value they return to the American people.
Moving the Refuge System Forward
Several months ago, after speaking at a refuge event, I was asked
``could you identify the single most important issue facing the refuge
system in the coming century? And what legislation you would propose to
address it?
It did not take me long to identify the issue. Most of our wildlife
refuges are relatively small, amounting to postage stamps affixed on
large landscapes that are rapidly filling with development. Our
population, now about 300 million will increase by a third, by another
hundred million by the year 2040. Now take a look at the map of our
refuge system. Most refuges are located along or near the Atlantic,
Gulf and Pacific coasts, and on river flyways, precisely the areas
where most of the population growth and development is occurring..
Which in turn poses the question; can our refuges and their animal and
plant communities survive in the next century as isolated plots in a
sea of encroaching development?
Refuge lands must be expanded to insure an adequate future for our
wildlife. There are, to be sure, limits, both fiscal and practical, to
boundary expansion as the answer to refuge protection. In the longer
term, the only way to insure the viability of our refuge system to
encourage proper land use and sustainable development on the landscapes
of which the refuges are only a tiny part.
Land use is and will remain a primary responsibility of state and
local governments. Yet there is no reason why the federal government
should not provide incentives to state and local governments to join
more actively in the management of the landscapes surrounding our
refuges.
What kind of incentives? One precedent that deserves consideration
is our experience with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. CZMA
offers federal assistance to coastal states willing to establish land
use plans for their coastal areas, and since enactment of the
legislation 29 of the 30 eligible states have joined in this program,
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
the Department of Commerce.
The statutory mission statement of the Coastal Zone Management Act
might well be applied to a comparable program for refuges: to ``protect
and enhance fragile natural resources by reducing conflict between
competing land and water uses while representing a comprehensive
approach to managing the impacts of development and other
activities....''
Whatever the exact approach, I can say with confidence that the
refuge system remains in need of a strong program of state and local
participation in the management of lands surrounding the refuges. And
there other Federal programs that could be targeted to provide
incentives for federal, state, local and private partnerships to
encourage sustainable use of adjacent lands, such as the Conservation
Reserve Program administered by the Department of Agriculture, and the
various private land stewardship programs administered by the
Departments of Agriculture and Interior.
In conclusion, the Refuge Improvement Act remains, ten years after
enactment at the initiative of this Committee, a strong legal
foundation for the administration of our refuge system. What is most
needed is the leadership, vision and resources to ensure that its
promise is fulfilled for the benefit of future generations.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Kind. I would be remiss if I also did not extend her
greetings to you. Chairman Bordallo desperately wanted to be
here. She is en route from Guam but wanted to express her
welcome to you here today, too.
Let me just follow up, if I may, on the whole phenomenon on
global warming and the impact it is going to have on the Refuge
System. And now as an outside observer with the service and the
management of these refuges do you feel there are sufficient
steps being taken in light of the science and the impact it is
going to have on the refuge within the service itself,
management plans, or does something structural have to change
within the service itself in order to put together the planning
and the comprehensive analysis that you were just talking
about?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I think there has to be a
structural change. The pervasive nature of these changes is
such that they really can't be adequately addressed, although
they should be analyzed in the comprehensive conservation
plans. The service must have a mandate and the resources--for
example, to look at the entire region of Pamlico Sound, Florida
Bay, the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Coast, they are all related;
and we haven't even begun to comprehend that.
There are some extraordinary examples in Alaska. The
retreat of the Arctic ice cap has now moved sufficiently far
off the Beaufort Sea shoreline. There is every reason to
believe that the polar bear population will, in fact, diminish
and that the only possibility for maintaining that population
on some semblance of a land ice bridge is going to be in the
ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and we need serious
attention to those issues.
Mr. Kind. Mr. Secretary, the structural changes that you
would like to see, is that something that can be done
internally or is it something that Congress needs to be engaged
in, in order to provide the statutory authority or the mandate
to do so?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I spent the better part of
8 years up here answering that question by saying, leave it to
the bureaucrats, of which I am one. I return now as a private
citizen and an environmentally concerned private citizen to say
that a congressional mandate would be much the preferable way.
This is a large issue, it is a systemic issue with catastrophic
potential consequences that it should not be left to Mr. Hall,
his successor, Secretary Kempthorne or his successor, whoever
they might be.
Mr. Kind. Thank you. Before coming out here this morning to
catch the flight, I was out observing the great migration that
is taking place in the Upper Miss right now, and it is
spectacular, and it is beautiful, but it is also daunting in
regard to the management and the multiple uses of that vast
area. And we have especially dealt with the difficulty of
putting together a comprehensive conservation plan in light of
the multiple uses for the Upper Miss, `which has proven quite
controversial, at least in the State of Wisconsin, when it
comes to certain access issues and what type of access that you
are talking about.
Now, we are obviously behind the time line when it comes to
the development of all the comprehensive plans throughout the
Nation. Do you have any specific recommendations of what we
need to do to try to streamline this process in order to get
these plans done and up and going at a much quicker pace than
what we have seen so far?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I believe the baseline issue is
funding. I don't think there are any significant shortcuts. I
would be very skeptical of any response which says we will
simply accelerate our effort and start cranking them out. They
take time and resources, and they can't be done on a refuge
which has at most one or two personnel, where the visitor
center isn't open most of the time, where trash is piling up,
invasive species are running wild, where there is not a
semblance of the resources necessary to do their day jobs, much
less undertake this kind of planning regime.
The plans are good. They work. They are worth doing. The
court decision in the Little Pend Oreille ought to be a
reminder of the importance of this.
Mr. Kind. It is mentioned in your testimony about some of
the land use conflicts and how that might slow the process down
a little bit. But, ultimately, at the end of the day, in order
for the CCPs to work you got to have maximum buy-in not only
from those in charge of putting the plans in place but the
input from the community at large. Because a lot of this is
going to be self-enforcing. We just won't have the resources in
order to go out there unless you have that buy-in from a larger
community and the multiple uses of the refuge.
Do you have anything in particular that you would recommend
in order to deal with the land-use conflicts or the multiple-
use conflicts that pop up from time to time without
jeopardizing the consensus building that has to take place at
the end of the day?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I think the service has done a
good job on the public involvement that is mandated by the Act.
I think that what we ought to be working on is statutory ways
to give incentives to State, county and municipal governments,
not mandates.
But there are a number of interesting examples--coastal
zone management is one that I referred to--in which we look out
across those boundaries and invite the State governments and
the local governments.
Another way that could be done would be to put some
language into the wildlife action plans. It has been an
enormously successful program. It has brought--I forget the
exact name of it--it is a State grants program that has brought
the States into--most all States into very high-quality
wildlife analysis and mapping across the States. I think it
would be perfectly logical to revisit that and say here is an
extra add-on to the extent that you want to get into looking at
land use in connection with the refuge managers. Just set up
the process and give the incentives.
Mr. Kind. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
My time is expired. We will turn it over to Mr. Young for
any questions.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Kind.
Mr. Secretary, you hit upon the funding and cooperation and
suggested that Congress come forth with possibly the solutions
of the bureaucrats. I might agree with that, but, knowing this
Congress, we haven't been able to do a whole lot in the last
year and a half, and I don't know how much more we are going to
be doing, and this is realistic. And I don't know whether we
can solve the funding.
I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Secretary, we have 96
million acres in refuges; and it is my understanding we raise
$75 million a year off the 96 million acres. Is there any way
we can use the 96 million acres to raise more money for the
Refuge System?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Young, I have always been an advocate of
visiting and revisiting the issue of fees. I wouldn't advocate
fees for the Alaska refuges. It would cost more to collect them
than they would be worth.
If you go down to Sanibel Island during the winter season
down there, I don't know whether they are charging admission
fees. It is not a total solution, but it has been helpful in my
judgment in the National Park System, and I think it should be
carefully examined here.
Mr. Young. Well, going along those lines, though, if we
have a refuge, just raising by fees, that is just a minor
amount of money. If we have 11 million more visitors a year,
you have to be charging something like a $100 fee or better for
those that visit to raise the money. We are at about a $2.4
billion backlog, if I am not mistaken.
What I am looking for, and I am not a pessimist, but I
don't see, other than this hearing, much enthusiasm for the
Refuge System in the U.S. Congress. A little talk, a little bit
of a discussion, but not much enthusiasm.
As I mentioned, invasive species and everything else, and
if we buy your concept of rising tide and we have to adjust the
borders of the refuge to make sure they have enough space for
the migratory birds and stuff, that is going to take money. And
somehow we have to figure out how we are going to raise that
money or raise the interest level higher to get it.
I still think--what happens as far as duck stamp money?
Where does that go? What does it go for? Does anybody know?
Mr. Babbitt. It goes largely, in my understanding, for
habitat acquisition in the Duck Factory.
Mr. Young. But not management of the refuge front. And we
have increased like 96 million acres. We probably could get
more. I would not support that, but say somebody else would.
Because I believe if you have the inability to manage the
property you have, then you shouldn't be purchasing another
house. You should take and make sure your house is being run
correctly.
So I have to figure out a way we can get the monies, other
than direct appropriation. You can forget that. There is just
not going to be $2.4 billion additional dollars for the
backlog. So we have to figure out a way to raise those dollars.
If anybody has any suggestions, and for those that are going to
testify later on you better think about it, because I will
probably ask the same question if I am here. Mr. Secretary, you
are at a disadvantage now because no one has come to me with
how we are going to raise those dollars.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Young, I would only suggest that you might
talk with I think the two most creative sort of indirect fund-
raisers in or from the U.S. Congress, John Barrow and Mary
Landrieu, who have in aid of coastal issues in Louisiana come
up with imaginative proposals tapping everything that stands or
moves within the jurisdiction of not just Louisiana but the
entire United States.
Mr. Young. Well, I will be supportive, because that is oil
and gas. I didn't want to bring that subject up, but that is
exactly where it is coming from. And if you remember the CARE
Act, which I was a sponsor with Mr. Miller, that is what we
were going to do to make sure those monies were permanently
appropriated and not at the discretion of the appropriators for
the Conservation Reinvestment Act. And of course it got over
the Senate and died.
By the way, we had 328 votes I believe for that Act; and
that does show some imagination. But unless we see the
interest, then I can't get your side to even think about
offshore drilling other than Louisiana. And we might want to
start thinking about--maybe we think about, oh, God help us,
oil and gas development, that a set portion of that money would
go directly to the refuge improvement and maintenance of and
the future development of supposedly global warming. You might
want to think about that. That may be a little farfetched.
Mr. Chairman, every time I mention that, you can't do that.
Those dirty old fossil fuels, we can't develop it. But if we
want to solve this problem of refuge which does exist today and
if we are really interested in fish and wildlife and
recreational purposes and touching nature, we better damn well
accept that challenge.
I am out of time.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Young, may I offer a brief rejoinder and
suggestion in the spirit of our earlier collaboration?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Babbitt. I believe were those concepts detached from
all of the raging debates about where development should take
place and that were cut adrift and you were just examining the
issue of revenues as they may come under law, whatever that law
may be, that would be an opportunity for you and me to go back
to your office and write a bill. Unfortunately, I am no longer
in power to do that.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Babbitt's--
Secretary Babbitt's little story--and he may deny this--but
when he was Secretary he came to my office again and asked for
assistance to help rewrite the Endangered Species Act, and we
were working on that and making progress. And, lo and behold,
in 1994 we took over control of the Congress, and I tried to
rewrite the Act, and all of a sudden I was a bad guy. No
politics involved. But I just want to tell you what can happen
in this business we are in.
I would be willing to sit down and talk to anybody if we
can find a way to find a permanent source of income so it
doesn't go through the appropriation process for the
improvement and the management of our refuges, and I think that
is what we ought to be doing.
Mr. Kind. Well, thank you, Mr. Young.
If it is OK with you, I would like to just follow up with a
couple more questions, mainly on that line of thought. Because
I have been talking to a lot of individuals, a lot of groups on
this very point and try to see what creative minds exist out
there to have this steady, dedicated source of income.
You raised the duck stamp money that is raised every year,
yet you are talking about a very limited universe there of duck
hunters that are actually contributing to it, and there are a
very small percentage of those who are actually going into the
refuges to enjoy that hunting sport. I am one of them. And yet
we have a lot of birders going in, bird watchers, photographers
going into our Refuge System that aren't buying duck stamps at
the same time. And the duck stamp money is mainly for wetlands
preservation programs, both on public and private lands. So we
do have to, I think, come up with a different funding source
user fee.
But this is also a question maybe the second panel, anyone
on the second panel, might have some ideas or thoughts on, too,
is how can we raise some additional revenue from a dedicated
fee or source in order to deal with this backlog problem that
we have right now in financing the Refuge System.
I am glad to hear that your office is open, as mine is for
you, Mr. Babbitt, or anyone else who has some ideas or thoughts
on this very topic. But I would just disagree with you
slightly, Mr. Young, in regard to a level of interest in the
Refuge System in the Congress. With the bipartisan caucus that
we formed, we do have 138 members, so we are able to get out
information into the offices. We just haven't had your
leadership on the caucus yet that we desperately need.
Mr. Young. A lot of time these caucuses, people get on it,
because I am the head of the sportsmen's caucus, or was. As you
know, people get on and say they are on it, but they are really
not there to do anything. And that frustrates me.
Mr. Kind. Granted. But it is a truism in this place that
there is virtually a refuge in every congressional district, or
at least one within hiking distance of every congressional
district. So it does affect us all, and I think we have to
figure out a way of tapping into the interest that does exist
in the Congress.
But let me also ask you, Mr. Babbitt, another very
important issue. We have had a hearing on this already, and
that is the spread of invasive species. And obviously, global
warming is going to bring a whole new dynamic to that. I have
pending before this committee, and we hope to go to full
committee markup H.R. 767 called the Repair Act, which will
provide Federal grants and in a partnership on the public and
private level in order to deal with the spread of invasive
species in and also in the surrounding area of our Refuge
System.
How big a threat is that? And do we need a statutory
response to authorize the service in order to form these
partnerships with the local entities in order to have a good
comprehensive plan and also, hopefully, the funding to deal
with the invasive problem that we have?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I think a statutory directive
would be really useful. This is a new and again vast, poorly
understood and hugely destructive problem that cannot be
addressed just inside the boundaries of the refuge. And it is
yet another example of how it is driven by all these forces. We
need to find ways to sign up the surrounding jurisdictions, and
I believe it would be really important to flag that as a
statutory effort.
Mr. Kind. I appreciate that, because we have received a lot
of good advice from Mr. Hall and Mr. Haskett, the chief here,
in regard to the spread of invasive species. And while they do
have programs in place, it just seems to be out here rather
than at a real focal point that I think we need and that is
necessary. Of course, we do get back into the funding issue,
and all roads seem to head back to that poignant fact.
But, again, I want to thank you for your insight and for
your involvement and for the history that you bring to the
Refuge System and to this committee. It has been a joy to have
you here.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Secretary, put your mind to work and maybe
we can arrive at some solution to a problem. Again, the
finances are the hardest problem. Although we have 130 on this
deal, I would be extremely surprised if we had more than a 10
percent increase in the refuge dollars directly appropriated.
And that is where CARE came in where it was automatic and came
of off of offshore drilling, and instead of where it goes now
into the general Treasury to be spent on some other crazy
program that never gets any results at all. And I am not
casting dispersions on anybody, but in reality if we don't do
that, if we don't take a resource and use it to develop and
protect another resource, we are going to lose this battle
eventually.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Young, I suppose that means I ought to go
start talking to Mr. Horn again.
Mr. Young. Mr. Horn is not impossible. He is not.
Mr. Babbitt. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Now I would like to welcome our second panel up to the
microphones. While they are finding their seats, let me quickly
introduce them here this afternoon.
Our second panel consists of The Honorable Carol Browner,
Chairwoman of the Board of Directors for the National Audubon
Society and former Administrator of the U.S. EPA during the
Clinton Administration; The Honorable Dale Hall, Director of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior;
Mr. Evan Hirsche, Executive Director, National Wildlife Refuge
Association; Mr. John Frampton, Director of the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources--welcome. glad to have you--and
also The Honorable William Horn, General Counsel of the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance, former Chairman of the National Wildlife
Refuge Centennial Commission, and former Interior Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
I would also, since I see him sitting in the audience, too,
Chief Geoff Haskett of the Refuge System. Delighted to have him
here this afternoon as well.
So, Ms. Browner, we will turn it over to you. Thank you
again for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL BROWNER, CHAIRWOMAN, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Browner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Congressman Young, for the opportunity to be with you today.
While I am the former administrator of the EPA, I appear
today as Chair of the Board of Directors of the National
Audubon Society. My testimony is offered not just on behalf of
the National Audubon Society; it is also endorsed by the
National Wildlife Federation, the Wilderness Society, and
Defenders of Wildlife. Together, our organizations represent
more than 6 million members and supporters across the country
dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation. You may be
aware of this, but National Audubon has an extensive history
working to protect America's wildlife refuges, including from
the very beginning, our members actually urged President Teddy
Roosevelt to create the Refuge System and at the turn of the
last century, helped to provide some of the first wardens to
protect the refuge from the plume hunters. Audubon's 24 State
offices and more than 500 local chapters across the country
continue to provide volunteer support to the refuges
nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking you for your
leadership of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus and all
of the members of that caucus. The question that you asked
today, and I think the point of this hearing is, quite simply,
has the promise of the act been fulfilled? And I think,
unfortunately, and you noted there has been some progress, but
on balance the answer is: No, the promise has not been
fulfilled.
Ten years after passage of this landmark legislation, we
find that there are implementation of several key requirements
that have really not been fully realized, and that the result
is that we are not living up sort of the hope and the intent of
the legislation.
We are particularly concerned with the low priority that
has been given to implementing two of the key provisions.
First, the mandate to direct strategic growth of the system to
conserve the ecosystems of the United States. And, second, the
mandate to maintain adequate water quantity and water quality
to fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each
refuge.
We share the concern that you spoke about with Secretary
Babbitt as to the funding crisis, I think we would call it. We
believe that this funding crisis has slowed conservation
planning, limited even the most basic monitoring of refuge
resources, and severely limited the system's response to the
highest priority threat to habitat, which are invasive species.
And we certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, with your observation
that sooner rather than later we are going to need to begin to
account for the realities of climate change and the
consequences that the refuge will experience.
A few thoughts as you go forward. First, Audubon strongly
encourages further oversight from this committee. Now, that may
sound a little odd from someone who spent 8 years subject to
the oversight of Congress, but I would encourage you to use
that oversight. It can be a real, I think, help to the agency
when the Congress can engage in that sort of way. I think
looking at the strategic growth of the system, efforts to
maintain adequate water for the refuge, and efforts to complete
comprehensive conservation plans in a manner consistent with
the Act mandates would be particularly useful.
We would also recommend that the committee consider passing
legislation that would help the system to address the invasive
species issues and the borderland conflicts. And in particular,
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you as well as Congressman Saxton
for your leadership in introducing the Repair Act, which we
think would be extremely helpful in terms of answering the
invasive species challenge. And I understand that the committee
will look at that bill later this week, and we lend our support
to the passage of that.
Let me just say in closing how important we think your work
is in looking at where we are and what the 10 years have
wrought, and how much we are available to work with you as you
move forward to address these concerns.
On a personal note, I come from Florida; as many of you
know, I served as Secretary of the environment in Florida and
was part of an effort to expand the Big Cypress National
Wildlife Refuge. It is an amazing place, and it meets a need of
the public that sometimes our national parks don't. And I think
it is that uniqueness that we want to make sure we preserve
going forward, but at the same time, on the same hand recognize
that there are real challenges to preserving those
opportunities that the refuge provide to people across this
country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Browner follows:]
Statement of Carol Browner, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors,
National Audubon Society
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding implementation
of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. I
commend you for holding this important hearing. I speak to you today as
both a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and
as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society.
My testimony today is offered on behalf not only of National
Audubon Society but also National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness
Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. Together, our organizations
represent more than six million members and supporters across the
country.
Audubon's mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems,
focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit
of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. Our national network
of community-based nature centers and chapters, scientific and
educational programs, and advocacy on behalf of areas sustaining
important bird populations, engage millions of people of all ages and
backgrounds in positive conservation experiences.
The dedication of National Audubon Society to the protection of the
National Wildlife Refuge System can be traced to its earliest history.
At the urging of early Audubon societies, President Teddy Roosevelt, in
one of America's great acts on behalf of conservation, established 6-
acre Pelican Island in Florida as the first federal wildlife refuge.
Audubon and the federal government jointly financed the work of the
first Refuge System's first employee, a warden who guarded the birds of
Pelican Island from plume hunters. Audubon continues to be a stalwart
defender of wildlife refuges, with a deep appreciation and respect for
the system's value to the country as a national treasure, as well as
its importance as a tool for bird and wildlife conservation and for
protection of the ecosystems of the United States.
Unfortunately, despite its value and importance, for decades the
Refuge System has been under-appreciated, under-funded, and under-
prioritized. Its tremendous potential, to be the bedrock of ecosystem
protection in the country, and to be a driver of habitat protection in
the larger landscape surrounding the refuges, has gone largely
unrealized. In many ways, refuges have been passive recipients of a
wide range of environmental threats, places where destructive
activities were too often permitted, and where ecosystems were too
often degraded by broader landscape-level threats such as invasive
species, limited water supplies, and pollution.
In 1997, the Congress sent a strong signal that the era of under-
appreciation, rampant unaddressed threats, and unrealized potential was
coming to an end. The passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, with unanimous bipartisan support in the House and
Senate, for the first time gave the Refuge System a clear mandate to
promote wildlife conservation above other uses, widely known as the
``wildlife first'' mission of the system. The Improvement Act also gave
refuges powerful tools to begin to tackle unaddressed threats and to
manage the system with an ecosystem approach.
Ten years after passage of this landmark legislation, however,
implementation of several key requirements is grossly inadequate.
The Refuge Improvement Act is a Powerful Tool for Putting Wildlife
First, but Many Conflicts are Still Unresolved
The basic framework of the Refuge Improvement Act was very
important. It established the ``wildlife first'' mission of the Refuge
System and clearly prioritized wildlife-oriented recreation over
commercial activities and other non-wildlife-oriented uses. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has developed strong policies for compatibility
``ensuring that uses are compatible with wildlife conservation before
they can be permitted--and appropriateness--ensuring that uses are
wildlife-oriented and appropriate for a wildlife refuge.
According to refuge staff with whom we spoke, the appropriate use
policy is used every day on wildlife refuges across the country to
implement the ``wildlife first'' mission. When refuge managers receive
calls requesting use of refuges for auto shows, weddings, and other
non-wildlife oriented uses, the appropriate use policy makes it easier
for refuge managers to refuse authorization for such activities. The
appropriate use policy already has been used to exclude inappropriate
helicopter use on a refuge, and is applicable to borderlands conflicts
affecting refuges like Lower Rio Grande Valley.
The strength of the Improvement Act as a tool for putting wildlife
first also has been verified in court. For example, Little Pend Oreille
is a small oasis of protected wildlife habitat in northeastern
Washington that provides hunting, fishing and wildlife recreation
opportunities. An attempt to reopen much of this fragile refuge to
harmful cattle grazing was blocked by a federal district judge. The
judge found that restricting grazing in the Little Pend Oreille under
the Refuge Improvement Act was appropriate.
This was an important decision for the future of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Improvement Act has helped this refuge to
prioritize its fundamental mission to protect ``wildlife first,'' an
encouraging sign that refuges across the country can be defended from
incompatible and inappropriate uses that compromise wildlife
protection.
However, much more work remains to be done to eliminate destructive
uses of wildlife refuges. In 2002, the Refuge System issued a data
collection effort to identify threats and conflicts within wildlife
refuges. This effort identified more than 2,376 threats nationwide. The
degree to which the Improvement Act has helped to address these threats
in the past ten years is unclear. The last system-wide assessment of
incompatible uses of the Refuge System through an independent
investigation was completed by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) in 1989.
Audubon recommends that the committee request a new assessment of
incompatible activities in the Refuge System by the GAO, including an
assessment of the role of the Refuge Improvement Act in eliminating
incompatible and inappropriate uses and if additional authorities are
needed.
Diluting the Promise: The Service Has Selectively Ignored or Given
Very Low Priority to Key Provisions of the Improvement Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has accomplished very little in its
implementation of the plain language and clear mandates of some of the
key provisions in the Refuge Improvement Act. In particular, mandates
to plan and direct the continued growth of the System to conserve the
ecosystems of the United States (strategic growth) and to advocate for
water rights and the protection of natural hydrological systems (water
quantity and quality), largely have not been implemented.
Strategic Growth
The Improvement Act calls upon the Service to ``plan and direct the
continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to
accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation
of the ecosystems of the United States, to complement the efforts of
States and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and
their habitats, and to increase support for the System and
participation from conservation partners and the public.''
In an era of rampant population growth, intensification of
agriculture, and sprawling development, the ``continued growth of the
system'' as Congress directed, is of utmost importance to ``contribute
to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States.'' Yet,
there are essentially no official national priorities to guide the
creation of new refuges or the expansion of existing refuges.
The Service has considered a Strategic Growth policy internally but
never finalized it. At the same time, the Service has operated under an
informal policy that guided new acquisitions solely to inholdings, a
strategic growth policy that includes neither strategy nor growth.
This ``inholdings only'' policy is particularly shortsighted in
light of the ongoing and intensifying threat of climate change. As
wildlife habitats shift in response to climate change, the Fish and
Wildlife Service will need to plan for strategic growth in a manner
that allows the Refuge System to adapt to climate change. Under current
policy, when planning the future of a refuge, it is virtually
impossible to plan for climate change without considering the buffer
areas, habitat connections, and redundancies in habitat areas that will
be necessary to give wildlife a fighting chance to adapt to climate
change.
The Service is currently exploring a partnership with the U.S.
Geological Survey regarding the use of a strategic, science-based
process for habitat conservation at appropriate landscape scales. The
system begins with assessments of species life histories and habitat
requirements, then extends that to condition assessments of the needed
habitat areas and identifies appropriate places for habitat acquisition
and restoration. Such a strategic approach will be absolutely necessary
to meet the mandate of the Improvement Act and to meet the challenge of
climate change.
Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to
implement a strategic habitat conservation system in partnership with
USGS and to promulgate a formal policy directing the System to
``contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United
States'' through strategic growth in a manner consistent with the
Improvement Act.
Water Quantity and Quality
The refuge improvement act was firm and clear regarding water usage
when it stated that ``adequate water quantity and water quality'' must
be maintained to ``fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes
of each refuge.'' To quote the Fish and Wildlife Service from
Fulfilling the Promise, its 1999 strategy document for implementing the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act: ``The Service needs to
be a strong advocate for fish, wildlife, and plants in the adjudication
and allocation of water rights and the protection of natural
hydrological systems. A comprehensive assessment of the availability of
water supply, projected water needs, and status of existing and needed
water rights should be completed for each refuge.'' The Service has
made very little progress in implementing this key provision of the
Improvement Act.
While the Service has established ``Promises Teams'' to attempt to
implement many of the recommendations in Fulfilling the Promise, no
such team was ever formed to implement the water resources
recommendations. Water needs are being identified at very few refuges.
Water quality data are being collected in very few locations nationwide
and little is being done to protect water quality on a landscape level.
The effects are being felt on refuges across the country, but the
effects are particularly acute in California. As Defenders of Wildlife
has reported, increasing water demands from agricultural and urban
development cause the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in California
to struggle to secure enough water to sustain its wetlands. The health
of San Luis NWR, an anchor of habitat along the Pacific Flyway, depends
on the availability of water, and in the 1997 law, Congress declared
that refuge water quality and quantity must be protected.
This problem will be exacerbated by climate change. The Refuge
System should include assessments of the impacts of climate change on
water availability in Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each refuge.
Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to
develop policy guidance for refuge managers to advocate for their legal
right to secure adequate water for refuge lands.
Audubon further recommends that the committee encourage the Service
to complete a comprehensive assessment of water needs at each refuge,
to prioritize water needs when developing Land and Water Conservation
Fund priorities, and to include an assessment of the impacts of climate
change on water availability in all Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Killing the Promise: Refuge Funding Crisis Kills Opportunities to
Implement Core Requirements
The Refuge System faces a crippling backlog of more than $3.75
billion in operations and maintenance projects, killing opportunities
to implement basic requirements of the Improvement Act such as
inventorying and monitoring wildlife and completing Comprehensive
Conservation Plans in a timely manner. The funding crisis also cripples
the ability of the Service to tackle the primary threat to refuge
habitat--invasive species--in a manner consistent with Improvement Act
mandates to protect the biological diversity and ecological integrity
of the system.
As the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement has reported,
the nationwide impact of funding shortfalls includes: A crippling 20
percent cut in national staffing levels, equivalent to a permanent loss
of 565 essential staff positions; and more than 300 refuges operating
at a loss by Fiscal Year 2013, assuming current funding and staffing
trends.
Implementing state-of-the-art ecosystem management in a manner
consistent with the Improvement Act is daunting in the face of
diminishing resources that strain the ability of refuges to keep their
doors open or to maintain existing programs such as environmental
education.
Audubon recommends that the committee continue its oversight of the
challenges facing the Service due to the crippling operations and
maintenance backlog.
Comprehensive Conservation Planning
Comprehensive Conservation Plans are where the elements of the
Improvement Act are brought together, where individual refuge units
determine their highest and best use, plan appropriate public uses, and
determine the compatibility of activities affecting refuge resources.
The Refuge System is required by the Improvement Act to complete
Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each of its refuges by 2012. As of
early 2007, approximately 350 were unfinished or yet to be started. In
the Pacific Islands Region of the Refuge System, home to Guam National
Wildlife Refuge and 19 other refuges, only three CCPs have recently
been released in draft form. That leaves 17 others, which contain much
more daunting planning challenges, to be completed in the next five
years in order to meet the statutory deadline.
To date, each CCP has cost the System an average of $500,000, which
does not include employee salaries to conduct the bulk of the work and
research to write each CCP. Despite the significant cost and the
Improvement Act's approaching deadline, the planning budget for refuges
in recent years has been flat or going down.
Audubon cautions that the speed with which plans are completed
should not be the sole focus of oversight from the committee regarding
conservation planning. Frantic worry within the Refuge System regarding
meeting CCP deadlines can be a distraction from the need for high
quality plans that meet the best needs of the resources and provide
solid guidance for management to meet those needs. There can be a
tradeoff between the speed of completion and the quality and long-term
usefulness of the plan.
Audubon recommends that the committee request that the GAO initiate
a thorough study of Comprehensive Conservation Plans, to assess the
resources truly needed to complete remaining plans, to assess the
extent to which they are reflective of the requirements of the
Improvement Act, and to make recommendations regarding improvements
that can be made to ensure the plans are consistent with principles of
ecosystem management and include strategies to cope with the impacts of
climate change.
Basic Inventorying and Monitoring of Refuge Resources
Fulfilling the Promise makes it clear that ``Now and in the future,
rigorous approaches to inventorying and monitoring wildlife resources
are needed to provide the information critical to devise, evaluate, and
refine refuge management strategies implemented to meet refuge goals
and objectives.'' Unfortunately, the refuge funding crisis has
prevented the Service from making acquisition of this information a
priority.
Basic inventory and monitoring requirements are still not
accomplished on many refuges, and comprehensive knowledge is lacking
even of species on refuges that are federally-listed under the
Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.
Current approaches to inventory and monitoring of the plants, fish,
wildlife and habitat within the Refuge System are also very
inconsistent. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Fulfilling
the Promise Progress Report completed in 2004, the Refuge System has
surveyed all refuges about current wildlife and habitat monitoring
procedures and how the data are collected, stored, and managed. Refuges
used more than 180 different procedures.
Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to give
a high priority to completing consistent and comparable basic
inventories of refuge resources that are essential to development of
adequate Comprehensive Conservation Plans and to implementation of
Improvement Act requirements.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a top threat to refuges and a major cause of
habitat loss throughout the country. More than 80 percent of refuges
report problems with invasive species, and the problem now affects more
than 8 million acres of refuge land.
The refuge funding crisis is crippling the response to this primary
threat to the biological diversity and ecological integrity of refuges.
More than $360 million of the $1.25 billion operations backlog is
accounted for by invasive species control projects. In recent years,
only $9 million has been allocated to addressing this $360 million
problem.
The Refuge System prepared a National Invasive Species Management
Strategy for the first time in May 2004. However, most refuges have no
detailed inventory or maps of invasive distributions and no means to
create either. Most refuges have no means to identify potential
incipient infestations of invasive populations. Although invasive
species control projects are one of the fastest growing components of
the operations and maintenance backlog, funding priorities are usually
dominated by other System needs.
This lack of funding is particularly disheartening in the face of
evidence that refuge infestations of invasive species are a solvable
problem that is ripe for more attention. For example, in partnership
with the State of Washington, the Service has successfully eradicated
an invasive weed, Spartina alterniflora, that threatened to take over
the sensitive wetland habitat of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. At
its peak in 2003, the infestation covered approximately 15,000 acres of
tidelands, and was projected to occupy 56,000 of the 80,000 acres at
Willapa Bay if left uncontrolled. After a substantial federal and state
investment, the infestation has been controlled and Willapa Bay has
been saved.
Audubon recommends that the committee pass H.R. 767, the Refuge
Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response (REPAIR) Act,
sponsored by Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Jim Saxton. The bill
encourages partnerships among the FWS, other federal agencies, states,
and other interests to protect habitat within the Refuge System from
invasive species and establish immediate response capability to combat
incipient invasions. This legislation is needed to improve the Refuge
System's ability to address the primary threat to refuge habitat.
New Issues Facing the Refuge System: Climate Change and Borderland
Conflicts
Climate Change
Climate change is the greatest threat imperiling the National
Wildlife Refuge System as a whole. The effects of global warming are
already being seen on sensitive refuge habitats in Alaska and on
hurricane-ravaged refuges along the Gulf Coast. Future threats from
climate change, such as sea level rise, decreased water availability,
rising sea temperatures, and ocean acidification, gravely jeopardize
the ability of refuges to meet their conservation mission in the coming
decades.
More than 160 refuges sit in coastal areas sensitive to rising sea
levels. Based on varying models of greenhouse gas emissions, scientific
estimates range from 4 inches to 3 feet of expected sea level rise over
the next century, with a mean estimated rise of 20 inches. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that nationwide a two-foot
rise in sea level could eliminate 17 to 43 percent of wetlands in the
United States. Refuges such as Alligator River NWR in North Carolina,
Blackwater NWR in Maryland, as well as various southeast and southwest
Louisiana national wildlife refuges, are among the federal resources
most vulnerable to sea level rise.
Climate change impacts are potentially devastating in Hawaii,
particularly for coral reefs protected by refuges such as Hawaiian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge, due to rising sea temperatures and
ocean acidification that could cause widespread coral bleaching.
Despite the potentially devastating impacts to refuge resources,
over the past ten years the Service has not made climate change a
priority, and the agency's strategic plan does not specifically address
climate change. Comprehensive Conservation Plans for individual refuge
units include climate change considerations only sporadically.
A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that
resource managers in the federal land management agencies have limited
guidance about whether and how to address climate change and lack
specific guidance for incorporating climate change into management
actions and planning efforts. The GAO also found that resource managers
tend to focus on near-term, required activities, leaving less time for
addressing longer-term issues such as climate change. Resource managers
told GAO that their agencies need an overall mandate and a coordinated
approach to address the issue, and that it will take very strong
direction from high-level officials to get agencies to address the
effects of climate change. It also bears mentioning that the
Administration has only recently made it clear that refuge staff can
talk about climate change openly.
Audubon applauds the recent action by the Committee on Natural
Resources to pass H.R. 2337, a comprehensive energy and global warming
bill sponsored by Chairman Nick Rahall. This legislation includes the
language of the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, sponsored by
Congressman Norm Dicks, Congressman Jay Inslee, and Congressman Jim
Saxton, which creates a comprehensive framework for a coordinated
national approach to address the impacts of climate change on wildlife.
The Survival Act will ensure that federal agencies, including the
Department of the Interior, develop and implement plans to reduce the
impact of global warming on wildlife and habitat. The bill was
subsequently included in the multi-committee New Direction for Energy
Independence Act (HR 3221) passed by the House.
Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to
provide more affirmative direction to refuge managers regarding their
duty to include climate change in Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Borderland Conflicts
Nearly one-quarter of the 1,950 mile U.S.-Mexico border lies within
public lands, including valuable wildlife habitat within the Refuge
System. Borderland conflicts have become the primary threat to refuge
resources for several refuges along the border including Lower Rio
Grande Valley, Cabeza Prieta, and Buenos Aires.
Illegal border crossings, enforcement activities along the border,
and the double-layer, reinforced wall authorized by the recently
enacted Secure Fence Act all threaten to destroy or fragment many miles
of refuge habitat, restrict access to refuges for tens of thousands of
visitors, and block access to the Rio Grande River for wildlife. In
short, the border wall gravely threatens the ecological integrity,
biological diversity, and environmental health of refuges that is
safeguarded by the Improvement Act.
Although the Improvement Act may provide support through the
appropriate use and compatible use policies, more support is needed for
refuges facing border conflicts.
Audubon recommends that the committee pass H.R. 2593, the
Borderlands Conservation and Security Act, sponsored by Congressman
Raul Grijalva, which would help alleviate the devastating impacts of
illegal immigration and border enforcement activities on public lands,
wildlife, and borderland communities, while providing the Department of
Homeland Security with the flexibility it needs to effectively secure
the borders. H.R. 2593 would require DHS to follow all laws intended to
protect water, air, wildlife, and the health and safety of the people
living in borderland communities
Conclusion
Ten years after passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, implementation of several key requirements is grossly
inadequate. To answer the question posed by the title of this hearing,
the promise has not been fulfilled.
The strength of the Improvement Act is the clear mission that it
gives to the Refuge System to protect wildlife first, and the clear
priority it gives to wildlife-oriented uses over incompatible and
inappropriate uses that harm refuge resources. However, in implementing
the Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to
implement key provisions, including a mandate to direct strategic
growth of the system to ``conserve the ecosystems of the United
States'' and another to maintain adequate water quantity and water
quality to fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each
refuge. The refuge funding crisis, in the form of a crippling $3.75
billion backlog of unmet operations and maintenance needs, has slowed
conservation planning, limited even the most basic monitoring of refuge
resources, and severely limited the system's response to the highest
priority threat to habitat, invasive species.
The Refuge System is the world's premiere network of lands for
wildlife conservation, and holds the potential to be a cornerstone of
ecosystem protection in America. Our wildlife refuges deserve much,
much better. The American people deserve to have the promise made to
them kept, the promise to protect this unique heritage and national
treasure for future generations.
Audubon, and the other organizations that have endorsed this
testimony, have made several recommendations for committee actions
including new oversight and legislative actions. I urge you to give
these recommendations your full consideration, to ensure the era of
under-appreciation, rampant unaddressed threats, and unrealized
potential for our wildlife refuges truly comes to an end.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Carol Browner,
National Audubon Society
Questions from Mr. Kind (D-WI)
1. Ms. Browner, you mention in your testimony that the current
strategic growth policy for the Refuge System includes neither
strategy nor growth. In particular, you are concerned that the
Service's current ``inholdings only'' acquisition policy is
shortsighted and may threaten the long-term ecological
integrity of the Refuge System, especially in the face of
climate change.
What are the main shortcomings of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's strategic growth policy for the refuges and what
should be done about it?
The major shortcoming is that there is no strategic growth policy.
The Service has considered one internally but never finalized it. In
the meantime, the refuges have operated under an informal policy that
prioritizes in holdings over all other new land acquisitions. As a
result, the de-facto strategic growth policy does not consider refuge
expansions or establishment of new refuges.
The current approach to Strategic Growth within the Refuge System
contradicts the Improvement Act, which says very clearly that the
Service should plan and direct growth in a way that best accomplishes
the conservation mission of the System and contributes to the
conservation of the ecosystems of the United States.
The Service should continue to develop a partnership with USGS
regarding the use of a strategic, science-based process for developing
habitat conservation priorities. This process is long overdue and will
be extremely helpful to the Service as they work to improve their
implementation of the strategic growth directives in the Improvement
Act and also as they respond to climate change.
A formal policy on strategic growth that reflects and implements
the Improvement Act also is long overdue. The Committee should consider
encouraging the Service to promulgate such a policy.
Have you and other colleagues in the conservation community
developed ideas on landscape principles that should guide that
planning process? Does the Improvement Act need to be amended
to provide more specific guidance?
The process under development with USGS to arrive at habitat
conservation priorities appears to be a sound one. The system begins
with assessments of species life histories and habitat requirements,
then assesses the needed habitat areas and identifies appropriate
places for land acquisition and habitat restoration. A science-based,
collaborative process for developing habitat priorities is needed, and
the new system that is under development holds the potential to meet
that need.
However, the System still lacks clear, well-coordinated policies to
guide future growth. There are no official priorities to guide the
establishment of new refuges or expand existing ones, and no official
policies for considering the implications of such growth for the
operations and maintenance backlog. The Service's Land Acquisition
Priority System (LAPS) ranks approved projects based on biological
value, but projects are not ranked by LAPS until approved by the
Service Director, and not all acquisitions go through LAPS.
At this time, Audubon recommends that the Committee focus on
developing policies that implement the clear directives of the
Improvement Act, rather than amending the Improvement Act. The
Improvement Act has clear mandates on strategic growth and we believe
there is great potential to move forward in a positive direction if a
strong policy can be put in place.
In regard to climate change, what are the highest planning
priorities to ensure the long-term ecological integrity,
biological diversity and environmental health of the Refuge
System?
Any new Strategic Growth policy for the Refuge System must reflect
the overwhelming importance of planning for climate change. Landscape
scale adaptation strategies for the Refuge System should include:
establishing and maintaining wildlife corridors; acquiring new refuges
that are resistant to climate change effects and may provide more
stable habitat for wildlife (e.g., they have lower probability of
drastic change due to resistant vegetation types, resilient species,
and other factors); eliminating barriers to dispersal of wildlife
beyond refuge borders; improving the compatibility of neighboring lands
through establishment of buffer zones, acquisitions, and other
strategies; instituting an active ecosystem restoration program to
repair wetlands damaged from sea level rise and other habitat impacts;
improving water conservation in communities surrounding refuges; and
installing levees, dikes, and other structures to defend refuge
habitats from sea level rise, storms, and other threats.
2. Ms. Browner, you state in your testimony that the $3 billion
funding backlog facing the Refuge System is crippling
implementation of the Improvement Act.
What do you think is the most important impact of the lack of
funding on implementation of the Act?
The funding crisis is a pair of handcuffs on every refuge manager
in the country. In particular, the lack of attention to the invasive
species problem is disturbing. As I mentioned in my testimony, last
year the Refuge System had a $9 million budget to address the problem
nationwide, and this is a $360 million problem. Invasive species are
broadly considered by refuge managers to be the number one threat to
the resources they manage, and yet, with the backlog crippling their
response, they have few resources with which to fight this threat.
3. Judging from your statement, it would appear that the policies
developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to make
compatibility determinations have worked well and have ensured
that proposed uses are both compatible and appropriate with the
``wildlife first'' mission of the Refuge System?
Is there anything to be gained by prohibiting outright
certain activities at refuges or is it best left as a case-by-
case determination?
I think you raise an important question that deserves serious
follow-up, certainly with a GAO request regarding incompatible uses and
FWS authorities, and perhaps also with a hearing or series of hearings.
As I mentioned in the testimony, Audubon would like to see a new
request made for the GAO to assess incompatible activities in the
Refuge System, defining the role of the Improvement Act in eliminating
incompatible and inappropriate uses and determining whether additional
authorities are needed. This request could set the stage for future
hearings or oversight on this matter.
As a general rule, we believe it is appropriate for each refuge to
assess the compatibility and appropriateness of uses based on local
conditions and considerations. However, it may prove useful to the
Service to receive legal direction from the Congress regarding uses
that are generally inappropriate and harmful and therefore should be
banned. This may include certain non-wildlife-oriented recreational
uses or commercial uses of refuges. Again, a GAO study would be useful
in assessing the value of such an approach.
4. When discussing the tardy schedule for the completion of
comprehensive conservation plans, or CCPs, you note that it is
important for the Service not to sacrifice quality in order to
try and meet the statutory deadline.
In general, is the conservation community satisfied with the
CCPs that have been completed to date? Are they solid
documents?
I will not speak for the entire conservation community, but the
CCPs reviewed by Audubon staff have been solid documents, with two
notable exceptions: many of the documents do not adequately reflect the
priorities of the biological integrity policy, and many do not
adequately address climate change.
The problem is that many of the refuges with the most complicated
planning issues have been put off until the end of the planning
process, leaving little time to complete them. Larger refuges with
complex planning issues sometimes take as long as eight years to
complete their CCPs, but many refuge managers have expressed that these
CCPs are among the most valuable for changing their strategic direction
to comply with the Improvement Act.
I recommended in my testimony that the Committee request a thorough
GAO study of the CCPs. The study should assess the extent to which the
CCPs reflect the Improvement Act requirements and should make
recommendations for improving the plans so that they are consistent
with principles of ecosystem management and so that they include
strategies to cope with climate change. I hope the Committee will move
forward with that recommendation.
5. Thank you for voicing the support of Audubon and other respected
conservation organizations for my legislation, H.R. 767, the
Refuge Ecology Protection and Immediate Response Act, or REPAIR
Act. I share you view that our failure to address invasive
species creates not only greater operating costs, but also
diminishes quality opportunities for wildlife-based recreation.
Our failure to address this threat would also seem to violate
the policies in the Improvement Act requiring the Service to
protect the ecological integrity and biological diversity of
refuges. Do you agree?
Yes. The Improvement Act clearly directs the Secretary of the
Interior to ensure that the ``biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health'' of the System is maintained. The Service's
policy implementing this directive clearly emphasizes that refuge
managers should manage toward ``historic conditions'' that are
reflective of healthy ecosystem components, processes, and functioning.
Invasive species rapidly drive ecosystems away from historic
conditions, eliminate biodiversity, and compromise ecosystem
functioning. Invasive plants, for example, often replace naturally
functioning, biodiverse wetland systems with dense mats of invasive
plants in a monoculture. Preventing invasions by nonnative species is
one of the clearest ways the Fish and Wildlife Service could implement
the Improvement Act mandate to protect ecological integrity.
Questions from Mr. Young (R-AK)
1. Please provide the Subcommittee with a complete list of the 2,376
what you call in your testimony ``destructive uses of wildlife
refuges''?
The 2,376 threats to the refuges I referenced in the testimony were
identified from data gathered in 2002 by the Fish and Wildlife Service
in an effort to create a nationwide Threats and Conflicts database for
the National Wildlife Refuge System (United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report, October 1, 2004, pp
4).
It is my understanding that this database does not lend itself to
descriptive summaries, nor can I provide a comprehensive list such as
the one you requested. I would refer the Committee to the Fish and
Wildlife Service for that information.
______
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Ms. Browner. I have already spoken to
Mr. Young and he is in agreement. But to accommodate your
schedule, we will go with questions here and then allow you to
take off.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you for your testimony and for your service
to our Nation as well and for your insight on these issues.
You mentioned a few proposals; increased oversight,
invasive species, dealing with that adequately; any borderland
conflicts that might exist. Help us try to prioritize a little
bit. There is just a swamp of issues and challenges that we are
facing within the refuge. Have you had a chance to look at this
and kind of delineate where the priorities or focus need to be?
Ms. Browner. I think I would have to agree with Mr.
Babbitt: Money. If we could find some more resources, I think
that could be very, very helpful. I mean, I trust that the
personnel and the Department is doing what they can with the
resources they have. But certainly, and Mr. Young and Mr.
Babbitt discussed some ideas; it doesn't seem unreasonable to
me, and I speak here personally, that duck stamps, which I
don't think the price has changed in a long time, could be
increased. I think they are $15 now. Something like $30.
Whenever I used to set an environmental standard at EPA and
someone would say, well, what is it going to cost a family? And
then you try and figure it out. And you then you would compare
it to, well, that is less than going to the movies with your
family. That is less than having pizza or a coke on Friday
night with your family. And so the idea that we could charge a
little more and see those resources brought to bear I think is
well worth consideration.
Mr. Kind. We were talking about the funding issue, too,
with Mr. Babbitt. And we do have legislation pending that was
started by Mark Kennedy and Mike Thompson in the last session
that is carried over to actually increase the fees for the duck
stamp. But, again, my concern is we are only talking about a
very small percentage of the universe of users going into the
Refuge System. And now in your position heading up the Audubon
Society, and there are many members who constantly go in and
enjoy the use of the Refuge System, do you have a sense within
your own membership of what they would be supportive of in
regard to new funding sources? That is one of the issues that I
had raised, and I actually had conversations with, I think, Mr.
Hall, with you and maybe some others, was the concept of a new
refuge stamp.
But I don't want to do something that is going to cut into
the uniqueness or value of the duck stamp at the same time. But
something that I think bird watchers could also participate and
start their own collection and purchase those if they knew that
the funding was going to be dedicated for this very purpose.
Ms. Browner. I think from Audubon's perspective, we would
be open to a conversation on that. It is a balance. You don't
want to discourage people from taking advantage of the
resource, and so you want to be mindful of sort of what their
economics are. On the other hand, these are people who care
passionately about their morning bird walks and the opportunity
to do that in these places.
So we have found that when you can make a case to our
membership about the benefits that will be derived from some
sort of increased fee, they can be supportive of it. And
finally, I have to say, I like your idea of something they can
collect. Most birders have a life list. These are people who
like to collect things and keep track of what is going on, and
I think they could find it very attractive. But we would be
happy, the Audubon staff, to work with you all and think about
what our membership, which is quite large and is all across the
United States, what they would be willing to support.
Mr. Kind. I certainly think it might be wise for us to
start conducting some surveys or some polls out there with a
variety of groups, and I would like to work with Mr. Young on
this, just to get some feedback from the general public of what
they would find acceptable and willing to participate in as far
as new revenue sources. And we might even throw in a question
as far as offshore drilling is concerned, too.
Ms. Browner. There, I would have to put on my Florida hat.
We have a particular feeling about that in my home State.
Mr. Kind. Exactly.
Getting back to the strategic growth policy for the Refuge
System that the Service is in charge of now as far as
implementation of the Act. Do you see any shortcomings as far
as the implementation, things that can be done better?
Ms. Browner. I think it is important for any of these type
efforts to sort of keep pace with the science and to keep pace
with the times. So I think your comments about climate change
are particularly relevant. As the system thinks about what has
to happen today to protect the system and to meet the
commitment and the mission of the system to preserve wildlife
and wildlife habitat, we are going to have to bring in the
climate change issue. Because you could think of everything
that has already been on the books and do a splendid job, only
to discover 10, 15, 25 years from now it didn't mean a lot.
Mr. Kind. I think you are right. And I think this is where
it gets particularly complicated or cumbersome, when you talk
about climate change, is that when original refuges were
established with certain habitat that supported certain species
or wildlife, maybe undergoing great transformation and change
may not support it now because of global warming and climate
change. And what is this going to do to the boundaries of these
refuges? Where it may have made sense 50 years ago, but may not
make sense in the next 50 years.
Ms. Browner. I think you are exactly right. I know of your
particular interest in invasive species. Climate change is
going to do probably very little to help us solve the invasive
species problem. In fact, it is probably going to make in most
areas of the problem even more acute. So as we start to think
about in the short term the invasive species issues, we just
need to be mindful of what is coming at us down the road.
Mr. Kind. Thank you.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would like to
get on H.R. 2735, it will be very helpful. This is a bill that
raises money. And also, I don't think just duck stamps are the
solution to the problem, because the duck hunter is the one
that created the fund to purchase the land. And I believe you
may have 6 million in the Audubon Society, they ought to pay.
Anybody who uses any refuge land ought to pay if they want to
keep the refuge. And anybody that doesn't want to pay, they are
being outright selfish. Anybody who watches birds has got as
much money as the duck hunters have. That is just a little
comment.
But I have one request, Ms. Browner. In your testimony you
made a statement of, would you provide for me a complete list
of the 2,376 what you call destructive uses of the wildlife
refuges?
Ms. Browner. We would be happy to.
Mr. Young. Good. Because I have talked to my refuge people
themselves, and they don't know what you are talking about. So
I would like to find out what it is.
Ms. Browner. Certainly.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Ms. Browner. I appreciate it. Thank
you again for your testimony and for your time here today.
Next, we will hear from Director Hall. Thank you, sir, for
coming. And it has been a delight to be able to work with you
on a variety of issues, and we look forward to your testimony.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you
again. And Chairman Young, good to see you as well.
I would like to thank you for having this hearing, but
mostly I would like to start off thanking all of you for the
Act. Many of you were really involved in this years ago, and
Members of Congress really helped us get this sort of
legislation. But we did it with friends as well. Members of the
administration, members of the nongovernment organizations, et
cetera. And on behalf of everyone in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, I would just like to say thank you.
You know, starting from our great president, Theodore
Roosevelt, when he created Pelican Island in 1903, to where we
are today with 548 National Wildlife Refuges encompassing over
96 million acres of land that perform a myriad of services to
Fish and Wildlife and to nature, as well as over 280 endangered
and threatened species, the system is a really good system. It
is really important and it is unique in the world, and I think
that we need to recognize that. I believe you do. But we need
to keep reminding ourselves that nowhere else in the world is
there anything like the National Wildlife Refuge System.
But the Act helped us to understand that it is a system. It
is not 548 independent entities, but one system trying to have
a system of lands and waters that help with the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources.
The Act envisions a collaborative approach, and I believe
that we have tried to do that with over 250 friends groups and
38,000 volunteers every year working with our friends in the
States and in the nongovernment organizations as well as other
Federal agencies. And it also understood the importance of
water. Carol Browner just mentioned water, and I will tell you
that I believe that water is the issue of the 21st century for
everyone, not just Fish and Wildlife resources. But if we don't
understand that Fish and Wildlife resources need a place at the
table where water is being discussed, they won't have one and
they will be the losers.
With our State agency partners, we have involved the public
in CCPs. And in working together, State agencies are co-
managers of Fish and Wildlife Resources in every State, and
they have been tremendous partners. And I am sure you are going
to hear from John Frampton in a few minutes on that.
We have developed new policies in compliance with the Act,
missions and goals of purposes, comprehensive conservation
planning, appropriate uses, wildlife dependent recreation,
habitat management planning and biological diversity integrity
and environmental health are completed now, and we are
continuing to work on the remaining policies that are left to
be done. And what these policies do is provide a refuge manager
with a consistent approach, whether you are in Chesapeake Bay
or San Francisco Bay. And I think that is what we are after, is
consistency in a true system of lands and waters. We have
completed 254 CCPs, and we are well underway in completing, and
I believe we will complete, all CCPs by the 2012 deadline.
As the Refuge System, though, has grown, so have the
challenges. Climate change is real. It is something that is
affecting our refuges already, and it is something that we need
to step up the pace in feeding the considerations into CCPs as
we move forward. Invasive species. A decade ago when this law
was being passed, I doubt that avian influenza was even on
anybody's mind as something that could affect the health of a
refuge, but we have West Nile Virus, purple loosestrife, and a
myriad of other invasive species that we need to work with. And
climate change, again, may help speed that along and create a
harder problem for us to deal with if we are not ready for it.
Population growth has been on everyone's mind, but for the
National Wildlife Refuge System in particular along the
southwest border it is a real issue, where illegal immigration
is coming across the border and on our National Wildlife
Refuges in one year we apprehended 100,000 people. That is
apprehension. That is not the total number that went across;
that is the number we caught. And the trashing of the
environment that is taking place is something we have to
address. And a lot of this is in designated wilderness area.
The last thing I will say about future challenges is our
own children. We have too many children that sit in front of
the computers and play Game Boys and use iPods and believe that
real nature is watching the Animal Channel, and we need to get
them outside. We need to connect them with nature. And we
believe that the National Wildlife Refuge System is a premier
place to do that.
The way that we look at strategic growth in the Service, we
have developed a tool that we call strategic habitat
conservation. It builds on the principles of ecological
planning, management, and development, and it looks at the
objectives we want to achieve, a design to achieve those
objectives, then the implementation of those objectives, and
then the monitoring and evaluation to see if we met those
objectives and if we were correct, and make the adjustments. It
is a very formal form of adaptive management, but it is an
excellent tool using structured decision making as well to help
us decide where the right places are. We are very good at
creating wetlands and creating habitats. We are not very good
at saying where and how much. And that is what strategic
habitat conservation is going to try and help us do.
We need to look at the entire Refuge System in the broader
context of the landscape, especially in the lower 48. A refuge
is not an island. It fits into the landscape ecology with State
managed lands and with private lands. And if we are going to
take care of the resources and fulfill the promise for the
future, we need to leave more than just what is in public
ownership. We are going to have to work with the private
landowners who are very ready and willing but just need some
incentives and need some help. And I believe that is just as
important to the Refuge System as trying to understand what we
need to do on our own lands, because we can't be hypocrites and
say we won't do it but we want you to do it. So I think that we
all need to be on the same page on what a landscape needs.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments and I
look forward to the questions. And thank you very much for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Director Hall. Thank you and also Mr.
Haskett for your service and stewardship of our refuges in this
country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Statement of H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am H. Dale
Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I am
here today to discuss implementation of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act (Improvement Act), which became law ten years
ago today. The tenth anniversary of this historic and visionary
conservation law provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the
progress we have made in the stewardship of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) and the challenges that remain before us.
It is important to reflect on the history of America's National
Wildlife Refuge System in order to fully understand why there was such
a need for the Improvement Act, how this new law improved
administration of the Refuge System, and what the remaining challenges
are as we continue to work together to realize the full potential of
the greatest system of lands in the world dedicated to wildlife
conservation.
The Early Years
Our great conservationist President Theodore Roosevelt established
the first national wildlife refuge by Executive Order on March 14,
1903, setting aside Pelican Island as a preserve and breeding ground
for native birds.
Although Yellowstone had been established in 1872 as a national
park, and the first national forest reservation was made in Wyoming in
1891, Roosevelt's action in setting aside Pelican Island was a new kind
of conservation undertaking. Pelican Island was small--only five
acres--and was set aside as an inviolate sanctuary for birds. It was
not protected for human use and enjoyment, nor for timber or other
natural resource production. Pelican Island was home to bird species
threatened by market shooters seeking plumes for women's fashion,
reducing populations of many bird species to alarming levels. In
protecting the small area of Pelican Island, Roosevelt recognized that
a small refuge for wildlife could have benefits far beyond its
boundaries by serving as a safe haven for nesting and feeding.
President Roosevelt went on to establish 53 other refuges, from Key
West, Florida's mangrove islands and sand flats to Flattery Rocks along
the Washington Coast, where 150,000 pelagic birds nest and migrating
birds sometimes swell the population to over one million. He included
the Pribilof Islands in Alaska in 1909. Roosevelt established our
nation's first waterfowl refuge, Lower Klamath, in 1908.
As an avid hunter, Roosevelt also ensured that the early Refuge
System provide habitat and management for big game animals that had
been depleted on public lands. From an estimated 60 million bison, no
more than a thousand could be found on the Great Plains in 1900. Elk
populations had also been greatly depleted across the country. Wichita
Mountains in Oklahoma, originally established as a forest reserve in
1901, became a refuge in 1905. Work began there to restore bison, elk,
and turkey. The National Bison Range followed in 1909, and the National
Elk Refuge was established in 1914.
By the end of the fledgling system's first decade, many of the
foundations of today's Refuge System were in place. The early Refuge
System already included:
Inviolate sanctuaries for nesting birds,
Waterfowl refuges;
Refuges for ``threatened'' species;
Big game ranges withdrawn from the public domain; and
The first large refuge in Alaska.
A major milestone that occurred around this time was the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which was first enacted to implement the 1916
convention between the United States and Great Britain for the
protection of birds migrating between the U.S. and Canada. This law
offered much-needed protection to many bird species during a time when
commercial trade in birds and their feathers was popular. The Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929 followed and established the Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission to approve land acquisitions from the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the National Wildlife Refuge
System that are considered important to waterfowl. Since its inception,
the commission has approved more than 5.2 million acres of land
acquisitions.
The ``Dust Bowl'' Years
In 1929, there were 82 refuges and plans were being made to
increase the number to 100-125. These plans were disrupted when the
nation plunged into economic depression and was devastated by a
gripping drought that turned much of the land into a ``dust bowl.''
Drought conditions severely impacted waterfowl populations and
threatened other wildlife. Fortunately, the wildlife profession was
beginning to emerge in concert with new scientific approaches to
managing and restoring land for wildlife. Three individuals stand out
in American history at this time: J. N. ``Ding'' Darling, Ira
Gabrielson, and J. Clark Salyer. In addition, Aldo Leopold published
Game Management (1933), the first textbook on wildlife management. With
their leadership, a cadre of wildlife professionals and citizens began
to advance the cause of wildlife conservation in unprecedented ways.
Ding Darling, ``the man who saved ducks,'' was Chief of the Bureau
of Biological Survey in 1934 and 1935. Three million acres of land were
set aside as wildlife refuges during his tenure. When the Migratory
Bird Hunting Stamp Act passed in 1934, he designed the first stamp,
which then sold for one dollar toward the purchase of refuges. Today,
the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has raised some $500 million for more
than five million acres of our best waterfowl habitat in the Refuge
System. At the end of the 1930's, there were 266 national wildlife
refuges protecting 13.5 million acres of habitat.
Ira Gabrielson, Darling's successor at the Bureau of Biological
Survey and the first Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, known
during his time as ``Mr. Conservation,'' ranks as one of the most noted
conservationists of the 20th century. He exerted great influence at a
critical time in American history, when evolving wildlife management
practices and policies were being merged into our society and
government. Among his many accomplishments, he was particularly proud
of the expanding National Wildlife Refuge system, establishment of the
Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration and Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit programs, creation of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge, and
organization of an impartial, highly successful wildlife law
enforcement team. He assisted in planning the first North American
Wildlife Conference, called by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.
His wildlife philosophies are reflected in three major books written in
the comparatively early years of the current conservation era:
``Wildlife Conservation'' (1941), ``Wildlife Refuges'' (1943), and
``Wildlife Management'' (1951).
Finally, J. Clark Salyer was recruited by J.N. ``Ding'' Darling in
June 1934 to oversee the management of national wildlife refuges in the
Biological Survey's fledgling refuge program. Salyer was directed by
Darling to develop a waterfowl management program using the
conservation principles of wildlife management espoused by Aldo
Leopold. Such a program, based on habitat needs of migratory bird
species, had never before been attempted on a national scale. Shortly
after coming to work for the Biological Survey in 1934, the government
issued him a car to travel around the country visiting refuges. Salyer
had a fear of flying, so this vehicle provided him with the means to
visit refuges in far-flung locations. For his efforts as head of the
Division of Wildlife Refuges, Salyer has become known as the ``Father
of the National Wildlife Refuge System.'' Under his direction, the
system rose in area from 1.5 million acres in the mid-1930's to nearly
29 million acres upon his retirement in 1961. He was the principle
architect of President Franklin Roosevelt's duck restoration program of
1934-36.
Continuing Growth
As the next decade unfolded, the nation's attention turned to war.
The Department of the Interior turned its headquarters building over to
the War Department and the Service relocated to the Merchandise Mart in
Chicago, Illinois. Even during these trying times, the Refuge System
continued to grow. Kenai and Kodiak Refuges in Alaska were added in
1941, protecting their giant moose and brown bear populations. When
Florida's Chassahowitzka Refuge was added in 1943, no one could have
imagined that one day it would be the winter habitat for endangered
whooping cranes, which today migrate ` Refuge in Wisconsin.
During the 1950s, 24 new refuges were added, including Loxahatchee
in Florida. This great refuge secured the northern most part of the
remaining Everglades and today it is a cornerstone in broader efforts
to restore the Everglades ecosystem.
One of our successful wildlife and wetland protection programs is
the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program, which began in 1958 with an
amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.
This program added a new dimension to the Refuge System: Waterfowl
Production Areas (WPAs). WPAs are tracts of land that are generally
smaller than refuges, and are acquired in Wetland Management Districts,
primarily in the prairie pothole region in North and South Dakota,
Minnesota, and Montana, but with other acquisitions occurring in
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. Today, in addition to the
WPAs, wetland easements are taken on lands to prevent draining,
burning, or filling of these lands. Nearly 700,000 acres have been
acquired in fee title, and about 2.5 million acres of wetland and
grassland easements have been purchased to date.
In the late 1950s, the Service's Alaska Regional Director Clarence
Rhode advocated adding to the Refuge System an entire watershed in a
new refuge at Izembek, and a vast landscape as an Arctic Wildlife
Range. Both areas were established as refuges in the closing days of
the Eisenhower Administration in 1960. These two refuges added over
nine million acres to the refuge system, essentially overnight. Across
the country in New Jersey, local citizens were fighting hard to keep
the Great Swamp from being drained and filled to build a jet port for
New York City. Their treasure became a national wildlife refuge in 1960
and the site of the first Wilderness area in the Refuge System in 1968.
The Modern Conservation Era
The 1960s and the 1970s saw the enactment of many new laws aimed at
protecting the nation's environment and conserving natural resources.
In 1966, Congress enacted Public Law 89-669, which included the
Endangered Species Preservation Act. It authorized the Service to
develop a list of imperiled species, fund studies, and acquire refuge
lands using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under this authority
we added more than 50 national wildlife refuges. In addition, Section 4
and 5 of that 1966 law included the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, the precursor of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act.
In December 1980, more than 53 million acres were added to the
Refuge System with the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), tripling the size of the refuge system.
Today, sixteen refuges in Alaska protect 77 million acres of pristine
habitat or roughly 80 percent of the total acreage in the Refuge
System. Additionally, 18.7 million acres of refuge lands in Alaska are
designated as Wilderness, roughly 90 percent of all wilderness lands in
the system. The Alaska refuges also offer some of the best hunting and
fishing in the world. ANILCA is also significant because it laid the
ground work for important parts of the Refuge Improvement Act by
identifying priority purposes and called for all Alaska refuges to
develop comprehensive conservation plans.
As the American population has grown, it has become increasingly
important to protect wildlife in proximity to where people live.
Refuges near urban areas, like Minnesota Valley in Minneapolis, San
Francisco Bay, Tinicum in Philadelphia, Rocky Mountain Arsenal in
Denver, and Bayou Sauvage in New Orleans provide city inhabitants and
their children with an opportunity to experience and discover wildlife
in close proximity to where they live.
The 1985 Farm Bill conservation programs gave genesis to the
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. These conservation
programs encouraged refuge managers to work with partners in the
context of the greater surrounding ecosystem.
By 1991, the Refuge System had experienced extraordinarily growth
from the five acre Pelican Island in 1903 to 472 units and 90.4 million
acres. Beyond a single inviolate sanctuary for native birds, the Refuge
System had expanded to include:
A network of migratory bird habitats encompassing
nesting, migration, and wintering habitats;
A growing number of refuges dedicated to the recovery of
endangered species;
Big game ranges dedicated to a wide variety of large game
mammals;
Sixteen large refuges in Alaska; and
A variety of unique ecosystems--barrier islands,
bottomland hardwood forests, coral reefs--all protecting America's
wildlife heritage
Becoming a ``System''
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
provided guidelines and directives for administration and management of
all areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System, which it defined as
including, ``wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and
conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction,
wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl
production areas.'' Under the 1966 law, the Secretary is authorized to
permit by regulation the use of any area within the system provided
``such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas
were established.''
The 1966 law defined what the Refuge System was, but lacked the
findings, purposes and other clarifying language that are usually found
in organic legislation. Most importantly, it did not provide effective
guidance as to how the Refuge System was to be administered as a
system. A wide variety of reviews, reports and lawsuits highlighted
that the Refuge System was not being managed effectively as a system.
The most damning evidence came from the General Accounting Office in a
1989 report entitled, ``Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call
for Bold Action''. The report found that 59% of refuges had harmful
uses occurring on their land.
Since GAO did not reference most of the ``harmful'' uses to
specific refuges, and since that term had no legal or regulatory
meaning, the Service conducted its own detailed, refuge-by-refuge
survey in an effort to find, understand and correct these problems. We
found that there were relatively few uses that violated the
compatibility standard, and that many of the ``harmful uses'' cited by
managers were the result of lack of authority, retained private rights,
or were situations such the presence of debris or contaminants that
were not actually ``uses'' of the refuge. While schedules were
instituted to terminate the incompatible uses, the underlying findings
of this survey further illustrated that existing regulations were not
being consistently understood or interpreted, and that refuges were not
being managed as a system.
Around this time, efforts to enact organic legislation for the
Refuge System were initiated by conservation organizations. The Service
opposed this effort. At the time, concepts like refuge planning were
believed to be an unnecessary burden for the agency. In addition, the
Service was not entirely comfortable with the level of public
involvement and partnership that is today recognized as required for
effective conservation. Largely because of disagreement within the
conservation community about what was needed to ``fix'' the Refuge
System, organic legislation could not get any traction in Congress.
In 1990, the Service began the process of writing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) that would guide the administration of the
System. The draft EIS, entitled Refuges 2003, was never finalized.
Absent clear Congressional guidance, the myriad of possible future
directions for the Refuge System simply left too many options,
complexities, and opinions for any consensus to be reached. While there
were many questions about the future of the Refuge System, one central
question needed an answer before any progress could be made: What was
the role of wildlife dependent uses, including hunting and fishing, in
the Refuge System?
In 1996, Executive Order 12996 recognized wildlife dependent uses
such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation as the priority public uses
of the Refuge System. The Executive Order recognized both the
importance of hunters and anglers to conservation and the growing
importance of others who enjoy watching wildlife in wild places, while
also making clear that all uses on refuges must first be compatible
with the Refuge System's primary mission: wildlife conservation.
The Executive Order showed that compromise was possible, and what
was needed was bipartisan leadership from Congress, the Executive
Branch, and the conservation community. Former Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt, Congressional sponsors Don Young of Alaska and
John Dingell of Michigan, and leaders of key sportsmen's and
environmental organizations joined forces to draft legislation to
address the varying concerns and interests on management and public use
of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Other Congressmen who were
instrumental in building overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill
were George Miller from California, John Tanner of Tennessee, Jim
Saxton from New Jersey, and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. In the Senate,
Senators John Chafee from Rhode Island, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, Bob
Graham from Florida, and Max Baucus from Montana provided the essential
leadership that pushed the legislation through Congress.
All of these conservation leaders, plus a number of hard working,
innovative staff working behind the scenes, stayed dedicated to finding
a consensus for the future of the Refuge System. On October 9, 1997,
they succeeded, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
was signed into law. The Improvement Act provides guidance to the
Secretary of the Interior for the overall management of the Refuge
System. The Improvement Act's primary components include:
A strong and singular Refuge System mission for the
conservation, management and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans;
A requirement that the Secretary maintain the biological
integrity, diversity and environmental health of the Refuge System;
A requirement to plan and direct the continued growth of
the Refuge System to best accomplish the mission of the System and
contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States,
while complementing the efforts of States and other partners;
A new process for determining compatible uses of refuges;
A recognition that wildlife-dependent recreational uses
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be
compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge
System;
That these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System;
A requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation
plans (CCPs);
A direction to ensure effective coordination and
cooperation with adjacent land owners, State fish and wildlife
agencies, and other Federal agencies; and,
A responsibility to maintain adequate water quantity and
water quality and acquire water rights that are needed.
Many of the Improvement Act's provisions were new and remain
innovative in public lands law. The Service has worked hard with our
State fish and wildlife agency partners to involve the public in
developing policies to guide the implementation of the Improvement Act.
We have met the Improvement Act's requirements to develop implementing
regulations on determining compatible uses. We have developed new
policies on: the mission, goals, and purposes of the Refuge System;
comprehensive conservation planning; appropriate refuge uses; wildlife
dependent recreation; habitat management planning; and, the biological
diversity, integrity, and environmental health of refuges. These
policies are providing refuge managers with the consistent guidance
needed to implement the Improvement Act and further the process of
becoming a true system of lands that are managed in a consistent and
coordinated manner. The Service has completed 254 CCPs and is well on
its way to completing the required plans for all refuges by the 2012
statutory deadline.
The Refuge System has embraced partnerships with all who share a
concern for the future of America's wildlife. Today, our over 38,000
volunteers and 250 Refuge Friends groups are essential contributors to
every aspect of refuge management. Twenty-two diverse national
conservation organizations have formed the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE), and they have worked together for a decade
to provide support for the System.
Finally, as the Refuge System has evolved it has provided
increasing opportunity to link with other protected area systems in the
marine environment as called for in the President's Ocean Action Plan.
A good example is the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National
Monument established by President Bush on June 15, 2006, under the
authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Hawaiian Islands National
Wildlife Refuge and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge are within
this new monument. Also included in the monument are the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, administered by National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Sanctuary Program, and the State of Hawaii's Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands State Marine Refuge and Kure Atoll Wildlife Sanctuary.
Emerging Issues and Unseen Challenges
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is the most
modern organic Act of any of the Federal land management agencies. It
is forward looking and visionary in many respects. For example, its
requirement to maintain biological diversity, integrity, and
environmental health reflect a modern understanding of ecological
principles. The Improvement Act envisions a collaborative approach to
conservation, where partnerships with others are an essential
ingredient in conservation success. It requires public involvement in
conservation planning and compatibility determinations and recognized
the growing critical importance of water quality and quantity in
wildlife conservation.
Recognizing water issues were perhaps the harbinger of an issue not
well understood a decade ago: the effect of climate change on wildlife
and their habitat. The Service is working hard to evaluate how climate
change will affect the way refuges are managed as part of broader
efforts to consider how climate change will affect wildlife
conservation. Refuges will play important roles in monitoring wildlife,
adapting management to changing conditions, restoring habitat that will
sequester carbon, and reducing our own carbon footprint. We are just
beginning our efforts to deal with what will likely be the largest
conservation challenge of the century.
The threat of invasive species was known a decade ago, yet it seems
the problem grows more complex every day. We are making progress
addressing invasive species on refuges, but not as quickly as is
needed. The problem takes on an added dimension when we consider
infectious diseases like West Nile virus, and their impact on wildlife
populations. Avian influenza was not an issue that demanded attention
ten years ago.
Population growth and its effect on habitat were predictable a
decade ago, but several aspects of that change have presented new
challenges. Illegal immigration along the Southwest border has caused
severe damage to border refuges and has taxed our law enforcement
capabilities. At many refuges throughout the System, we see areas that
were once rural being encroached upon by more and more development.
This is changing the nature of refuge law enforcement by bringing more
urban crimes to refuges, from methamphetamine labs to assaults on
refuge officers. These pressures from beyond our boundaries also bring
environmental challenges as some refuges become isolated islands in a
sea of development.
The growth in population, changing demographics, and the
accelerating dominance of technology in everyday life is also changing
they way people interact with wildlife. As our population increases by
roughly 10% for each of the next five decades, achieving the System's
mission will become more and more difficult. Census estimates indicate
demographic subsets of our population will be growing at rates of up to
more than 300%. To achieve our mission in the near future we need to
start looking now at how to adapt the system to best benefit future
generations, and especially these rapidly growing subsets. Hunters and
anglers have always been a cornerstone of America conservation, but
they represent a smaller percentage of the population every year. The
latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation indicates that over the past decade that hunting has
decreased by 10% and fishing has decreased by 15%. Wildlife watching,
however, has increased by 13%. The Refuge System will have to change
with the times to ensure it remains true to its mission to conserve
fish, wildlife, and plant resources for present and future generations.
Today, more children are living in urban areas and do not have the same
outdoor experiences that were common with past generations. While the
Refuge System continues to provide great hunting and fishing
opportunities, the Service must recognize that digital cameras, iPods,
and virtual geo-caching are tools that we can use to connect children
with nature. Environmental education and interpretation are priority
public uses of the Refuge System, and they need more emphasis now and
in the future.
Strategic Habitat Conservation
Since passage of the Improvement Act, the Refuge System has met
with both great accomplishments and increasing challenges. Tried and
true concepts, like providing wildlife with the essentials of food,
water, and cover, have been augmented with enhanced understanding of
ecological processes. The Service has adopted a visionary framework for
strategic habitat conservation that will guide our land management and
conservation efforts in the future.
Strategic habitat conservation begins with biological planning that
identifies measurable, landscape level, outcome goals. With these goals
in mind, staff designs conservation activities and programs. With
respect to the Refuge System, this means that the Service must look at
refuge lands in relation to a broader network of protected areas and
other conservation efforts on private land. In other words, we must
take a landscape-level approach. We must use principles of conservation
biology and protected area design, incorporating ecological
considerations such as: are refuges large enough to accomplish their
purpose, are they connected with other protected areas and is there
enough redundancy in the System to assure wildlife sustainability as
conditions change?
The Service has long been a leader and preeminent practitioner of
land management for wildlife. We can intensively manage land when
needed, or use a light hand where appropriate. We have a proven track
record in restoring degraded habitats, using fire to reduce fuel build
ups and improve wildlife habitat, managing water levels to insure
productive wetlands meet the needs of wildlife, and a wide variety of
other habitat management practices.
Our strategic habitat conservation framework will require effective
inventory and monitoring, so that we can continue to adapt and improve
our management practices. These monitoring efforts on national wildlife
refuges are evolving to meet the challenges. Our new biological
monitoring team is working on multiple refuges in several regions to
experiment with new protocols that will evaluate the effectiveness of
our management strategies and allow us to adapt our practices to meet
changing future conditions. Finally, strategic habitat conservation
must be informed by continuing research to ensure that we apply the
best science available, and that is the foundation of all our work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for holding this oversight
hearing and for your interest in the future of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The challenges of our changing world will require the
Refuge System and the Service to be innovative and adaptive.
Our roots are in the past, today's challenges are new and vexing,
and we all have some trepidation about an uncertain future. However,
change is constant and managing it is always a challenge. What we need
is the same open, honest, bipartisan collaboration that we all found
when we worked together to craft the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. If we can continue with that type of leadership, we
will be successful in meeting the challenges of the years ahead.
Madame Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you
or other Members of the Subcommittee might have.
______
Mr. Kind. Next, we are going to turn to Evan Hirsche,
Executive Director of National Wildlife Refuge Association.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF EVAN HIRSCHE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hirsche. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the committee today. On behalf of the Refuge
Association and our membership comprised of current and former
refuge professionals, more than 140 Refuge Friends affiliate
organizations and thousands of refuge supporters around the
United States, we really do appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the Refuge Improvement Act. And I also wanted to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on the caucus. I think
this is one of the most tremendous events that we have
witnessed for refuges, in support of refuges recently, and it
is growing and it is an exciting movement that we are pleased
to help support.
The Refuge Association strongly supports the Refuge
Improvement Act and the intent of its authors to ensure the
Refuge System is prepared to address conservation challenges in
a consistent and comprehensive matter. Nevertheless, we are
alarmed both by the lack of adequate funding to achieve even
the most minimal guidance in the Act and the failure to
implement key provisions by the secretary.
Mr. Chairman, today we face perhaps the greatest challenges
ever to the conservation of wildlife in America. Urban and
suburban encroachment, invasive species, the rush to develop
energy on public and private conservation areas, competition
for water, and a public that is increasingly removed from the
natural world all represent enormous challenges as we seek to
protect the diversity of habitats and wildlife that make up
America's unique natural heritage.
Added to these immediate threats is, of course, climate
change, as we have discussed, which is projected to require a
change in the way we think about sustaining species and
managing habitat.
In sum, the Refuge Improvement Act is an elegant and
comprehensive tool with which to manage or respond to all these
threats, including climate change. And we commend the authors
for such a prescient piece of legislation. With the Act, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is provided a clear set of management
priorities that go beyond simply managing lands and waters
within refuge boundaries. Instead, it makes it clear the
Secretary of Interior has an obligation seek comprehensive
conservation strategies with private land owners, the States,
and other Federal land holders, in effect, looking beyond
refuge boundaries. This, all in an effort to secure the
biological integrity of refuges and achieve the mission and
purposes of each refuge in the system.
Along those lines, the value of integrating objectives in
the refuge comprehensive conservation plans, which, of course,
are mandated under the Improvement Act and State wildlife
action plans can't be overstated, specifically as we are
looking to conserve ecosystems, which we understand to be more
and more important. Yet, while these mandates are complete and
surprisingly prescient and provide a valuable tool for refuge
professionals, particularly in the areas of compatibility and
appropriate use, a fundamental obstacle remains, and that is
funding. And I won't beat a dead horse here, but I think it is
pretty clear that the Refuge System is in a state of crisis,
and we need to figure out how refuges are going to be funded at
a level that is going to allow them to achieve the guidance
under the Refuge Improvement Act.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the cooperative lines for refuge
enhancement has recommended $765 million in annual operations
and maintenance funding as a minimum to get refuges on steady
ground. We are grateful to the House for approving the record
$451 million for Fiscal Year 2008, and we are certainly
appreciative of the members of the Subcommittee for supporting
that number. But let me put a fine tooth on the crisis and talk
about a few specific examples.
Now, the Act requires refuges to be managed in a way that
ensures their biological integrity. Yet, you look at the
Potomac River Refuges just across the street. They are having a
refuge week event on Saturday; I hope everyone will choose to
attend. It is always a great event. But there, there are no
wildlife surveys being conducted, no active habitat management.
And the refuge manager, in his word, is hoping for the best for
the eagles, herons, and hundreds of birds species that utilize
the three refuge complex. Hoping for the best isn't what the
architects of the Refuge Improvement Act had intended. In fact,
about half refuges in the system have no refuge biologists at
all.
The Act also mandates providing increased opportunities for
wildlife dependent recreation. But if we go to Minnesota and
the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, an urban refuge
adjacent to the Mall of America in the Twin Cities, I am sure
you are familiar with, funding shortfalls have limited their
ability to reach out to tens of thousands of inner city school
children, and as a result, they have witnessed a 13 percent
drop in environmental education programs over the past year.
Given the loss of vital refuge buffer habitat and
corridors, there is an urgent need for both acquisition and
cooperative agreements with private landowners. The State
Wildlife Action Plans, I think, make it clear that there is an
enormous need here. In fact, the Act requires that the
Secretary plan and direct the continued growth of the system in
a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of the
system and contribute to the conservation of ecosystems in the
United States.
Mr. Chairman, no question this is a big mandate. But in our
view, a whole lot more needs to be done to achieve that
mandate. And, for instance, at the Department of Interior,
internal decisions to centralize the real estate appraisal
system has made the process so cumbersome that we have learned
from some partners that they have lost acquisition prospects
from willing sellers because of the bureaucratic red tape. That
is just an example.
Looking at a stunning report by the GAO just released in
September, they did an exhaustive study of the Prairie Pothole
Region which provides breeding grounds for more than 60 percent
of our Nation's migratory bird species. It found, at the
current rate of acquisition, it will take the Service 150 years
to acquire the recommended 12 million additional acres. And
that is not just acquiring. We are talking about agreements,
easements with private landowners, and willing sellers, of
course.
Now, the Act also says the Secretary shall acquire, under
State law, water rights that are needed for refuge purposes. We
agree with Secretary Browner, and of course Former
Administrator and Secretary Babbitt that that is a real need.
And what we found is that in many instances, the Service simply
hasn't acquired the rights which are vital to achieving their
mission. And, in fact, because of staffing shortages, water
needs of refuges, particularly in the East, are unknown. In the
words of one refuge professional, we are ``looking at a slow
motion car crash as portions of refuges are drying up and they
don't know why.''
In the face of this, Mr. Chairman, we ask the committee to
commission an independent evaluation of what is needed in terms
of funding and actions by the Secretary to comply with the
Refuge Improvement Act.
Refuges are the cornerstone of conservation in America. If
we are going to protect our Nations wildlife heritage for the
benefit of future generations, then funding and political
capital must be allocated to successfully carry out the
Improvement Act of 1997.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsche follows:]
Statement of Evan Hirsche, President,
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Evan Hirsche, President of the National Wildlife Refuge
Association (NWRA). On behalf of the NWRA and its membership comprised
of current and former refuge professionals, more than 140 refuge
Friends organization affiliates and thousands of refuge supporters
throughout the United States, thank you for the opportunity to offer
comments about the implementation of the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act.
The NWRA strongly supports the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and
the intent of its authors to ensure that the Refuge System is prepared
to address conservation challenges in a consistent and comprehensive
manner. Nevertheless, we are alarmed both by the lack of adequate
funding to achieve even the most minimal guidance in the Act, and the
failure by the Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to implement key provisions.
Background
In 1997 Congress sought to resolve ongoing challenges facing
refuges that stemmed from a lack of comprehensive organic legislation
that would provide overarching and consistent guidance for refuge
management. Indeed, leading up to passage of the Act it could be said
that the Refuge System was really not managed as a system, but instead
as set of disparate lands and waters with differing purposes and
priorities. By requiring that refuges adhere--to the extent
practicable--to both their establishing purposes and an overarching
Refuge System mission, a necessary level of consistency was
established. While there remain management inconsistencies from one FWS
region to the next, we are certainly better off today from a management
perspective than prior to the Act.
The Act also established valuable mandates and guidance, including:
A clear standard for determining the compatibility of
proposed and existing public and commercial uses;
A requirement that the long-term integrity of refuges and
the System be achieved through the strategic conservation of lands and
waters, including securing adequate quantities of clean water, the
lifeblood of refuges;
A requirement that the Refuge System ought to conserve a
diversity of species and ensure the biological integrity of refuges;
Establishment of the ``big six'' priority public uses as
a way of clarifying for refuge management and the public that other
uses are considered secondary in developing and implementing management
strategies;
A requirement that refuge managers coordinate closely
with private landowners and states in conserving wildlife;
A mandate to monitor wildlife populations in an effort to
better understand the habitat needs of wildlife; and
The requirement that all non-Alaskan refuges complete a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) within 15 years of enactment.
In the following pages we will discuss how refuge management has
benefited from the Act, specifically with respect to compatibility and
appropriate use determinations and Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
And we will discuss how funding shortfalls are limiting implementation
of the Act and how a failure to implement portions of this statute will
have long term ramifications for the future.
How the Act has worked--Compatibility and Appropriate Use
The Act itself has proven to be a valuable tool when it comes to
establishing the compatibility and appropriateness of public and
commercial uses on refuges. It gives refuge managers the ability to
make a decision regarding actions or policies that have occurred on a
refuge in the past, or are proposed to occur on a refuge in the future
and deem them compatible or incompatible with the purpose of the refuge
or the mission of the System, according to the manager's ``sound
professional judgment.''
An excellent recent example of how the Act has worked in this
regard stems from a legal challenge to a Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) completed by Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) in Northeastern Washington. In August 2007, the Refuge
Improvement Act was upheld in a strong decision regarding the
determination within the CCP that livestock grazing for economic
interests was incompatible with the refuge's mission. The final CCP
concluded that the practice of granting grazing permits to ranchers was
not a compatible use of the refuge. Because the permittees had grazed
their cattle on the land for several decades, the refuge gave them five
years to find alternative lands. When the time was up, the permittees
filed a lawsuit arguing that the CCP process violated the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Refuge Improvement Act.
The plaintiffs argued that when the FWS made this decision, they
did not use ``sound professional judgment'' as outlined in the Refuge
Improvement Act when they determined that livestock grazing was largely
incompatible with refuge purposes. In the court's decision, dated
August 20, 2007, Judge Edward Shea clearly agreed that the FWS complied
with all aspects of the Refuge Improvement Act and that the manager had
indeed, used sound professional judgment.
Yet another strong example of how the compatibility standard has
successfully thwarted harmful uses occurred at Sabine NWR in Louisiana.
In this case, commercial alligator egg harvesters sought access to the
refuge. Refuge managers argued that under the act commercial uses must
contribute to the mission of the System, and that approving such a
harvest would violate the law. Despite strong political pressure to
allow the activity, refuge managers, backed by the regional office,
were able to use the act to shield them from what they viewed as a
harmful activity.
Because the law is only ten years old, there is little case law
interpreting its provisions, most notably the compatibility standard.
Yet these decisions send a strong signal to refuge managers nationwide
that they are on powerful legal grounds when making compatibility
determinations.
Much can also be said for the Appropriate Use policy that stems
from the Act. In some cases, there are proposed activities are clearly
not compatible with a refuge's purpose and mission. In those cases, the
Improvement Act allows that a manager to make a quick decision without
having to conduct a compatibility determination. For instance, recently
the refuge manager at the Minnesota Valley NWR was asked by a local
minister to conduct Sunday services at the refuge's Visitors Center.
Because of this policy, the manger was able to make a quick
determination that this action would not further the goals or mission
of the refuge and deemed in an inappropriate use.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans
One of the most far-reaching mandates in the Refuge Improvement Act
was the call for the preparation a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
every refuge within 15 years of the date of enactment. To date, more
than 250 plans have been completed. This planning exercise identifies
and defines the purposes for each refuge and gives a clear and concise
plan as to how the refuge will be managed based on sound science and
public input and review. Prior to the passage of the Improvement Act
few refuges had plans on how they would manage their refuge. The few
that did--fewer than 10%--created ``Master Plans'' that sought to
establish a clear set of refuge objectives. However, because they were
not bound by law to be followed by future managers, the succeeding
refuge manager could reverse the decision and create their own master
plan without consulting with the public or indeed other land managers.
The Improvement Act does indeed allow for a plan to be changed or
updated as needed, but it states that the ``Secretary shall manage the
refuge or planning unit in a manner consistent with the plans and shall
revise the plan at any time if the Secretary determines that conditions
that affect the refuge or planning unit have changed significantly.''
The Act does not give a manager the latitude to alter the plan on a
whim.
The outline regarding how a CCP should be developed and what it
should include is in itself a monumental piece of guidance. The Act
clearly lays out what each refuge must have in its final plan including
identifying and describing the following: the purposes of each refuge;
the distribution, migration patterns and abundance of fish, wildlife
and plant populations; the archaeological and cultural values; the
significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and
habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to
correct or mitigate such problems; and the opportunities for compatible
wildlife ``dependent recreational uses. This outline ensures all CCPs
contain the same information creating system-wide consistency in
planning.
A particularly valuable aspect of this process calls requires
proactively reaching out to the public. Specifically, ``the Secretary
shall develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for
active public involvement in the preparation and revision of
comprehensive conservation plans.'' While the purpose of this language
is to ensure adjacent landowners and the general public is allowed an
opportunity to comment on CCPs, it has an added benefit of simply
connecting refuges to their communities and providing an opportunity to
articulate to the public the value of these special places. These
public forums give the opportunity for refuge managers to explain not
only the mission and purpose of their individual refuge, but to talk
about the much broader conservation picture of the entire National
Wildlife Refuge System and how this system fits into the nation's land
management complex.
In some cases, these public forums are contentious and refuge
managers face a difficult time explaining why certain uses are not
compatible or able to continue on a refuge. For example, the CCP
process at the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish Refuge
represented an enormous challenge in terms of addressing the needs of
countless interests. Refuge Project Leader Don Hultman and his team
began outreach in 2002. Four years, 46 public meetings, 80 government
get-togethers, one possible lawsuit and 800 pages later, the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge CCP is complete.
And while not everyone who uses this vast 261-mile refuge, where 3.7
million people recreate annually, is happy with the result, everyone
who wanted to voice their opinion was given the opportunity to do so,
and the Act has been upheld. This is a far cry from an agency that
could make decisions largely in a vacuum prior to the passage of the
Improvement Act. In fact, the Act clearly stipulates that at a minimum,
``the Secretary shall require that publication of any final plan shall
include a summary of the comments made by States, owners of adjacent or
potentially affected land, local governments, and any other affected
persons, and a statement of the disposition of concerns expressed in
those comments.''
The Act also calls for the Director to ``coordinate the development
of the conservation plan or revision with relevant State conservation
plans for fish and wildlife and their habitats.'' Prior to 1997, there
was some coordination between refuge managers and state agencies on
management decisions; however, this was the exception, not the rule.
Now, refuge mangers routinely consult with state wildlife agencies
regarding management decisions, especially with the passage of the
State Wildlife Action Plans in October of 2005. CCPs and these state
plans are the basis for future management of the majority of America's
wildlife heritage.
Funding Shortfalls Undermine Implementation
Without question, the Refuge Improvement Act has provided
innumerable benefits to the Refuge System. Yet, without adequate
funding to implement the sweeping mandates, the Act in our view is
being seriously undermined and many key provisions are not being
implemented as a result.
Specifically, it is impossible to expect that the ``biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are
maintained,'' when many refuges go unstaffed, an alarming number go
without a biologist, and the FWS is effectively projecting a 20%
decline in staffing under current funding projections. The reality is
that human beings are what make conservation possible on refuges and
without them, and in the face of myriad threats such as climate change,
refuges simply can't achieve their mission and purposes. A look at the
recently released workforce management plans by each FWS region gives a
glimpse of what biological programs are being lost simply because there
are no funds available to maintain them.
The threat of climate change means that every refuge in the nation
should have at the least a wildlife biologist who can scientifically
monitor trends and help establish adaptive regimes to ensure the long-
term conservation of species. In essence, we have 548 natural
laboratories where inventory and monitoring could actually yield
quantifiable data in helping manage Refuge System resources.
Yet, at the Wallkill NWR in New Jersey, an intern who is assisted
by volunteers--namely the President of the Friends group and her 11-
year-old daughter--does the only biological work on the refuge. While
we are humbled by the commitment of volunteers at refuges, who
currently contribute 20% of the System's workload, it's absurd to
expect them to carry the water for refuges.
Funding for the System did see gradual increases leading up to the
Centennial of the system in 2003 ($391 million in FY2004) but since
then has been flat or declining. In fact, the System needs at minimum
an increase of $16 million annually just to keep pace with the rising
costs of operations. To return to the levels appropriated in FY04, and
give refuge managers a chance to actually implement some of the
mandates in the Improvement Act, funding for FY08 would have to be $451
million--the amount passed in the FY08 House Interior Appropriations
bill. To fully fund the System and allow managers the ability to
actually implement all or most the mandates in the Act, the System
would need at least $765 million annually by estimates developed by the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. Given the scope of what
was mandated in the Act under Section 5, the Administration of the
System, the FWS is simply unable to comply with many important
requirements.
Failure to Connect to People
The current funding crisis further exacerbates the FWS' ability to
provide ``increased opportunities for families to experience compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation'' [Section (5)(a)(4)(K)] and
opportunities to educate children and families about our natural world.
At a time when people are becoming more urbanized and removed from
natural ecosystems, the ability to give people meaningful experiences
in nature must be made a higher priority. One of the most important
ways FWS reaches out to families and local communities is through a
dedicated Visitors Services staffer. Presently, these positions
currently only account for about 5% of the overall workforce.
Refuges are local, within an hour's drive of every major
metropolitan city. And because they are local, communities identify
themselves with their refuge. Support groups, or Friends, exist at
approximately 250 refuges nationwide and with the support of FWS, are
conducting Environmental Education programs and outreach to local
communities, fulfilling yet another mandate of the Improvement Act.
However, with staffing slashed at most refuges and some going
completely unstaffed, the ability for FWS or even Friends to reach out
to their community has diminished and in some cases gone away entirely.
Failure to Act
Although funding shortfalls have limited the ability of the FWS to
fully implement the Act, there has also been a failure on the part of
the Department of the Interior and FWS to implement other aspects of
the Refuge Improvement Act. Two of the most egregious examples relate
to the mandates that call for strategic growth of the System and
acquiring water rights.
Under Section 5, the Administration of the System, the Act states
that the Secretary shall, ``plan and direct the continued growth of the
System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of
the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the
United State, to complement efforts of States and other Federal
agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to
increase support for the System and participation from conservation
partners and the public.'' Since the passage of the Act, 39 refuges
have been added to the System, mostly directed by Congress. However,
vital habitats all over our nation, many within acquisition boundaries
of refuges, have been lost to developers and other buyers before FWS
has been able to acquire the land.
Several factors are to blame that do not rest solely on the FWS or
Secretary of Interior's shoulders, including opposition to approving
land acquisition dollars by previous Congressional leaders.
Nevertheless, the Administration has failed to request adequate funding
in recent years, and internal decisions to centralize the real estate
appraisal system at the Interior Department has made the process so
cumbersome, properties have been lost to bureaucratic red tape. This
issue in itself could be the subject of an oversight hearing.
And even though some could argue that the System has grown in
recent years, we are only scratching at the surface of opportunity in
terms of both purchasing lands from willing sellers and securing
conservation easements through successful programs like Partners for
Fish and Wildlife and the Duck Stamp. For instance, in September 2007,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report showing
that at the current pace of acquisitions, the FWS is unlikely to meet
it's habitat protection goals for migratory birds. The GAO did an
exhaustive study of the 64-million acre Prairie Pothole Region which
provides breeding grounds for over 60% of migratory bird species in the
United States. To sustain bird populations in the region, the FWS has a
goal to protect an additional 12 million acres of ``high priority''
habitat--at risk lands which could support a high number of breeding
duck pairs per square mile. At the current rate of acquisition, it will
take the Service 150 years to acquire this additional 12 million acres.
Adding to the challenge, the FWS's private lands programs, which
are critical to the health of the System in terms of conserving
important habitats beyond refuge boundaries, are managed by different
divisions depending on the region. The National Wildlife Refuge
Association (NWRA) launched its ``Beyond the Boundaries'' initiative in
2005 having realized that most refuges outside Alaska face encroachment
and loss of vital habitat on private lands proximate to refuges that
jeopardize their conservation values. In order to secure the biological
integrity of refuges, resources must be made available to work closely
with private land-owners, the states and other federal agencies as we
seek to conserve migratory wildlife and diverse habitat types.
The Act also states the Secretary shall, ``acquire, under State
law, water rights that are needed for refuge purposes.'' Unfortunately,
in many instances the Service has not acquired these rights, which are
vital to the mission of most National Wildlife Refuges. In fact,
because of staffing shortages, water needs at many refuges,
particularly in the East are unknown. In the words of one refuge
professional, we are looking at a ``slow motion car crash'' as portions
of refuges are drying up and they don't know why.
At Desert NWR, outside Las Vegas, NV, the refuge and its springs
are dependent upon the aquifer that lies beneath the ground that is
being siphoned of to support the rapidly growing city. A small water
monitoring structure is all that exists to tell the Service if outside
influences are sucking the aquifer dry. Unfortunately, scientists
predict that by the time effects are measured, it will be impossible to
reverse them in time to save the biota those springs have been
supporting for about the last 3 million years.
Conclusion
The National Wildlife Refuge Association strongly supports the
Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and the intent of its authors to ensure
that the Refuge System is prepared to address conservation challenges
in a consistent and comprehensive manner. Nevertheless, as outlined in
our testimony we are alarmed both by the lack of adequate funding to
achieve even the most minimal guidance in the Act, and the failure by
the Secretary of the Interior to implement key provisions.
Accordingly, we ask this Committee to commission an independent
evaluation of what is needed in terms of funding to comply with the
Refuge Improvement Act. By the estimates of the Cooperative Alliance
for Refuge Enhancement, based on information from the FWS, the National
Wildlife Refuge System needs at minimum $765 annually to operate at
full capacity. However, even this number may be too small. Refuges are
a cornerstone of conservation in America; if we are to protect our
nation's wildlife heritage, funding must be allocated to successfully
carry out Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
______
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Hirsche. Thank you for your
testimony, insight, and your leadership on this issue.
Next, we are going to turn to John Frampton, Director of
South Carolina DNR. And we are delighted we were able to find a
spot in the panel for States' perspective. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF JOHN FRAMPTON, DIRECTOR,
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Frampton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to share perspectives of the Association on the implementation
of the Improvement Act. I am John Frampton, Director of the
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and also
Chairman of the Executive Committee Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. As you know, Mr. Chairman, all 50 States are
members of the Association.
In short, we conclude that, yes, the promise of the Act is
well on the way to being fulfilled. The Act has truly met its
goals as organic legislation for the Refuge System, directing
the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the system to ensure
the sustainability of fish and wildlife and, where compatible,
appropriately allow for the use and enjoyment of those
resources by our citizens.
While funding inadequacies constrain meeting the full
potential of the Act, the Services' commitment to its statutory
obligations under the Act remain solid and unwavering. The
State Fish and Wildlife agencies sincerely appreciate the
Services' engagement of our agencies in all aspects of the
implementing the Act.
The Association and the 50 individual State fish and
wildlife agencies have a longstanding interest and involvement
in the Refuge System and its contribution to fish, wildlife and
habitat conservation. We were instrumental in deliberations
leading to the passage of the Act and in assisting in the
drafting of the implementing policies.
Hunting, fishing, and other wildlife dependent recreational
uses on National wildlife refuges are deeply valued by hunters,
anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts because of the tremendous
opportunities refuges provide, especially in areas where public
lands are limited such as in South Carolina.
As an example of the success on the ground, the Department
and the Service have enjoyed a longstanding and successful
relationship in managing wildlife resources and providing
compatible wildlife dependent recreational programs that cross
both State and Federal properties. This relationship began
evolving decades ago, when both agencies realized that the
management of wildlife resources needed to be addressed at an
ecosystem level.
An even stronger partnership developed in 1989 with the
initiation of the ACE Basin Project, a cooperative habitat
conservation project involving public, private, and corporate
partners. This partnership quickly led to the establishment of
the new National Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina, the ACE
Basin. With the passage of the Improvement Act, the Department
and the Service have worked cooperatively with nonprofit
organizations in that project area to protect over 170,000
acres of coastal habitat through fee simple acquisition and
donated conservation easements. And, as a result of the passage
of the Act, we have strengthened cooperative agreements that
allowed for equipment exchange and staff assistance on State
and Federal properties. We now coordinate many hunt schedules,
particularly those that involve the mobility impaired and our
youth.
Department staff is actively participating in the
development of the CCPs for all eight refuges in South
Carolina, and we are extremely excited about the opportunity to
partner with the Service on implementation of these plans to
produce on-the-ground habitat improvements and enhance public
recreation. We believe that by working cooperatively, sharing
our resources and our talents, we can accomplish what no single
entity could even envision. And it seems evident that the Fish
and Wildlife Service has taken to heart Congress's direction
regarding cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies in
implementing the Act. The Service has comprehensively engaged
State fish and wildlife agencies in the development and review
of regulations implementing the Act.
While the State agencies and Service have not always agreed
on certain implementing policies, we have been able to arrive
at consensus in a vast majority of circumstances. This benefits
not only fish, wildlife, and habitat resources supported by the
refuges, but also the public that we all strife to serve.
Let me reflect just a bit on the development of the CCPs.
As we advocated during the legislative drafting and as the law
reflects, the Service should take maximum advantage of State
developed plans and strategies for species and habitats
throughout the development of the CCPs. The utility of this
approach is even more evident with the recent completion by
every State fish and wildlife agency of the State and wildlife
action plan for species in need of conservation, and the
initiation of the National Fish Habitat initiative. In addition
to these strategies, the States have all developed statewide
goals, plans, and objectives for many additional species and
for wildlife dependent recreational opportunities.
Continued close and meaningful cooperation between the
Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies will ensure
that the development of a CCP is the most thorough, efficient
and effective way. With respect to the system maintenance and
growth, in light of budget shortfalls, cooperation with State
fish and wildlife agencies can help budget shortfalls, but
States need to be engaged at the early stage. A collective
discussion between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State
agency can reflect on what respective agencies have what
capability and resources to continue effective administration
of the individual refuge to meet both its mission and its
contribution to the conservation objectives of the State fish
and wildlife agency.
Mr. Chairman, in South Carolina, we value our partnership
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service very highly, and we
believe that we have accomplished a tremendous amount of
success through that cooperative partnership and we look
forward to that in the future as do all the States that are
members of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency. Thank
you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Frampton, for your testimony
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frampton follows:]
Statement of John Frampton, Director,
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the
perspectives of the 50 State Fish and Wildlife agencies on the
implementation of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 (NWRSIA or Improvement Act). I am John Frampton, Director of
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and Chair of the
Executive Committee of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
As you know, all 50 states are members of the Association.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we conclude that, yes, the promise of the
Act has significantly been fulfilled. The Act has truly met its goals
as organic legislation for the National Wildlife Refuge System,
directing the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the System to ensure
the sustainability of fish and wildlife, and where compatible,
appropriately allow for the use and enjoyment of those resources by our
citizens. While funding inadequacies constrain meeting the full
potential of the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commitment to
its statutory obligations under the Act remains solid and unwavering.
The State Fish and Wildlife agencies sincerely appreciate the Services'
engagement of our agencies in all aspects of implementing the Act and
are committed to working with the Service to identify the role of the
System in addressing new challenges such as climate change.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies promotes and
facilitates sound fish and wildlife management and conservation, and is
the collective voice of North America's fish and wildlife agencies. The
Association provides its member agencies and their senior staff with
coordination services that range from migratory birds, fish, habitat,
and invasive species, to conservation education, leadership
development, and international relations. The Association represents
its state fish and wildlife agency members on Capitol Hill and before
the Administration on key conservation and management policies, and
works to ensure that all fish and wildlife entities work
collaboratively on the most important issues. The Association also
provides management and technical assistance to both new and current
fish and wildlife leaders.
The Association and the 50 individual State fish and wildlife
agencies have a long-standing interest and involvement in the National
Wildlife Refuge System, and its contribution to fish, wildlife and
habitat conservation. We were instrumental in deliberations leading to
the passage of the Improvement Act and in assisting in the drafting of
its implementing policies. Hunting, fishing and other wildlife
dependent recreational uses on National Wildlife Refuges are deeply
valued by hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts because of the
tremendous opportunities refuges provide, especially in areas where
public lands are limited. As you are aware, the sale of duck stamps,
purchased by sportsmen and sportswomen, has historically provided the
bulk of the funding for acquisition of refuges across the nation.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Refuge System has
a long history of important contributions to the conservation of our
nation's fish and wildlife. The Refuge System has grown enormously over
the past century and, today, our National Wildlife Refuges support some
of the best fish and wildlife habitats in the country, as well as
outstanding hunting and fishing opportunities. Refuges are important to
local communities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Through the
Improvement Act, Congress recognized that these recreational activities
promote effective refuge management and help the American public
develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Association and
State fish and wildlife agencies are strongly committed to working
cooperatively with the Service on managing the Refuge System.
In my state, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR) and the USFWS have enjoyed a long-standing and successful
relationship in managing wildlife resources and providing compatible
wildlife dependent recreational programs that cross both state and
federal properties. This relationship began evolving decades ago when
both agencies realized that the management of wildlife resources needed
to be addressed at an ecosystem level. An even stronger partnership
developed in 1989 with the initiation of the ACE Basin Focus Area
Project, a cooperative habitat conservation project involving public,
private and corporate partners. This partnership quickly led to the
establishment of a new wildlife refuge in the ACE Basin Focus Area and
is known today as the Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife
Refuge. With the passage of the Improvement Act, SCDNR and the USFWS
have worked cooperatively with nonprofit organizations in the Focus
Area to protect over 170,000 acres of coastal habitat through fee
simple acquisition and donated conservation easements. And, as a result
of the passage of the Improvement Act, we have strengthened cooperative
agreements that allow for equipment exchange and staff assistance on
management activities. We now coordinate many hunt schedules to prevent
overlap of specialty hunts such as those conducted for the mobility
impaired. Staff with the SCDNR is actively participating in the
development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans for all eight
refuges in South Carolina and are extremely excited about the future
opportunities to partner with the USFWS on implementation of these
plans to produce on-the-ground habitat improvements and enhanced public
recreation. We believe that working cooperatively, sharing our
resources and talents, we can accomplish what no single entity could
even envision.
The Improvement Act, completed after years of bipartisan discussion
and deliberation, truly represents a benchmark in the history of the
Refuge System. It established a statutory mission of the Refuge System
to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish
and wildlife and their habitats. With the Improvement Act, Congress
reaffirmed that National Wildlife Refuges are for fish and wildlife
conservation first, clearly setting them apart from other federal
public lands. In addition, Congress directed the Service that
compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses are the priority
general public uses of the Refuge System and shall receive priority
consideration in refuge planning and management. No less important is
Congress' direction to the Service to effectively coordinate management
of fish and wildlife within the Refuge System with the states.
Mr. Chairman, the Improvement Act, and its legislative history, is
replete with explicit Congressional direction to the Secretary of the
Interior ( and thus the USFWS) regarding management of the System, its
mission, appropriate public use, and coordination with the State fish
and wildlife agencies.
The mission of the NWR System is articulated in law as:
``The mission of the System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans''.
The law goes on to further articulate that it is the policy of the
United States that:
(A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the
System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was
established;
(B) 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, and which
generally fosters refuge management and through which the American
public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife.
(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the
priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority
consideration in refuge planning and management; and
(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-
dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that
activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or
regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.''
The law defines ``wildlife dependent recreation'' and ``wildlife
dependent recreational use'' to mean ``...a use of a refuge involving
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or
environmental education and interpretation''. These activities have
become popularly known in the jargon as ``the big 6''. Clearly Congress
intended the Secretary to facilitate these ``big 6'' activities as long
as they were compatible. As the Committee Report (House Report 105-106)
further amplifies:
``The term `facilitated' was deliberately chosen to represent a
strong sense of encouragement, but not a requirement, that ways
be sought to permit wildlife-dependent uses to occur if they
are compatible. As Secretary Babbitt stated during the
negotiations leading to H.R. 1420: `The law will be whispering
in the manger's ear that she or he should look for ways to
permit the use if the compatibility requirement can be met.' By
the same token, however, the Committee recognizes that there
will be occasions when, based on sound professional judgment,
the manager will determine that such uses will be found to be
incompatible and cannot be authorized.''
And, with respect to the issue of budget shortfalls and facilitation of
the ``big 6'' uses, the Committee Report contemplated this circumstance
and provide this direction:
``New Section 5(3) defines the term ``sound professional
judgment'' as the collection of findings, determinations and
decisions that support compatibility determinations. Such
determinations are inherently complex and will require the
manager to consider principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and administration, available science and resources,
and compliance with applicable laws. Implicit within this
definition is that financial resources, personnel and
infrastructure be available to manage permitted activities. The
Committee expects the USFWS to be energetic and creative in
seeking such resources, including partnerships with the States,
local communities and private and nonprofit groups. The
Committee also expects the USFWS to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that lack of funding is not an obstacle to permitting
otherwise compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.''
The law further directs that the Secretary shall, in administering
the System, ``...ensure effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with ``. the fish and wildlife agency of the State in which
the units of the System are located.'' And, Congress further directed
that the Secretary, in preparing a comprehensive conservation plan for
each refuge, do so not only consistent with the NWRSIA, but--``to the
extent practicable, consistent with fish and wildlife conservation
plans of the state in which the refuge is located....'' Finally,
Congress exempted coordination with State Fish and Wildlife Agency
personnel pursuant to the NWRSIA from the application of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. We conclude that this is very clear statutory
direction that management of the System be done is close cooperation
with the state fish and wildlife agencies.
Finally, I would direct your attention to USFWS Directors Order No.
148 (issued Dec. 23, 2002 and extended until July 1, 2009 entitled
``Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency
Representatives on Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System''.
It says, in part:
``Sec. 4 What is the Services policy on coordination with the
States?
(a) Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their
habitats depends on the professional relationship between managers at
the State and Federal level. The Service acknowledges the unique
expertise and role of State fish and wildlife agencies in the
management of fish and wildlife.
(b) Both the Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies have
authorities and responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife on
national wildlife refuges as described in 43 CFR 24. Consistent with
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the Director of
the Service will interact, coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate with
the State fish and wildlife agencies in a timely and effective manner
on the acquisition and management of national wildlife refuges. Under
the Administration Act and 43 CFR 24, the Director as the Secretary's
designee will ensure that National Wildlife Refuge System regulations
and management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with
State laws, regulations, and management plans. We charge refuge
managers, as the designated representatives of the Director at the
local level, with carrying out these directives. We will provide State
fish and wildlife agencies timely and meaningful opportunities to
participate in the development and implementation of programs conducted
under this policy. This opportunity will most commonly occur through
State fish and wildlife agency representation on the comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) planning teams; however, we will provide other
opportunities for the State fish and wildlife agencies to participate
in the development and implementation of program changes that would be
made outside of the CCP process. Further, State fish and wildlife
agencies will continue to be provided opportunities to discuss and, if
necessary, elevate decisions within the hierarchy of the Service''.
It seems evident that the FWS has taken to heart Congress'
direction regarding this cooperation. The Service has comprehensively
engaged the State fish and wildlife agencies in the development and
review of regulations implementing the Improvement Act. While the state
fish and wildlife agencies and the Service have not always agreed on
certain implementing policy, we have been able to arrive at consensus
in the majority of circumstances. This benefits not only the fish,
wildlife and habitat resources supported by Refuges, but also the
public that we all serve.
Let me reflect a bit on the development of Comprehensive
Conservation Plans (CCPs) for the refuge lands in the System. As we
advocated during the legislative drafting, and as the law reflects, the
Service should take maximum advantage of state developed plans and
strategies for species and habitats to inform the development of CCPs.
The utility of this approach is even more evident with the recent
completion by every state fish and wildlife agency of its State
Wildlife Action plan for species in need of conservation; and the
initiation of Joint Partnerships under the National Fish Habitat
Initiative. In addition to these strategies, the states have all
developed state-wide goals, plans and objectives for many additional
species, and for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Refuges
under the NWR System can and do play integral roles in meeting state-
wide goals and objectives for species, habitats, and wildlife-dependent
recreational use opportunities. Continued close and meaningful
cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the respective
state fish and wildlife agency will ensure the development of a CCP in
the most thorough, efficient and effective way.
With respect to the System maintenance and growth in light of
budget shortfalls, cooperation with the State fish and wildlife
agencies can result in better ameliorating the results of budget
shortfalls, but states need to be engaged early by the Service. Both
the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and
responsibilities for managing fish and wildlife on NWRs. A collective
discussion between the FWS and the State fish and wildlife agency can
reflect on which respective agencies have what capability and resources
to continue effective administration of the individual refuge to meet
both its mission and its contribution to the conservation objectives of
the State fish and wildlife agency. State fish and wildlife agencies
likely will want to assist (or continue to assist) in administration of
certain programs as hunting and fishing but many will likely need some
provision of federal funding or at least a cost-sharing of some type.
Otherwise, this could become an unfunded mandate to the states.
Second, we are concerned that the Service's practice (in response
to budget shortfalls) of putting Refuges into ``preservation'' status
mean no public activities, including the ``big 6'' mandated by
Congress, will be allowed. There needs to be clear direction from the
USFWS Director that the provision of these 6 activities are priority
public uses and all other uses are secondary to them. Let me reiterate
again that we have no argument that the conservation mission of the
System is pre-eminent and that the FWS, in cooperation with the State
fish and wildlife agencies, is obligated to fulfill that mission. But,
it is eminently clear that the ``big 6'' are the priority public uses
and Congress has directed the Service to facilitate those uses.
You asked for our perspectives on the issue of climate change and
border security vis-a-vis the Refuge System. We believe that response
to climate change with respect to remediation of impacts to fish,
wildlife and their habitats, needs to be applied comprehensively at the
landscape level. The effects of climate change will obviously be
pervasive across the landscape, and so must the response be
comprehensive. The Refuge System, and all public lands, will be a key
aspect of our response through their utility as habitat reservoirs and
linkages, and should be incorporated into state adaptation strategies
that are just now being developed by several states. It is clear that
Congress will need to make significant additional funds available to
both federal and state natural resource and land management agencies to
respond to climate change.
With respect to border security, the Association strongly suggests
that funds be made available from the Department of Homeland Security
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support its role in national
security endeavors. While we acknowledge the role that Refuge staff can
play in interdicting illegal entry into the country, the USFWS cannot
and should not be burdened with the cost supporting that national
security task. Additionally, Congress should appropriate to the Fish
and Wildlife Service additional funds to protect the integrity of the
habitat in those border NWRs where physical security improvements may
affect those habitats.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and I would
be pleased to address any questions.
______
Mr. Kind. And finally, we turn to The Honorable William
Horn, general counsel of the United States Sportsmen's
Alliance. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HORN, GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is William Horn,
and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today both on behalf
of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, and as a former Interior
Department alum to discuss the landmark 1997 Refuge Improvement
Act. Passage of that Act was a high priority of the Alliance 10
years ago, and we have maintained a keen interest in the Act,
and of course, the Refuge System. I think, as all recognize,
that system is an incomparable array of wildlife habits that
provide unparalleled conservation benefits and opportunities
for public use, especially hunting and fishing. I would like to
briefly talk about where the 1997 Act came from. Mr. Young and
Mr. Babbitt made some references to it.
Controversy surrounded the system in the early 1990s.
Animal rights radicals were ratcheting up their campaigns,
political and legal, to exclude hunters and anglers from the
system. Another refuge lawsuit was just settled at that point
that threatened to impose additional obstacles to hunting and
other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. Funding for the
system was being curtailed, impacting both conservation
management as well as public access.
And, finally, earlier versions of refuge organic
legislation or bills had been introduced which would have made
it for difficult for the Service to maintain traditional
hunting and fishing opportunities on the system. And from the
perspective of the sporting and conservation community, that
was a pretty grim period.
In early 1995, our community approached the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus and the then new congressional leadership
about comprehensive refuge legislation that would fix these
problems, and the result was H.R. 1675 introduced in the 104th
Congress. And its primary sponsors were Mr. Young,
Representative John Dingell, and Representative Bill Brewster
then from Oklahoma. Now, the effort didn't succeed that
Congress, but carried over into the next year new legislation
was introduced, and as Secretary Babbitt indicated, concerted
good faith negotiations with Secretary Babbitt, and I would say
some of us thought he was the Darth Vader in the process rather
than me, yielded H.R. 1420 that was introduced and ultimately
passed and signed into law 10 years ago today.
Now, a critical feature of that Act is its expressed
recognition that hunting and fishing were and are important
legitimate activities on refuge units. In addition, once
determined to be compatible, the Service under the law is under
a clear statutory duty to facilitate those activities, not just
merely allow them. And these were designed to stop once and for
all repeated litigation by animal rights radicals seeking to
bar hunters and other users from the Refuge System.
Unfortunately, such litigation continues today under different
and new procedural guises.
The Sportsmen's Alliance considers the 1997 Act to be a
success. Its focus on wildlife conservation and management is
consistent with the principles articulated by President
Roosevelt when he created the system in 1903, and this focus
demonstrates that refuge are not mere sanctuaries to be set
aside and left alone but to be actively managed, and that has
resulted in hunters now having access to over 300 units of the
system.
In addition, the political unity forged during the 1995-
1997 period translated into renewed emphasis on the system and
increased funding for operations and maintenance, and these
beneficial trends peaked in 2003 coincident with the System's
centennial.
Unfortunately, there are a few skunks at the picnic. The
animal rights interests, unwilling to accept the clear policies
in the 1997 Act, have continued to mount legal challenges.
Three years ago, they sued to stop hunting on 36 refuge units,
arguing that the Fish and Wildlife Service was obligated to
prepare comprehensive environmental impact statements in
addition to the CCPs. The USSA and others joined the suit with
the Service, tried to argue that the CCPs and all the migratory
bird analysis that is done were all fully sufficient to cover
the bases.
Unfortunately, the court disagreed and has ordered the
Service to prepare DISs which it is now doing, wasting finite
dollars and wasting finite staff resources. And this is one
issue where we think Congress needs to redress the matter to
save the Service from all this useless paperwork to fulfill the
purposes of the 1997 Act.
Despite these types of problems and issues, I think the
Alliance remains proud of its role in helping to enact the 1997
Act, and believe that the funding issues can be resolved and
the promise of this landmark legislation can truly be
fulfilled. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of William P. Horn, Counsel,
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Madam Chair: My name is William Horn and I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the purposes,
history, and implementation of the landmark 1997 National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) (P.L. 105-57). Enactment of
NWRSIA was a high priority of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA)
(then the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America) and we have maintained
a keen interest in the Act and the Refuge system since then. In
addition, my comments reflect the perspectives from my prior tenure as
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks under
President Reagan and Chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge
Centennial Commission.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is an incomparable array of
wildlife habitats that provide unparalleled conservation benefits and
opportunities for public use, especially hunting and fishing. The
sporting community was instrumental in founding the System in 1903 and
has strongly supported it ever since. This support is not merely
rhetorical. Hunters have contributed millions of dollars to growth of
our Refuges through the Duck Stamp program and other forms of tangible
financial support. No others have come close to matching this level of
genuine commitment.
Controversy, however, surrounded the Refuge System in the early
1990's. Animal rights radicals and anti-hunting interest were
ratcheting up their campaigns to exclude hunters from the System and
only recently had the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) beaten back
lawsuits to bar hunting on Refuge units. The Clinton Administration had
settled another Refuge lawsuit and was threatening to close units to
hunting and other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. Funding for
the System was being curtailed and this was not only thwarting wildlife
conservation objectives but threatened to curtail public access to
Refuge units. Finally, earlier versions of Refuge ``organic''
legislation were being advanced that would make it more difficult for
FWS to maintain hunting and fishing on the System. From the sporting
and conservation community's perspective, these were grim times.
In early 1995 key elements of the sporting/conservation community
approached Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus the new Congressional
leadership about Refuge legislation that would fix these problems and
set forth a clear wildlife conservation mission for the System. The
result was H.R. 1675 introduced in the 104th Congress primarily by Rep.
Don Young (R-AK), Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rep. Bill Brewster (D-
OK) and the House passed it by a lopsided bi-partisan margin of 287 to
138 in April, 1996. The Senate, however, failed to take action.
The effort to enact a Refuge bill carried over to the next Congress
and early in 1997 its backers introduced it in the 105th Congress as
H.R. 511 (reflecting the number of Refuge units in 1997). Concerted
good-faith negotiations with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt yielded
H.R. 1420 that was introduced in April, 1997, ultimately passed by
Congress and signed into law on Oct. 9, 1997 as NWRSIA.
A critical feature of the bill was its express recognition that
hunting and fishing were, and are, important and legitimate activities
on Refuge units. Moreover, once determined to be ``compatible'' with
Refuge purposes, FWS is under a clear statutory duty to
``facilitate''--not just allow--these uses. These provisions were
designed to stop once and for all repeated litigation by animal rights/
anti-hunting radicals seeking to bar hunters from the Refuge system.
Unfortunately, as discussed below, such litigation continues under new
procedural guises.
We note that clear public policy support for hunting in System
units is not only reflected in the 1997 Act but in Executive Orders
issued by both President Bush and President Clinton. President Bush
recently issued an Executive Order to assure continued access for
hunting to our public land systems. In 1997, President Clinton released
an Executive Order for the Refuge System that recognized its value for
hunting. We hope the radicals get the message.
USSA considers the 1997 Act to be a success. Its focus on wildlife
conservation and management is consistent with principles articulated
by President Teddy Roosevelt when he created the system in 1903. This
focus, codified in statute, demonstrates the Refuge units are not
``sanctuaries'' to be set aside and left alone. Furthermore, the
political unity forged during the 1995-1997 period translated into a
renewed emphasis on the Refuge system mirrored by increased funding for
operations and maintenance of the System. These beneficial trends
peaked coincident with the 2003-04 centennial.
We have also been very pleased with the on-the-ground of the 1997
Act. Not only has the Refuge System grown to 548 units in the
intervening decade, 317 units are now open to hunting. This compares to
283 10 years ago. The public is able to enjoy this incomparable public
land system which translates directly into continued support for the
System. Such support is crucial if the Refuge system is to be sustained
so that a bicentennial can be celebrated by our great-great
grandchildren.
Unfortunately there are a few skunks at the picnic. Animal rights
interests, unwilling to accept the clear policies articulated in the
1997 Act (and Executive Order), have mounted new legal challenges to
hunting on Refuges. Three years ago the Fund for Animals, Humane
Society of the United States and other ``usual suspects'' sued to stop
hunting on 36 Refuge units. The argument was that FWS had not prepared
comprehensive environmental impact statements (EISs) to justify the
hunting. USSA and others joined the case with FWS and argued that full
scale EISs were unnecessary because (1) FWS already prepares
Comprehensive Conservation Plans for refuges per the 1997 Act and (2)
as most of the hunting is for waterfowl, FWS already prepares
comprehensive EISs as part of its comprehensive migratory bird
management program. However, a federal judge ruled that new EISs are
needed so FWS is in the process of spending money and finite staff
resources to prepare the duplicative NEPA documents (and the animal
rights plaintiffs are already complaining that these documents are not
enough). Congress should redress this matter and make it clear that the
CCPs, migratory bird EISs and other FWS documents are more than
sufficient bases for opening refuge units to hunting per NWRSIA.
This waste of finite dollars is made more acute by the funding
crisis now afflicting the System. For a variety of reasons, Refuge
funding is again shrinking with adverse consequences for wildlife and
public users. Compared to National Parks, Refuges have always been the
red-headed stepchild when it comes to funding. Even though the Park
system is smaller, has fewer units, and is situated in fewer states,
its funding outstrips that provided to the Refuges. Park operating
budgets are nearing $1.5 billion while the Refuge system makes do on
$382 million in Fiscal Year 2007. This gap is likely to grow now that a
variety of bills propose hundreds of millions of extra dollars for
Parks in anticipation of that system's centennial in 2016.
Not all of the problems are external. FWS policies to implement the
Act include restrictions not contemplated in 1997. For example, some
parts of the Refuge system are also designated as Wilderness although
the law specifies that wilderness purposes are merely ``supplemental.''
Courts have ruled that ``supplemental'' means secondary. Nonetheless
FWS draft wilderness policies appear to allow ``Wilderness'' to trump
wildlife conservation and impose undue restrictions on wildlife
management practices. We are persuaded that the 1997 Act makes primary
wildlife conservation, including management and use as expressly
included in the law, and it takes priority over ``supplemental''
Wilderness purposes.
Similar problems have been created by policies adopted at the end
of 2000. A definition of ``wildlife first'' was added to these policies
that fails to adequately recognize the use and enjoyment features of
the 1997 Act. As referred to above, wildlife conservation is defined in
the Act to include management and use yet these features are largely
disregarded by the ``wildlife first'' definition. Other policies such
as the ``biological integrity'' guidance has similar flaws and do not
accurately reflect the active wildlife and habitat management
provisions in NWRSIA.
Despite these issues, USSA remains proud of its role in helping to
enact the 1997 Act. We remain committed to enhancing this incomparable
system of public lands to ensure conservation of our wildlife heritage
and enabling public use and enjoyment of the System via wildlife
dependent recreation. This will ensure continued public support
necessary to sustain the health and vitality of our Refuge System.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Bill Horn,
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Questions from Mr. Kind (D-WI)
1. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You noted in your statement
that the Improvement Act codified into statute a policy of
public use, and as you said, that ``Refuge units are not
`sanctuaries' to be set aside and left alone.''
Do you agree that all public use, even priority public uses
specified in the Act, are all subject to being found compatible
with the purpose of the refuge and mission of the Refuge
System?
ANSWER:
I agree that all public uses, including priority public uses, are
subject to being found compatible with refuge purposes. That
requirement is stated plainly in the 1997 Act. To ensure, however, that
this requirement did not become an unreasonable barrier to continued
wildlife dependent recreation activities (including hunting) on refuge
units, Congress made an express finding that these activities on
refuges ``have been and are expected to be generally compatible uses.''
(P.L. 105-57, Sec. 2(6); 16 USC Sec. 668dd note). In addition,
``compatible use'' was defined as a wildlife dependent recreational use
that ``will not materially interfere with or detract'' from refuge
purposes. In the majority of refuge units, and on a vast percentage of
refuge system lands, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
determined that traditional activities such as fishing and hunting do
not interfere or detract from refuge purposes. Lastly, I would note
that Congress further recognized the value of these activities by
finding that allowing and facilitating such activities on refuges has
contributed importantly to the refuge system's conservation mission.
2. You raised concerns about the establishment of wilderness areas in
refuges and assert that the policies of the Improvement Act
supersede the policies of the Wilderness Act.
On what legal basis to you base this opinion?
ANSWER:
The 1964 Wilderness Act clearly and unambiguously states that
wilderness purposes are ``supplemental to the purposes for
which...national wildlife refuge systems are established and
administered.'' P.L. 88-577; 16 USC Sec. 475. The term ``supplemental''
means secondary. In the case of the Refuge system, Congress spelled out
its primary mission in the 1997 Act as ``conservation, management, and
where appropriate restoration of the fish, wildlife, plant resources
and their habitats.'' Sec. 4; 16 USC Sec. 668dd(a). The U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) is concerned that supplemental/ secondary
Wilderness Act purposes are used to impose restrictions on
``conservation, management, and...restoration'' activities for the
benefit of wildlife and associated habitats. Where Wilderness
designations have been made on refuge lands, FWS has an obligation to
try to harmonize its activities with both the 1997 Refuge Act and the
1964 Wilderness Act. However, USSA maintains the agency's primary duty
is to act consistent with its primary organic statute rather than the
supplemental purposes of the 1964 Act.
3. At present, wilderness areas are designated on other Federal lands,
such as National Parks and National Forests, each with their
own statutory mission. These wilderness areas are managed by
the standards required under the Wilderness Act.
Why should refuge lands be treated differently?
ANSWER:
USSA submits that refuge lands are different than lands
administered by the National Park Service and the Forest Service.
Please note though that plain use of the term ``supplemental'' in the
Wilderness Act also applies to both of these agencies so that the 1964
Act is not a mandate to either of those agencies to disregard their
more fundamental mandates from Congress (e.g., 1916 National Parks
Organic Act). The distinction is that the 1997 Refuge Act is more
recent in time and has a very clear statutory mission spelled out--
conserve, manage, and restore. This is a mandate for active management
by FWS rather than a directive to treat refuge units as ``biospheres
under glass'' to be set aside and left alone. Restrictions associated
with the Wilderness Act cannot be disregarded but should not be used to
bar FWS from fulfilling its primary mission as articulated by Congress.
______
Mr. Kind. I want to thank all our witnesses today for your
testimony and your time. I also want to thank my colleagues who
have joined us recently on the panel. Starting with Ranking
Member Brown, thank you, sir, for coming, Mr. Kildee and Mr.
Faleomavaega for being here.
Let me start the round of questions by getting back to what
I alluded to in my opening comment. And maybe, Mr. Hall, you
can take it first. But I appreciate your opening statement in
regard to some of the youth activities involved, because we do
face I think a real serious crisis and challenge. Mr. Young and
I were just chatting about it. And I brought with me an article
that appeared in The Washington Post on June 19 of this year
titled, Getting Lost in the Great Indoors, how kids are getting
addicted to the TV, the computers, the Game Boys, what have
you, and we are not getting them out and not getting them
outside experiencing nature, let alone visiting some of these
great public lands of ours. And I know you have been actively
involved in trying to ramp up the youth education programs. And
I think you wrote a nice article on the July/August Refuge
Update Newsletter that you sent out talking about that.
But if you could maybe talk a little bit more about what
programs specifically we are doing to reach our children.
Because if we can't sustain this, and these public lands of
ours, we are mere stewards of, we are to take care of them and
pass them on to future generations. But if that future
generation doesn't have the same love or passion or interest in
the outdoors or in the Refuge System, it is going to be awfully
tough to sustain anything that we are talking about today.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for those
comments. Because, as you and I have talked, this is really
important. And I will start off by saying that none of what we
are talking about today matters at all if we don't recruit new
conservationists for two or three generations from now, no one
will care. And while we are very dedicated, all of the people
probably in this room are dedicated to that, we need to
understand that we have to actively recruit conservationists.
Now, that doesn't mean fish and wildlife biologists. That means
getting conservation in the hearts of our citizenry. Because if
conservation lives at all, it only lives in the hearts of the
people.
So what we have been trying to do is to understand that we
missed a large gap in the system. Even people my age, and I
grew up in the 1960s and I remember it, so I must have been
square. But a lot of my age class people got accustomed to
writing letters because these wonderful laws were passed, the
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and began to think it is OK
just to say go regulate it instead of go fix it. And the
conservation mind is, if something is broken, go fix it. And we
don't have enough connection in our children to nature today.
It is frightening to me that if we don't get them connected,
and it is part of their spirit they just don't know it yet. And
the literature tells us if we get them connected, that we have
them for life. Then we will have those future generations. And
if we don't, we won't.
And the literature is also indicating in other fields, in
the medical field and psychiatric field, that children, the
early onset of juvenile diabetes is taking on epidemic
proportions. Why? It could be because children aren't
physically playing anymore. They are sitting still. Their thumb
is the strongest thing they have.
We also have seen the literature talk about the child
psychology and medical treatment area and ADD. And we had a
professor talk to us, a teacher that said, I can take a
classroom full of ADD children and I cannot keep their
attention for more than 5 or 10 minutes. But I can take them
out on a field trip and let them play for an hour,
unstructured, let them go discover, and bring them back in the
classroom and I can keep their attention for an hour.
So there is really something there that a lot of the other
fields are feeling. And so we are going to do our part, Mr.
Chairman. I am going to make very sure that refuges are a
welcoming place for all.
Mr. Kind. Let me follow up. Last week, and the other hat I
wear around this place, at least in this session, is co-
chairing the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. And we organized
the first ever congressional sportsmen's week here in Congress
last week with resolutions that we passed and some briefings,
the annual banquet that we have every year. But we also had a
breakfast briefing last week, and we brought in people from
Matthews Bow to talk about the archery in the schools program
and the Kicking Bear Archery Camp that Gander Mountain has been
supporting nationwide. And it is true that unless we do a
better job and think creatively on how to get these kids
connected to the outdoors and appreciation for our natural
resources, we are going to be in trouble.
As someone who grew up and loved to hunt and fish in
Western Wisconsin, some of the greatest conservationists I
know, and those who are quickest to open up their wallets, are
those out there participating in hunting, fishing, or just
getting outdoors and understanding the beauty and what needs to
be preserved. And now, with childhood obesity, Type II juvenile
diabetes, this all meshes. But we have to think of ways to make
it interesting for kids, and what is interesting today is
technology. And I am wondering if the Service is tapping into
some programs that utilize technology in order to get the kids
interested.
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, we are. We have treasure hunts where
they have to use GPS. They have to follow the instructions and
a GPS program to reach the point where they can find the prize.
We take them out, and let them do their own filming. We get
cameras from Nikon and Kodak and they volunteer them, and we
take kids out and let them take digital pictures, come back and
put them on a screen and compare notes on how you took
pictures.
It is important not to leave their world behind but to use
it as a bridge. So we are going to be trying that and a whole
lot of other things to try and get them interested in the
outdoors.
Mr. Kind. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you. And, Mr. Hall, I appreciate your
statement. But I think to get everybody involved in
conservation, there is so many different groups that have
different interpretations. In this room we have probably PETA,
we have Defenders of Wildlife. I can go on down the line. There
is about 76 different organizations, and they don't want to see
the big picture. They have their own little fiefdom that they
can generate. I like to respect everybody's beliefs and have
them enjoy it collectively together on our refuge. The hunting
and fishing and trapping to me is extremely important. The bird
watching identification and the flora and everything else is
extremely important. But there is a division within the
organization. And you can take preservationists and take and
drown them all, as far as I am concerned. Conservation is
different. But, unfortunately, the movement has been taken over
by the preservation groups and makes your jobs very difficult.
Mr. Hirsche, I was interested that you wanted to purchase
more land, 12 million more acres of land. How do you go about
doing that when you have a $2.5 billion backlog in maintenance
and $1.25 billion in operation backlog and $361 million in
invasive backlog? Do you remember my statement, how are you
going to go out and buy a new house when the plumbing doesn't
work in the one you have got?
Mr. Hirsche. Mr. Young, that is an excellent question but I
think there are a number of ways you need to look at the
problem. First of all, there are the mandates in the
Improvement Act. And I think fundamentally there is a pretty
sweeping mandate to protect ecosystems as a way of ensuring the
integrity of refuges. And within that, we recognize or the
States recognize through the State wildlife action plans that
there are enormous needs for conserving habitat. And we are not
necessarily advocating for buying everything under the sun. We
are talking about conserving.
And the GAO report was looking, for instance, specifically
at the fish and wildlife plans for the Prairie Pothole Region,
and most of those were easements versus acquisition.
Regardless, I couldn't agree with you more. We need more
money to protect habitat. And that means involving private
landowners, that means involving the States, that means Federal
dollars as well.
I mean, there is the ongoing question of why do you go
conserving more habitat when you can't take care of what you
already have, and that is a refrain we frequently hear. I think
our response to that is, look, if lands are developed, for
instance, there is a proposed subdivision adjacent to the
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge down in Texas. All over the
country you can see subdivisions cropping up on refuge
boundaries, even remote refuges or reasonably remote refuges,
like Tamarack in Minnesota. People want to live next to these
conservation areas. And if we are going to respond to those
things, we need to recognize what the values of these places
are and act, take action proactively.
Mr. Young. I don't disagree. I am just suggesting that we
have to take care of the house. To purchase more will not take
care of it. With invasive species, et cetera, we are just not
gaining anything.
I have another question, Mr. Hirsche, that somewhat
concerns me because I am directly related to this. On page 5 of
your testimony you state: ``human beings are what make
conservation possible for refuges.'' And I agree with that.
Would you agree that the current projection of reducing the
refuge workforce by 20 percent will undermine the mission of
the Refuge System?
Mr. Hirsche. Absolutely.
Mr. Young. If that is the case, why has your organization,
I specifically say your organization, along with PEAR, has
consistently opposed to letting Native American tribes operate
various functions through annual funding agreements on wildlife
refuges located within the boundaries of their reservations? In
your judgment, are the tribes competent? Are they charging too
much? Or do you not agree with the fundamental goals of the
Tribal Self-Governance Act?
Mr. Hirsche. The answer to that is our organization
actually supports strongly the involvement of tribes in working
with fish and wildlife to manage refuges. You are probably
speaking specifically about the situation at National Bison
Range.
Mr. Young. If that is the case, why does your organization
oppose the annual funding agreement for the Bison Range Refuge?
Mr. Hirsche. The annual funding agreement that you are
probably referring to there.
Mr. Young. It is the only one.
Mr. Hirsche. Well, and that funding agreement was
terminated by Fish and Wildlife Service. Structurally we
thought it was deficient and didn't work for a number of
reasons. But that doesn't mean we don't support the tribes
working closely with Fish and Wildlife Service. Indeed, I think
they have to. If you read our column in our magazine a couple
months ago, we talked about the need to engage diversity in
this country, and this ties into the question of engaging a
broader range of individuals in the Refuge System for
conservation.
Mr. Young. My interest is not only the Bison, because the
American Natives were managing bison longer than any white man
has ever been on this continent. And they may not manage them
to your satisfaction, but they did manage them. I am
interested, because if I find your organization opposing my
intent to get management of refuged lands from in the State of
Alaska where it is possible, not just because everybody is
sitting in Washington, D.C. in a nice office means that they
know everything about managing wildlife refuges. It is a way to
employ people and to do the job correctly. You can sign
contracts for working with the Park Service with covenants that
allow this to occur.
And if I even get the inkling that they can't do it or they
are not competent, they are unprepared, and by the way that is
racist, that is going to be a sad day for the agency and your
organization also, because that is wrong. These are people that
know the problems and can solve those problems. And I have sort
of sensed that this is sort of creeping along through the
agency itself, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Hirsche your program, too. So
I just suggest be very, very careful. Just keep that in mind.
I yield back.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Mr. Kildee, thank you for joining us.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am blessed with the Shiawassee Wildlife Refuge in the
State of Michigan. It is a wonderful place. And whenever I go
there, I myself feel that it is understaffed. So let me ask
these questions, Mr. Hirsche. I appreciate your comment
regarding the damaging and negative effect that the annual
budget shortfalls reflect upon the ability of the Fish and
Wildlife Service to fully implement the Improvement Act. The
projected 20 percent decline in staffing levels is especially
troubling to me. If these workforce management plans go into
effect, is it possible for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
fulfill its legal requirements under the Improvement Act?
Mr. Hirsche. In our assessment, no. You have sweeping
mandates in the Improvement Act. And the Act, again, we will
reiterate, is a tremendously powerful and, I think, elegant
piece of legislation that lays out a terrific set of guidelines
for managing National Wildlife Refuges now and into the future.
But without adequate funding, if we don't have staff at
refuges, you know, we are seeing vandalism at refuges across
the country because we don't have law enforcement.
As an example, in the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge this
past weekend, they were expecting 600 people to attend their
refuge week event. They received 2,000 people. Were they
staffed to handle this? No, they weren't. Half the refuges
across the country have no biologists. Many have no staff at
all.
I don't understand how we are able to implement this Act
fully unless we meet some of the fundamental funding needs for
the Refuge System.
Mr. Kildee. In my experience at the Shiawassee Refuge in
Michigan, these people are really hardworking people and are
sometimes doing a job and a half for one salary. They are not
shirking their responsibility. And the Improvement Act is a
very important Act, but the Improvement Act is something like,
use this analogy, a get-well card. It kind of indicates what we
would want and how we would evaluate how we value these. And if
I have a friend who is ill, I will send a get-well card. But
what my friend really needs is a Blue Cross card, and that is
the appropriations. And I think Congress very often is good at
sending the get-well cards, but doesn't send the Blue Cross
card.
Mr. Hirsche. I couldn't agree more. And I also want to make
a point of discussing the role of volunteers and friends at
refuges around the country. Currently, friends and volunteers
are contributing fully 20 percent of the workload on our
National Wildlife Refuges. I am humbled by the commitment and
the support, but I am appalled that we are relying so heavily
on volunteers to do the work that many professionals should be
tasked to do.
And one other comment just related to the issue of reaching
out to children and families. It is interesting, you look at
the Refuge System compared to other Federal land entities. And
while they may be, in the words of I think Secretary Babbitt,
postage stamps on the landscape, at least in the lower 48,
obviously not Alaska, these places provide the best
opportunity, in our view, of any Federal entity to engage the
public, particularly diverse communities, because so many of
these refuges are located in coastal areas, they are near urban
areas, and we have an opportunity to engage diverse communities
of all kinds to get them excited about conservation. And I feel
like that is an opportunity that we are missing, and we need to
put real resources into it.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
Mr. Hall, what is the status of the annual agreement for
the Salishan-Kutenai tribes? We have been told by the tribes
that Deputy Secretary Scarlett has ordered an agreement to be
developed, but to date this has not occurred. Can you tell us
why that has not occurred?
Mr. Hall. We made a proposal for a funding agreement or for
an agreement to the tribes a couple of months ago, and have not
really had them reengage into the discussion negotiation
process.
Mr. Kildee. I would encourage both sides, including
yourselves especially, to reengage. I think this is a very
important step, and I would encourage you to do that.
Mr. Hall. I would like to follow up on something that Evan
Hirsche said a moment ago. This really has nothing to do with
whether or not we are working with tribes or with anyone else.
That is not the issue. We think the tribes could be very
valuable working with us on the refuge. But the previous
funding agreement was, in my opinion, structured to fail. There
were two complete pillars of authority. No one was totally in
charge of the refuge. And you can't run a refuge that way.
Someone has to be in charge if they are accountable and there
has to be one team that works together, not two that are just
out there kind of working. So I have been suggesting very
strongly that we have one team working together that is
composed of tribal members and Fish and Wildlife Service
members, but the refuge manager has to be in charge of the
refuge. Somebody has to be accountable.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
It is now my pleasure to be able to recognize Ranking
Member Brown for any comments or questions that he may have.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Kind.
And thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I am particularly
pleased to see my friend John Frampton from South Carolina who
has DNR there. And not only does he have that responsibility,
but he has been very active in setting aside lots of different
lands for future enjoyment and prevent future development.
John, I am glad to have you, and thank you for your service
there.
Mr. Hall, my question I guess is, I represent the coastal
area of South Carolina which is the 21st largest congressional
district now in the Nation because of all the growth, and I
have 1,500 acres that join the Francis Marina National Forest.
So we are grateful for the national forest and for the other
reserves that we have set aside. But my concern is, and I think
it was addressed earlier about what kind of use would the
public be able to enjoy, whether it be used for fishing or
hunting or hiking or some of the other areas? It seems like to
me, when we propose a reserve, it almost becomes a wilderness
area. We don't want much activity.
In fact, my major concern is along the strip in the
Waccamaw Reserve, about 20 or 30 miles, John you can attest to
this, with that growth in that area, they don't want us to
build highways, they don't want us to build any kind of an
infrastructure or utilities in these set-aside reserves. Could
you give me some insight on that? It seems, though, the
taxpayers, that all the taxpayers actually paid for that
particular property, and they ought to have some enjoyment,
particularly ought to have some community interest of use.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Brown. It is good to see you
again. That is one of the dilemmas that we deal with. And you
can say it is a good thing, you can say it is a bad thing. But
when a refuge is established, there is a primary purpose for
which it is established. It may be water fowl, it could be
endangered species, a myriad of different reasons for
establishing a National Wildlife Refuge. And then, after that,
anything that happens on refuge lands must be found to be
compatible with that primary purpose.
And then, in addition to that, the Improvement Act
identified priority uses, or priority appropriate uses, the
hunting, the fishing, the photography and education and
information, et cetera, those six. We call them the big six. I
refer to them as the big seven, because it always starts with
wildlife first. No matter, even if it is an appropriate and
compatible use, you have to make sure it fits with the purposes
of the refuge and for wildlife first.
These lands are unique in being set aside for wildlife and
for public's use of wildlife. They are the only lands like them
in the world, that I am aware of, from a Federal standpoint.
And the law basically was negotiated through to say, we need to
hold on to that.
So roads going through a refuge typically causes a problem,
because it is not one of those things that contributes to the
purposes of the refuge. If there are emergency situations, I am
sure that things can be discussed on an emergency basis. But we
do face this. And the law is pretty clear, in my mind, as to
what we are allowed to do and not allowed to do
administratively.
Mr. Brown. I guess that brings, my major concern is that
maybe we ought to be concerned then of where we actually
establish these reserves. This particular one I am talking
about, the Waccamaw, John is familiar with it, we have about a
30-mile stretch of land that you can't get from the ocean to
the mainland unless you cross part of that reserve. And I don't
think there was ever intent for the taxpayers to buy a piece of
property that was going to fence the rest of the population
from having a natural way to evacuate in case there is a
national disaster, particularly a hurricane or some other,
maybe tsunami or some other reason to move quickly across that
area rather than having to circumvent some 30 miles of travel.
I don't think that was the intent when they established that
particular parcel of land to make it so unique that only
wildlife could survive and not the population.
Mr. Hall. I can only tell you what we believe that the law
directs us to do; and we believe that the law tells us that
once the refuge is established, and maybe your point is well
taken. If that is a consideration that needs to be looked at as
we establish refuges, what might be the future needs out there,
then that can be debated and talked about as we move forward.
We have a very long process that we go through to establish a
refuge. But once we do, in my opinion, the law guides us in how
we are supposed to handle that refuge and what we are allowed
to permit and what we are not. And roads have historically been
a significant issue, especially since the passage of the
Improvement Act.
Mr. Brown. Then maybe we ought to take and look at some
special legislation to at least, maybe in case the population
is endangered, we ought to be able to have some way to exclude
that. Not on a regular type basis, but on special instances, we
ought to have some kind of an easy way to move through it,
rather than upset the whole population that we are doing
something to, I guess, damage a special piece of property that
has been set aside. I don't know, if the taxpayers involved,
that all the taxpayers ought to have some benefit from it and
maybe we ought to look in particular at that. Thank you, Mr.
Hall.
Mr. Kind. Mr. Frampton, did you have anything you wanted to
add?
Mr. Frampton. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to respond
to Congressman Brown.
In that area, the State recently acquired some 32,000 acres
of land under a deal with International Paper Company and some
of our conservation partners, and we actually made some
concessions on that prior to the time we acquired that
property. There has been a tremendous amount of
miscommunication in that Myrtle Beach area relative to some of
these land acquisitions.
I think, Congressman, most of the issues that you
referencing, we have had an opportunity to sit down with the
delegation in Horry County and I believe work through most of
those issues.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, John. I appreciate your saying that.
Because if there is some reason maybe we need to at least
address it in legislation, and this may be something we need to
address while we are looking at expanding the potential of
creating what is 12 million more acres of this wildlife. I know
you have been actively involved in the community for a long,
long, time, and I am grateful that something has been worked
out, because it is a major concern for the safety of those
people living along the coast there.
Mr. Frampton. A lot of that was addressed on the I-73
corridor issue, and a lot of that debate was relative to the
heritage preserve that is owned by DNR, not U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. And we recently came to agreement with the
Department of Transportation. So I think that situation is
corrected.
Mr. Brown. Sandy Island was concluded?
Mr. Frampton. Sandy Island is currently held by the Nature
Conservancy. We were involved in that deal. I think ultimately
you may see some of Sandy Island go under the Refuge System. As
you know, some of our lands are actually in the Refuge System
on an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service where we
actually allocated those lands for their management, where it
is more compatible with the refuge than in our individual
lands. But I don't know of any issue associated with road
construction that is an issue right now with Sandy Island.
Mr. Brown. It is not. I only mentioned Sandy Island because
I knew it was part of the ongoing preservation there, to maybe
include it into the reserve system. Thank you.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Brown, Mr. Frampton.
Eni, thank you for joining us.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
leadership, and certainly for the contributions that you have
made not only for the conservation of our National Wildlife
System. And I certainly appreciate having this hearing this
afternoon. Also, our distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Brown for his leadership as
well.
I was listening, and certainly want to express my
appreciation to the statements that have been made before our
Subcommittee. I am sorry, I did miss earlier the former
Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt's presence at these
presentations. It is an unfortunate situation that we find
ourselves as a country that it always seems that if you are a
conservationist, you are a Democrat, and if you are a pro
developer, you are a Republican. It is really unfortunate. I
wish my good friend from Alaska was here, because I don't think
there is one member here that does not want to conserve the
richness of our Nation's wildlife system. And, ironically, too,
it was a Republican president that initiated whole movement
toward conservation of our wildlife system.
So I don't think it should ever be a Republican or a
Democratic issue. It should be a national issue that should
have the same common interests and intent on the part of the
Members of Congress and as well as the administration and the
public as well to do the conservation.
And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Hall, you said there was
something wrong with the current provisions of the Improvement
Act, that they seem to be not working together. I was trying to
catch what you meant by that.
Mr. Hall. You mean, in my response to Mr. Brown?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, it was earlier. I think it was to
either to Mr. Young's or Mr. Kind's question. You said
something that there was something, two systems that seemed not
to be working together.
Mr. Hall. That was in relation to the Bison Range
discussion on just an agreement.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You mentioned something that was not
working together? Or was it because of the weakness of the
current provisions of the Act?
Mr. Hall. No. This has nothing to do with the Act. That
didn't. This had to do with an agreement with tribes to work
with us on the refuge. So it really had nothing to do with the
Act itself.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But you are satisfied with the way tribes
are handling it, as opposed to the rest of us, as opposed to
how the Federal Government is dealing with other issues,
dealing with--you are saying, however the tribes are handling
the situation.
Mr. Hall. We are working with the tribes now to come up
with an agreement that we think makes one team work on the
refuge with the Fish and Wildlife Service who is responsible
for the refuge in charge.
Mr. Faleomavaega. There seems to be consensus that
obviously the funding seems to be the most troubling aspect of,
however you call it. We can talk about all the good things that
have been done. And I must say that I was very impressed. We
are talking about some 95 million acres of lands that affects
the wildlife system, the Refuge System, and some 547 refuges,
3,000 water fowl areas and the home of some 700 bird species
and 220 mammals and 250 types of reptiles, and over 200 types
of fish now. Fish is very important where I come from,
obviously.
But I just wanted to ask you, supposed within this 95
million acres of refuge land, whatever you want to call it,
that we have a sufficient supply of oil and natural gas in
there to make us independent of any more oil from the Middle
East or Saudi Arabia. What would be your recommendation for how
we might strike a balance, as my good friend from Alaska has
very well, and I must say, I, for one, am for development.
There has got to be a balanced approach. Do you prefer that we
disregard the Nation's rich resources that we have that
provides for our energy needs?
Mr. Hall. Thank you for putting me in this spot, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
In reality, we have literally hundreds, if not thousands,
of oil and gas wells today on National wildlife refuges
throughout the country. And I think that if you go to those
areas, and Louisiana is a good test case because they have been
there for a long time. You have the very old ones from the old
operators, the very new ones from the new operators. The
footprint is significantly different today, and you can just
compare the wells.
So I believe that if it is the will of the people to get
the resource out, that it would be the responsibility of the
Fish and Wildlife Service to figure out how to do that in a way
that did not destroy the values of the refuge, or undermine
them to a point that was not acceptable.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am planning to hold a hearing in the
next 2 weeks about global climate change as part of my
committee jurisdiction. And I have always wondered, I know this
had nothing to do with climate global warming, but I think it
does have very serious implications in terms of how far and to
what extent are we willing to conserve our Nation's wildlife
system as opposed to development. But I do want to raise the
issue with you gentlemen, and Mr. Hirsche, I think you might
have some comments on that.
Mr. Hirsche. Yes, Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, it is an
interesting question. I think as you are holding hearings and
looking at climate change and energy development----
Mr. Faleomavaega. By the way, my friend says it is not
global warming, it is global pollution. But there would
probably be a better word that we could use to be realistic
about climate change and why we need to address the issues of
emissions and the pollution that we are producing in the air
and our resources. I am sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Mr. Hirsche. Absolutely. You know, in examining the
challenge of energy production and conservation, I think an apt
test case right now is North Dakota. As I think many Members
here and people in this room know, North Dakota is what's often
termed a duck factory for America. You have something like 60
refuges up there, Prairie Potholes. It is tremendously
important to nesting waterfowl and a whole range of other
birds, grassland species, shore birds and others.
Right now, because the price of oil, suddenly it has become
a tremendous opportunity to drill for oil, certainly in
Northwest North Dakota where you have several refuges including
Lostwood and a couple others. But mostly easement lands, about
1-1/2 million acres of easement lands up there. And we have now
have the technology, if you read the paper, the New York Times,
this morning, they are drilling for oil and gas in the most
remote places.
The question is, do we now have the technology and the
willpower to be able to place extraction facilities in places
that are not going to require filling potholes and other
things. Because we have refuge managers right now that are
going out on easement lands and asking, nicely, oil companies
to please move their pads 100 yards to the left because you are
going to fill a prairie pothole.
Now, it is not just oil and gas, it is also wind energy. We
are looking at the prospect for somewhere in the area of 5,000
wind turbines in North Dakota, and these wind turbines are also
being placed among potholes. And what are the ramifications for
birds and other wildlife? And thus far, wind power has, in our
view, gotten a pass on meeting the same standards of analysis
and evaluation as oil and gas extraction. And we are facing a
train wreck up there if we don't approach both oil and gas and
wind turbine development in a way that carefully assesses the
impacts to wildlife while also addressing our energy needs in
this country.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Kind. It is my understanding that Ranking Member Brown
would like consent to have a written statement submitted for
the record. Without objection, it will be included.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
oversight hearing. It is appropriate that we honor and celebrate the
tenth anniversary of the enactment of the historic National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Ten years ago, the distinguished former Chairman of this Committee,
The Honorable Don Young of Alaska, had a vision on how our refuge
system should operate in the future. For nearly 100 years, this unique
collection of federal lands had existed without any Organic Act, a
definition of what was a ``compatible'' activity or even a ``Mission
Statement''.
As a result, you had confusion, inconsistent decisions and a
growing frustration in the hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation
community. Refuges are not federal parks, wilderness areas or national
marine sanctuaries. Hunting and fishing has always occurred within the
system and it is not an exaggeration to say that without the excise
taxes and duck stamp fees paid by sportsmen, you would not have a
refuge system.
Today, we will examine the effectiveness of P. L. 105-97 and
whether this law has met the expectations of providing a sound
foundation for the refuge system. I find it interesting that in the
decade since its enactment, Congress has not altered a single provision
and there has been very little criticism of this law. In fact, the only
voices of concern have come from individuals who believe the Fish and
Wildlife Service is unfairly stopping or limiting other legitimate non
wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
In my own Congressional District, I am honored to represent three
vibrant national wildlife refuges which provide recreational and
educational opportunities to thousands of South Carolinians each year.
There is no question that the Refuge Improvement Act has been largely
responsible for the success of these refuges. In fact, the Waccamaw
National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in Georgetown, South
Carolina, was the first refuge established after the enactment of this
law. It will celebrate its tenth anniversary on December 1st.
During the course of this hearing, I look forward to hearing
whether the Fish and Wildlife Service has fully implemented the
``Mission of the System'', if recent funding shortfalls are denying
visitors opportunities to enjoy wildlife dependent recreation, how
existing activities are being evaluated prior to the acquisition of
refuge lands, whether refuge managers are prohibiting legitimate
recreational activities, a status update on the completion of
Comprehensive Conservation Plans and whether there is a need to modify
certain provisions within this landmark law.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing and I would again
compliment the gentleman from Alaska for his leadership, lifelong
dedication and vision in sponsoring this remarkable wildlife
conservation law which passed both the House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate with only one dissenting vote. It is truly a law that will
withstand the test of time.
Finally, I want to welcome Mr. John Frampton, who is the Director
of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. John, we look
forward to your testimony.
______
Mr. Kind. Thank you.
Mr. Frampton, while I have you here, I just want to get
your feedback on your perception on how the CCP process has
been working in South Carolina with the multitude of refuges
that you have in that State. Let me just preface it by saying
that we face a unique situation in Wisconsin, given a right of
access clause that actually exists in our State constitution,
which created a very contentious issue now in the development
of the CCP for the Upper Miss. The Service, based on scientific
studies, wanted to establish a ladder approach to give
migratory waterfowl a chance to rest without harassment,
hunting, being bothered. But they were going to limit during
certain times of the year certain right of access with certain
things in order to prevent that disturbance.
Air boats is one of the issues that is very contentious.
And I am at a listening session one day and I have a bunch of
duck hunters coming out screaming that, why is the Service
prohibiting my use of the air boat in my favorite hunting
grounds? The next day I am in another county, and I have a
group of hunters coming out screaming at me saying, why are you
allowing air boats to be blasting through my favorite hunting
spot? So there is an inherent conflict there even within the
same group of duck hunters. But it has created a very
controversial and contentious issue, and I am wondering if you
are experiencing anything at your State.
Mr. Frampton. We haven't experienced those type of issues.
We have a very unique partnership I think with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in South Carolina. It is longstanding, it
is very close. Our staff work very close together, sometimes on
a day-to-day basis. We have a situation with air boats, too,
but we have prohibited the use of air boats in a good bit of
our coast because of the disturbance on ducks. And that is our
biggest issue in South Carolina. As you can imagine, duck
getting to South Carolina, it has probably been harassed a
little bit along the route from Canada. Our mallards will
circle for 30 minutes before they land.
But we have been able to bring consensus to, I think, our
public. We have been able to do that by working hand in hand
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We sit at the table with
the Service. We have staff assigned to the CCPs. We have
biologists, in some cases a number of biologists, assigned to
work on those teams through one of our staff. So I think it is
just a matter of communicating with the public and, as Dale
referenced, creating a team approach where we have a common
agenda and we try to put a common vision out there for the
public to understand.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Frampton.
Mr. Horn, let me first thank you for your very thoughtful
comments and testimony here today. And you note in your
statement that the Improvement Act codified in the statute a
policy of public use. And, as you said, that, ``refuge units
are not sanctuaries'' to be set aside and left alone.
By that statement, is it safe to assume that you and your
organization support increases in the Refuge System budget to
facilitate public use?
Mr. Horn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I think we
noted the problems that are now afflicting the system because
of the funding reductions. Fortunately, dollars going in peak
coincident with the centennial and there has been a pretty
severe backslide. And I would just offer one sort of gratuitous
comment here, and that is I note we focused heavily on the
refuge centennial and I had the good fortune of chairing that
commission, and we spent 2 years kind of congratulating
ourselves and looking to the future. I note with some envy as a
refuge advocate that the Park Service is beginning its
centennial celebration 9 years early with hundreds of millions
of dollars being proposed. And I was thinking, maybe we should
go back and do this again and we should be a little more greedy
than we were. No. But I think clearly the funding issue needs
to be addressed.
I would say at one point, just another note. The Refuge
System has had user fee entrance fee authority since 1987. This
was passed, we negotiated when I was assistant secretary. It
has not been used very extensively because there is not a lot
of units where it works. Like Sanibel Island, it works
beautifully down there. But I think it is safe to say that the
user community, whether it is hunters, anglers, or bird
watchers, there is not enough blood in that stone to really
make that the source of the solution. I think that, as Mr.
Young talked about earlier, we are going to have to be a lot
more creative in coming up with a high dollar source to get at
fixing this problem over time.
Mr. Kind. I think we are certainly interested, and this
goes to everyone here in attendance. If you have some ideas,
some creative solutions as far as a dedicated funding stream,
let's talk. We should. We see the ramp-up at the centennial for
the National Park Service right now and what is being done
there, but I think part of the problem is, at least with the
Park Service, is you have some pretty clear boundaries and
ranger stations and gates that you pass through. And you don't
have that with refuge, and that is what makes it so unique and
special. A lot of people are visiting our refuges and they are
not even aware that they are in a refuge from time to time. So
that presents some unique challenges as well.
But I thank you again for being here.
Mr. Brown, do you have anything further.
Mr. Brown. Nothing further. This has been a great exchange,
and I appreciate you all being part of it. I am sorry I was
late, but you know how those airlines run. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kind. Anything? Again, I want to thank you all. And as
I stated in the past, that these refuges that we have and the
National Park Service, too, are really monuments to
civilization. They are our great walls, our pyramids, our Taj
Mahals, and we have a great charge facing us here today and
especially the obligation for future generations. And hopefully
with more concentration, with the work the committee does, with
the refuge caucus that has been created, we are going to be
able to figure this out as we move forward. So, again, I want
to thank you all for being here and for your participation.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10
days for these responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairman again thanks everyone for your attendance and your
testimony, and thanks the members for participating. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Paul Bishop, Founder,
Friends of the National Bison Range, follows:]
October 18, 2007
Honorable Madeleine Bordallo, Chair
House Subcommittee on Fisheries Wildlife and Oceans
U.S. House of Representatives
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington DC
Re: National Bison Range, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
Dear Representative Bordallo,
It was gratifying to learn of your committee's recent hearing which
touched on the current status of the National Bison Range and the
controversial role there of the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes.
The ongoing discussion about what has happened in the past, and what
might happen in the future, regarding the Tribes involvement at the
range is of great importance to our 70 member organization. As a group,
we support maintaining the National Bison Range as a premier wildlife
refuge and we also support a full and meaningful role for the Tribes.
I founded this organization last fall, immediately after Tribal
employees were escorted from the Range by armed federal law enforcement
officers. As a ten-year range volunteer, with a family history at the
range spanning 10 years before that, I speak from a unique base of
knowledge. I have been involved in a key role at the Bison Range annual
roundup under both U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Tribal systems. My
mother was an eleven-year Federal employee at the Range prior to her
retirement. As a non-member, I can personally attest to the quality and
depth of the Tribe's work, in spite of the one-sided reports and press
releases put forth by the Service. Due to the relatively closed nature
of the refuge system, I am one of the only people not directly related
to either the Tribes or the Service who can accurately speak out about
what has really happened, and also about how that can help shape any
future relationship.
Dale Hall, the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
recently told your committee that the original Bison Range AFA was
``structured to fail'' and I couldn't agree more. However, I believe
that it was the Service who engineered a one-sided and pre-determined
assessment of the Tribe's capabilities in a heavy-handed effort to
prevent their success. My personal experience shows that the Tribes are
fully capable of managing not only those aspects of the range
operations granted to them in the original AFA, but that they are more
than well qualified to take over the entire operation. Many reasonable
people in this region, with close links to the Bison Range, agree.
The crux of the current discussion appears to be the level at which
the Tribes would participate. The Service has made their position well
known, that they value Tribal involvement at the Range. However, when
examined more closely, the offers are actually just for low level
employment positions under direct control of the Service. The Tribes,
with their skilled natural resources capabilities, proven business
management history, and undeniable sovereignty, are naturally
disinterested.
And, unfortunately, this discussion cannot be complete without
looking at the sad truth of institutional racism. For example, under
the original AFA, the Service intentionally placed a Federal employee
with a known background of many years of anti-tribal agitation in a
direct working relationship with the Tribal staff. The Service also
intentionally played up old racial stereotypes at every opportunity.
When the smoke cleared a bit this winter, it became obvious that the
Service had purposefully submarined the original AFA, gutted their own
refuge of staff and resources, and attempted to cut the bison herd size
by two thirds in what many independent observers, including the
editorial board of the largest newspaper in the region, called a ``burn
the village'' mentality.
What is needed, clearly, is a true government-to-government
relationship, not a few positions held open for Tribal members in a
make-work program which the Service can point to as evidence of
progress. Congress opened the self-determination door which the Tribes
are walking through. We owe them a fair and balanced chance to prove
their abilities, on a level playing field and working under a
legitimate agreement. Our group requests that you use your powerful
committee to direct the Service to negotiate a new and well crafted
AFA, on that essential government-to-government basis, with the
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes.
Some in the Service have attempted to discredit our organization
because we refuse to be a rubber stamp for their goals. In truth, we
represent a balanced middle ground and we welcome the opportunity to
bring forth a perspective that you perhaps have not yet heard.
Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
/s/ Paul Bishop, Founder, Friends of the National Bison Range
______
[A statement submitted for the record by James Steele, Jr.,
Chairman, Tribal Council, The Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Pablo, Montana, follows:]
Statement of James Steele, Jr., Chairman of the
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation
During the October 9, 2007 oversight hearing held by the House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, there
was some discussion about the status of a pending Tribal Self-
Governance Annual Funding Agreement at the National Bison Range (NBR),
which is located entirely within the Flathead Indian Reservation in
western Montana. In response to a question from Mr. Kildee on the
status of that Annual Funding Agreement (AFA), the Director of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Dale Hall replied to the effect that the
FWS had made a proposal for an ``agreement'' (rather than a Self-
Governance Annual Funding Agreement) to the Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes (CSKT or Tribes) a couple of months ago and further
indicated that the Tribes had not really reengaged in the discussions
and negotiation process.
Nothing could be further from the truth and on behalf of CSKT, I
would like the record to clearly reflect that FWS has repeatedly
refused to even discuss a Tribal Self-Governance agreement since it
abruptly terminated the FY 2005-06 AFA for the NBR (which had been
extended into FY 2007) on the basis of allegations which had not been
shared with CSKT and for which CSKT was not provided any opportunity to
respond. CSKT would also like the record to reflect exactly what sort
of new ``cooperative agreement'' FWS has recently proposed due to its
refusal to discuss a Tribal Self-Governance agreement.
By way of background, in 1994, the House Natural Resources
Committee reported H.R. 3508 and H.R. 4842. After negotiations with the
Senate, H.R. 4842 was signed into law on October 25, 1994 as PL 103-
413. This is the legislation that permanently authorized the Tribal
Self-Governance Act. Under Self-Governance an Indian Tribe can
administer and manage programs, activities, functions and services
previously managed by the federal agency in question. For Interior
Department programs outside of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Tribal
Self-Governance Act included language authorizing Self Governance
Annual Funding Agreements (AFA) for programs, services, function and
activities that are of special geographic, historical or cultural
significance to a tribe requesting an agreement. Committee report
language (see page 10 of H. Rept. 103-653) specifically references
programs operated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and goes on to
state that any Interior program ``[c]arried out by the Secretary within
the exterior boundaries of a reservation shall be presumptively
eligible for inclusion in the Self-governance funding agreement.''
[emphasis added]
Immediately after President Clinton signed the Tribal Self-
Governance Act into law, CSKT made known its interest in negotiating an
AFA under that Act for contracting local management activities of the
NBR. CSKT encountered resistance and years of dilatory tactics from FWS
and was unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement until
December 2004, when an FY 2005-06 Self-Governance AFA was signed
involving limited contracting of biology, visitor service, maintenance
and fire activities at the NBR.
While working alongside FWS staff under that AFA, CSKT continued to
experience on-the-ground resistance from FWS staff and officials,
mostly in the form of repeated lack of communication and cooperation.
CSKT repeatedly raised these problems to FWS regional officials but the
problems continued until December 11, 2006, when FWS abruptly
terminated the AFA, as well as negotiations for a successor AFA, on the
basis of allegations which FWS had never shared with CSKT and to which
CSKT was never provided an opportunity to respond.
The same week this AFA was terminated by FWS, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes were told by an Interior official that FWS
Director Dale Hall had met with Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett and
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Jim Cason and they all
had agreed to ``immediately'' enter into a new Self-Governance AFA with
CSKT. That very week, at the Department's request, CSKT submitted
proposed changes for the new AFA. This agreement by the FWS Director
and Interior officials was later memorialized in a memo from Deputy
Secretary Scarlett dated December 29, 2006 [see Attachment #1 for copy
of memo].
Following January 2007 meetings with Director Hall and other
federal officials on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, CSKT
contacted FWS to initiate negotiations for the new Self-Governance AFA.
FWS refused to talk to CSKT about a new AFA and referred Tribal
representatives instead to the Department of the Interior (DOI). CSKT
was told to submit its proposed Self-Governance AFA directly to
Interior officials, which it did on February 6, 2007.
In the following weeks, CSKT Tribal Chairman James Steele, Jr. sent
two letters to FWS Regional Director Mitch King, offering assistance at
the NBR pending the effective date of a new Self-Governance agreement.
The first letter was dated February 16, 2007 and, in addition to an
offer of general assistance, it: 1) inquired about filling a vacant NBR
biologist position through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)
assignment; and 2) requested to start work, jointly with FWS staff, on
drafting a five year operations plan for the NBR per the direction laid
out in Deputy Secretary Scarlett's December 29, 2006 memo memorializing
her agreement with FWS Director Dale Hall.
The only response to the February 16, 2007 letter which CSKT
received from FWS was a three-sentence letter dated March 14, 2007 in
which FWS Regional Director Mitch King stated that FWS had decided to
handle NBR biologist duties by using a biologist stationed in Bozeman,
Montana (which is located four hours away from the NBR). The Regional
Director's letter did not respond to CSKT's general offer of assistance
pending a new Self-Governance AFA, nor did it respond to CSKT's request
to initiate the joint FWS-CSKT development of the five year operations
plan for the NBR, per direction of Deputy Secretary Scarlett and FWS
Director Hall.
At this point, the Tribal Chairman sent a letter to Deputy
Secretary Scarlett, dated March 19, 2007 which expressed concern over
FWS resistance to: 1) a Self-Governance AFA for the NBR; and 2) the
policy of Tribal Self-Governance in general. The letter also requested
a meeting with the Deputy Secretary.
The Tribal Chairman's second letter to the FWS Regional Director,
dated March 26, 2007, expressed concern about FWS not stationing any
biologist at the NBR itself. The Chairman reiterated CSKT's prior
offers to: 1) assist in any work needing to be done at the NBR pending
a new Self-Governance AFA becoming effective; and 2) start the process
of developing the joint five year NBR operations plan. Lastly, the
March 26th letter expressed CSKT's concern about the lack of response
from FWS with respect to the FWS Director and Deputy Secretary's
agreement to enter into a new Tribal Self-Governance AFA at the NBR.
CSKT received no response to this letter.
The lack of response from FWS to these offers of assistance,
combined with CSKT's concerns for fire protection at the NBR, compelled
CSKT to write an April 2, 2007 letter to Deputy Secretary Scarlett,
copied to FWS and NBR officials. This letter expressed CSKT's concern
for fire preparedness and fire suppression at the NBR in 2007, and
offered CSKT's assistance on those specific issues. As a result of the
letter, CSKT and FWS entered into a mutual aid assistance agreement for
fire suppression at the NBR which went into effect prior to the start
of the 2007 fire season.
In addition to the above-referenced letters, CSKT continued to
communicate with various DOI officials as the Department considered the
proposed Self-Governance AFA submitted by CSKT pursuant to Deputy
Secretary Scarlett's December 29th memo. On April 11, 2007, CSKT Tribal
Chairman James Steele, Jr., met with Deputy Secretary Scarlett and
other Interior officials in Washington, D.C. to discuss the pending
AFA. At this meeting, Deputy Secretary Scarlett referenced the Tribal
Self-Governance Act and reiterated her commitment to completing a new
Self-Governance AFA, as she and Dale Hall had agreed to do in December.
She also stated that she firmly believed that, if any non-BIA program
was intended for tribal contracting by the Tribal Self-Governance
process, it was the National Bison Range.
Two days prior to that meeting (April 9th), while most of the CSKT
delegation was in transit to Washington, D.C., a regional FWS official
met with CSKT officials on the Flathead Indian Reservation and: 1)
announced that FWS was reducing the NBR staff from approximately twenty
(20) permanent positions down to seven (7) permanent positions
(providing CSKT with a new, signed organizational chart); 2) announced
that FWS would be reducing the NBR bison herd; and 3) offered CSKT an
undefined ``cooperative agreement'' for work at the NBR and a very few
positions. FWS presented a letter to this effect dated April 6, 2007.
This letter did not respond to CSKT Tribal Chairman James Steele Jr.'s
letters to FWS Regional Director Mitch King dated February 16, 2007 and
March 26, 2007, in which CSKT had offered assistance at the NBR pending
a new Self-Governance AFA and had requested to start some of the
activities which Deputy Secretary Scarlett and FWS Director Dale Hall
had agreed upon as a course of action towards a new Tribal Self-
Governance agreement. When CSKT told Deputy Secretary Scarlett and the
other Interior officials at the April 11th meeting about FWS' April 9th
offer of a cooperative agreement, none of them knew anything about it--
including the acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
CSKT was perplexed at FWS' offer for a lesser, competing, agreement
to the Self-Governance AFA which its parent department was in the
process of evaluating due to FWS' refusal to even discuss it. During
the April 9th meeting, the CSKT Natural Resources Department Head asked
the FWS regional official for a written description of the proposed
cooperative agreement. By letter dated April 27, 2007, FWS responded.
In that letter, FWS specifically acknowledged that CSKT continued to
seek an Annual Funding Agreement to operate/manage the NBR as part of
the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, FWS said it was offering
an ``alternative partnership'' in the form of a ``cooperative
agreement.'' The letter ambiguously said that a cooperative agreement
could provide ``a role for CSKT'' and went on to describe an
arrangement wherein CSKT could provide a few staff to fill FWS
positions at the NBR, but no contracting opportunities were identified.
The FWS letter did not explain why FWS was offering a cooperative
agreement instead of a Tribal Self-Governance AFA, nor did it explain
why FWS would offer CSKT a loosely-defined cooperative agreement which
involved no contracting of programs while the Interior Department was
simultaneously considering, and committed to, a more substantial Self-
Governance AFA for contracting of NBR programs, as agreed upon by the
Deputy Secretary and the FWS Director.
CSKT Natural Resource Department Head Clayton Matt sent FWS
Regional Refuge Supervisor Dean Rundle a letter dated May 8, 2007
asking for an explanation of how FWS' offer of a loosely-defined
``cooperative agreement'' related to the Self-Governance AFA which FWS
Director Dale Hall had agreed to re-establish pursuant to his
discussion with Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. This May 8th letter
also asked how FWS' cooperative agreement proposal related to FWS'
stated objective to enter into more Tribal Self-Governance agreements,
as published in the March 23, 2007 Federal Register, pp.13820-22 [see
Attachment #2 for copy of Federal Register notice]. In that Federal
Register notice, FWS continues to list National Bison Range programs as
being eligible for Tribal Self-Governance contracting and, under the
heading ``Programmatic Targets'', FWS states unconditionally that
``upon request of a self-governance tribe, the Fish and Wildlife
Service will negotiate funding agreements for its eligible programs
beyond those already negotiated.'' Despite this, FWS again did not
respond to CSKT's letter and has never explained the conflict between
what it published in the Federal Register and its ongoing refusal to
discuss a Self-Governance agreement for the NBR. The Interior
Department's Tribal Self-Governance Policies are also noteworthy and
should be juxtaposed with the positions taken by the FWS [see
Attachment #3].
In July, FWS faxed CSKT a new two page description of its proposal
for a cooperative agreement, this one accompanied by an unapproved,
organizational chart for NBR staff which was different than what had
been provided to CSKT during the April 9th meeting. On July 30, 2007,
CSKT representatives met with FWS representatives to discuss the FWS
proposal, and CSKT attempted to flesh out exactly what type of
contracting the cooperative agreement proposal would involve.
After this July 30th meeting, CSKT sent FWS an August 15, 2007
letter expressing concerns about the cooperative agreement proposal,
pointing out that many boilerplate issues necessary to a successful
agreement were already addressed in CSKT's proposed Self-Governance
AFA, as well as the parties' FY 2005-06 Self-Governance AFA, and
recommended the parties use that document as a basis for further
negotiations. CSKT requested FWS to: 1) notify CSKT in writing of any
reasons it may have for not considering a Tribal Self-Governance AFA;
and 2) identify the legal authorities which would govern FWS' proposal
for a cooperative agreement. CSKT also indicated its support for the
DOI suggestion of facilitated negotiations for a new AFA, given the
difficult history CSKT has had with FWS over the past 13 years to
secure a fair Tribal Self-Governance contracting agreement at the NBR.
By letter dated August 21, 2007, FWS responded. Amongst other
things, the FWS response:
1) rejected the idea of facilitated negotiations for a new
agreement;
2) confirmed it would not contract any activities to CSKT, as
authorized by the Tribal Self-Governance Act, but would only entertain
IPA assignments for individuals to take direction from the FWS Refuge
Manager;
3) responded to CSKT's questions about how FWS' cooperative
agreement proposal comports with the outstanding commitment by FWS and
DOI to enter into a new Tribal Self-Governance AFA with CSKT for NBR
programs. FWS responded by simply stating that ``[r]egardless of any
prior communication between various officials of our governments, the
United States is not offering to use the CSKT's proposed 2007 AFA as a
basis for negotiation''; and
4) responded to CSKT's request for any reasons FWS may have for
not considering a Tribal Self-Governance agreement. FWS explicitly
disparaged federal Tribal Self-Governance policies with the following
blanket statements:
[W]e believe that an AFA is the antithesis of partnership.
The reason we will not consider a Tribal Self-Governance
agreement is that we are absolutely convinced such an agreement
is unworkable. The poorly written regulations for implementing
an AFA, in themselves, create an adversarial condition that
prevents partnership from occurring. The regulations do not
provide an intelligent method to achieve land management
objectives.
Those statements attacking the concept of Tribal Self-Governance
(and its own Department's regulations) are ironic given the Interior
Department's successful history of implementing Tribal Self-Governance
agreements. Hundreds of agreements have been signed and/or renewed over
the last thirteen years since the program was made permanent. The
above-referenced FWS views on Self-Governance are representative of the
attitudes which CSKT has consistently encountered from local and
regional FWS officials and staff since CSKT initiated efforts to secure
a Self-Governance agreement in 1994.
It bears mentioning that, after CSKT staff had been ejected from
the NBR (by armed FWS law enforcement agents) on December 12, 2006, the
CSKT Tribal Council temporarily reassigned those workers and, at
considerable expense, kept them on the tribal payroll pending the
effective date of the new Self-Governance AFA to which the Department
had committed. The salaries/wages for these employees were paid for by
tribal, not federal, dollars. In August, when it became clear that FWS
did not intend to honor its commitment to a new Self-Governance AFA,
the Tribal Council informed these staffers that, after the end of FY
2007, it could no longer keep paying for their temporary duty stations
out of tribal dollars, and urged that they look for permanent
employment, either through directed reassignments within the Tribal
government or elsewhere.
CSKT remains willing to negotiate a new Tribal Self-Governance
agreement for the National Bison Range, as the FWS Director and
Interior Deputy Secretary had agreed to do last December. Under any
Self-Governance AFA, the National Bison Range would remain a federally-
owned National Wildlife Refuge subject to applicable federal laws and
regulations. It would remain part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and would remain under the administration and oversight of the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, with only local operations contracted by
CSKT under the authority of the Tribal Self-Governance Act. It would
very much be a partnership between FWS and CSKT, with CSKT being
responsible for local activities, while FWS would still provide
direction and overall administration of the NBR as part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
This is a highly unique matter. CSKT is unaware of any other
situation where a National Wildlife Refuge:
1) is located wholly within an Indian reservation;
2) includes ancillary National Wildlife Refuges which are located
on tribally-owned land (Ninepipe and Pablo National Wildlife Refuges);
and
3) includes animals which descend from herds that were originally
maintained by tribal members at a time when those animals were faced
with the threat of extinction.
These characteristics all distinguish the National Bison Range
situation from that of any other Refuge situation and are the primary
reasons many people believe that NBR activities are precisely what was
intended for tribal contracting under Section 204 of the Tribal Self-
Governance Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 458cc(c)). As Montana's former
Congressman, Pat Williams, stated in a May 20, 2007 editorial: ``the
Bison Range remains a prime candidate for collaborative operations
between [FWS] and the Salish and Kootenai Tribes under the Tribal Self-
Governance Act. That is precisely what we in the Congress intended.''
On September 3, 2003, the New York Times published an editorial
strongly endorsing tribal management of the NBR. Below are excerpted
sections of that editorial.
The National Bison Range
[N]o one disputes the excellent management and conservation record
of the Salish and Kootenai.
The Salish and Kootenai have a deep historical connection with the
particular bison herd on this refuge--quite apart from the conventional
associations of Indians and buffalo--and a strong cultural or
historical link is one of the legal conditions for enacting an
agreement of this kind, which would basically employ the tribes to
manage the federal program. The National Bison Range is wholly enclosed
by the reservation the Salish and Kootenai live on, and the tribes
would be obliged to manage the refuge according to plans established by
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The National Bison Range is an unusual case. It offers a rare
convergence of public and tribal interests. If the Salish and Kootenai
can reach an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, something
will not have been taken from the public. Something will have been
added to it.
CSKT appreciates the support of the House Natural Resources
Committee leadership, as evidenced by the May 15, 2007 letter from
Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Minority Member Don Young to Interior
Secretary Dirk Kempthorne [see Attachment #4 for copy of letter]. In
that letter, the Committee leadership made clear that a Self-Governance
AFA at the National Bison Range is ``a logical partnership under both
the [National Wildlife Refuge] Administration Act and the Tribal Self-
Governance Act.''
CSKT further appreciates the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife
and Oceans' interest in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act,
and the support its members have indicated for Tribal Self-Governance
partnerships. CSKT hopes that this statement helps to clarify the
status of a Tribal Self-Governance AFA at the National Bison Range in
response to questions that were raised about the AFA at the hearing.
A final thought we wish to share with the Committee is that we
remain committed to working with the FWS to enter into a Self
Governance AFA at the Bison Range. We believe such an agreement will
benefit not only our Tribes but the Bison Range itself and public's
enjoyment and use of it. It is ironic that in the FWS' zealous
protection of their turf that they have lost sight of the benefits such
a partnership could create. As the NY Times editorial so aptly points
out, partnering with CSKT would not take something away from the NBR it
would add something. Beyond bringing in the culture, history and
innovation that CSKT would add is the fact that the Bison Range is
underfunded and partnering with the CSKT would in fact open up avenues
of supplemental funding. That the FWS would turn down that opportunity
is perhaps the most classic example we have seen of cutting off one's
nose to spite one's face. We hope a Self Governance AFA can still be
reached.
Attachments (4)
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]