    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      HEARING ON H.R. 2401, CBRA TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AND H.R. 2556, TO
        REAUTHORIZE THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT OF 1989

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                        OCTOBER 23, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 105-64

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     46-445 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director

                                     ------

          Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

                        JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    WAYNE T. GIL.CHREST, Maryland        SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
        Carolina                         SAM FARR, California
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
                        Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
                        John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
                    Christopher Stearns, Democratic Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held October 23, 1997....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Hawaii, prepared statement of.....................     4
        Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of New Jersey..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Tanner, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Tennessee.........................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Tauzin, Hon. W. J. ``Billy'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Louisiana................................     2
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska, prepared statement of...........................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Barry, Mr. Don, Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of the
          Interior...................................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Beard, Daniel P., Senior Vice President for Public Policy,
          National Audubon Society, Washington, DC, prepared
          statement of...............................................    27
        Connolly, Matthew B., Executive Vice President, Ducks
          Unlimited, Inc.............................................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    42
        Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International
          Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies..................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Topercer, William E., Ocean Reed Community Association.......    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    51

      HEARING ON H.R. 2401, CBRA TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AND H.R. 2556, TO
        REAUTHORIZE THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT OF 1989

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1997

            House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
                Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
                Resources, Washington, DC
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
    [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Saxton. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Fisheries,
    Wildlife and Oceans will come to order for the purposes of
    holding a hearing.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Saxton. The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss
    H.R. 2401, which amends the Coastal Barrier Resources System,
    and H.R. 2556, which reauthorizes the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act and the Partnership for Wildlife Act.
        The Coastal Barrier Resources System is a program which
    attempts to reduce the waste of Federal expenditures by
    restricting Federal development assistance in coastal barriers.
    I have been informed that the property addressed in H.R. 2401
    was mistakenly included in the system and that removing it is
    not controversial. I look forward to hearing from the
    Department of the Interior regarding this bill.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is one of
    several Federal programs to improve wetlands protection in the
    United States, Canada, and Mexico. It matches Federal dollars
    with contributions from State, local, and private organizations
    for wetland conservation projects in the United States, Canada,
    and Mexico that support the North American Waterfowl Management
    Plan.
        The populations of most species of migratory ducks and
    geese in North America have been increasing over the last
    several years. It is impossible to say whether or not any
    single program has caused this increase, but habitat
    conservation is certainly making an important contribution.
        I ask unanimous consent that the rest of my statement be
    included in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
                              State of New Jersey

        Good afternoon. The purpose of today's hearing is to
    discuss H.R. 2401, which amends the Coastal Barrier Resources
    System, and H.R. 2556, which reauthorizes the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act and the Partnerships for Wildlife
    Act.
        The Coastal Barrier Resources System is a program which
    attempts to reduce wasteful Federal expenditures by restricting
    Federal development assistance on coastal barriers. I have been
    informed that the property addressed by H.R. 2401 was
    mistakenly included in the System, and that removing it is not
    controversial. I look forward to hearing from the Department of
    the Interior regarding this bill.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is one of
    several programs devoted to improving wetlands protection in
    the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It matches Federal
    dollars with contributions from state, local, and private
    organizations for wetland conservation projects in the U.S.,
    Canada, and Mexico that support the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan. The program has resulted in the protection of
    more than three million acres of wetlands in the U.S. and
    Canada over the past seven years.
        The populations of most species of migratory ducks and
    geese in North America have been increasing for the last
    several years. It is impossible to say whether or not any
    single program has caused this increase, but habitat
    conservation is certainly making an important contribution.
    There seems to be widespread agreement that the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act is a critical part of this effort.
        The Partnerships for Wildlife Act was enacted to ensure
    that nongame, non-endangered wildlife did not slip through the
    cracks between existing conservation programs. It also matches
    Federal dollars with state and local funds to support a wide
    variety of wildlife conservation and appreciation projects.
        I look forward to hearing our witnesses' opinions of these
    programs. I am particularly interested in hearing from the
    Administration regarding the level of funding they intend to
    request for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act in
    future fiscal years.

        Mr. Saxton. Does the gentleman from Louisiana have any
    comments to make at this point?

     STATEMENT OF HON. W. J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Tauzin. Yes, just to show, Mr. Chairman, because I want
    to call the meeting's attention to something you and I have
    talked about privately. I see that Mr. Tanner has arrived and I
    will be very brief.
        But that is that, when it comes to coastal wetlands,
    preservation of coastal wetlands faces a new and serious
    threat. And I know that the Chairman of the Full Committee does
    not like for me to talk too much about whether or not sea level
    is rising, and whether or not it's affecting global warming,
    and some other reason. But I live in an area where we have 25
    percent of the Nation's wetlands, primarily coastal wetlands.
        And a sea-level rise of a meter, which is predicted by some
    people over the next 50 to 100 years, and a sea-level rise of
    as much as 10 feet, which is predicted by some who claim that
    there are serious changes going on in the Antarctic and some of
    the ice shelves there, either one of those, one foot to one
    yard and one yard to ten feet, would literally drown the
    coastal estuaries and the barrier islands of Louisiana, and
    we're told that that kind of sea-level rise would probably
    affect 50 million people worldwide. It would literally
    obliterate some of the Pacific Island communities, and would
    mean the end of the entire estuaries system in Louisiana and
    many of the coastal areas.
        And while we're discussing conservation efforts, I simply
    wanted to put on the table that, sooner or later, our
    committee, and perhaps the full committee, needs to be looking
    at this new sort of threat to coastal wetlands and barrier
    islands that is only now beginning to be discussed in back
    rooms and in scientific sort of laboratories.
        If, in fact, the numbers we're getting in Louisiana are
    that in the next 50 to 100 years we're going to have a meter of
    water, saltwater, on our coastal estuaries, we have a huge
    problem. The huge problem is that in our current systems of
    wetlands protection, we're not allowed to do a whole lot to
    protect those coastal wetlands from saltwater flooding. We're
    not allowed to do it, and even if you get a permit to do it,
    you have to mitigate that permit.
        It seems to me that we ought to be at least beginning a
    discussion on whether we want to seriously think about making
    sure that if, in fact, we're going to have a sea-level rise,
    despite all the best efforts to sign global warming treaties or
    what-have-you, that we ought to be thinking about a policy for
    coastal wetlands that is separate and apart from national
    wetland policy, that is designed to protect wetlands from other
    threats other than coastal saltwater flooding; and that maybe
    projects designed to protect and preserve coastal wetland areas
    from saltwater flooding ought to be the beneficiary of
    mitigation monies not burdened with that obligation. And that
    sort of discussion ought to begin soon at this level, Mr.
    Chairman.
        While I recognize this bill does not yet deal with that
    issue, perhaps this and other vehicles might be useful vehicles
    for us to not only launch that discussion, but perhaps at some
    point to build a policy that gives us some chance to respond to
    the loss of coastal estuaries and barrier islands, not because
    we're developing them for man's purposes, but because the sea
    itself is going to swallow them with saltwater if we're not
    prepared somehow to defend them against that threat.
        Mr. Chairman, that's basically all I wanted to say. I look
    forward to hearing my friend John Tanner's testimony and the
    other witnesses today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his
    comments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the
                                State of Alaska

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am pleased that you are holding this hearing today on
    H.R. 2556, a bill you introduced to reauthorize the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Partnerships for
    Wildlife Act.
        The purpose of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
    is to conserve wetland ecosystems and the species they support,
    in particular migratory waterfowl. This Act provides the
    financial assistance necessary for the implementation of the
    North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an agreement
    originally signed in 1986 to reverse the loss of wetlands
    throughout the continent and stem the decline in migratory bird
    populations.
        Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on earth--
    serving as breeding, nursing, and wintering grounds for an
    array of fish and wildlife. In the last two centuries, a
    significant amount of wetlands in the lower 48 states has been
    lost. As a result, certain waterfowl and other migratory birds
    in Canada, Mexico, and the United States have declined. To aid
    in recovery of waterfowl populations, the United States and
    Canada signed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in
    1986. This plan lays out a strategy to increase waterfowl
    populations by restoring and protecting their habitats. To
    achieve this, the plan relies on partnerships between public
    agencies and private organizations to fund and implement
    wetlands conservation projects.
        The Act seeks to promote public-private partnerships to
    enhance, restore, and manage wetland ecosystems for migratory
    birds and other wetland-dependent species in Canada, Mexico,
    and the United States. Since the Act's inception, 497 wetland
    conservation projects throughout North America have been
    funded.
        To date, such partnerships have protected more than 3.6
    million acres of wetlands, providing vital habitat for a rich
    diversity of wildlife. The Act is recognized as an effective
    model of wetlands management and conservation partnerships.
        Furthermore, on August 29, 1997, I cosigned a letter to the
    leadership of the House and Senate Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittees urging them to allocate $13 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act in Fiscal Year 1998.
        This Act is an outstanding conservation investment and I
    look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on
    H.R. 2556.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Neil Abercrombie, a Representative in Congress from
                              the State of Hawaii

    MR. CHAIRMAN:
        Thank you for yielding to me to speak in support of
    H.R.2376.
        I am pleased to be a cosponsor this bill and I urge the
    Subcommittee to report the bill to full Committee
    expeditiously.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, since its
    establishment by Congress in 1984, has leveraged millions of
    dollars in private sector funds and applied them to important
    projects to further the conservation and management of the
    fish, wildlife and plant resources of our nation. For example,
    most recently, the Foundation has in Hawaii focused and funded
    projects in support of coral reefs, such as providing high
    storage capacity computer and software to establish a Hawaii
    Coral Reef Network. It has funded extensive coral reef
    education programs, seminars and training sessions. The reefs
    are an invaluable Hawaiian resource and the Foundation is
    stepping up to help mobilize resources and provide funds for
    technical projects in support of protection efforts.
        The Foundation has over the last 15 years established a
    solid reputation for identifying and supporting habitat
    conservation, environmental education and natural resource
    management in a responsible and constructive manner. Millions
    of Americans have benefited directly or indirectly from its
    projects, including the North American Wetlands Partnership,
    the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Initiative, the
    Conservation Education Initiative. Of particular interest to me
    is the Fisheries Conservation and Management Initiative
    designed to support efforts to halt the decline in inland and
    marine fisheries.
        503 projects have been funded by the Initiative. One
    example is identifying supporting development of sustainable
    economic alternatives for fishermen and their families in the
    Northwest Atlantic region as groundfish stocks have declined.
        Mr. Chairman, the Foundation has provided strong leadership
    in bringing corporate, private and public sector together to
    bear on solving and managing wildlife and marine resources.
        The foundation has been in the forefront of developing
    public/private partnerships as a mechanism for addressing the
    problems and issues over which this Subcommittee has
    jurisdiction.
        I commend the Foundation for its leadership, and I urge the
    Subcommittee to expeditiously approve H.R. 2376.

        Mr. Saxton. So now let me introduce our witnesses.
        First, our colleague John Tanner, the gentleman from
    Tennessee who is also the co-chairman of the Sportsmen's
    Caucus--welcome, John, to our hearing this morning.
        And also, we have with us Mr. Don Barry, who is Acting
    Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for the
    Department of Interior. Welcome, Mr. Barry.
        Mr. Tanner, you may begin as you feel comfortable.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TANNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mr. Tanner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, andI'd like
    to thank you and Mr. Tauzin for allowing me to participate
    today.
        I'd like to make a few brief comments about why I think we
    should reauthorize the North American Conservation Act, and
    then submit my intended testimony for the record, with your
    permission.
        As you know, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
    was implemented in 1986, but it lacked a stable program of
    funding incentives to help pay for the habitat conservation
    needed to meet the waterfowl plan's goals. The vision was
    simple: Stimulate public/private partnerships, leveraging
    limited Federal resources with funding from various state
    agencies and private conservation organizations, like Ducks
    Unlimited and others, to restore and enhance millions of acres
    of habitat for migratory birds.
        With that, the North American Wetlands Conservation Program
    was enacted eight years ago. For every Federal dollar invested
    in habitat through this act, $2 are generated from states and
    private conservation organizations. Nowhere is the impact of
    the act more visible than in Tennessee. Four million dollars in
    seed money has led to a non-Federal conservation investment in
    Tennessee of more than $10 million. Gary Meyers, a friend of
    mine who is the executive director of the Tennessee Wildlife
    Resource Agency, is pursuing now several innovative
    conservative projects relying on the money available through
    the Act.
        One of those projects that I must mention is a ground-
    breaking habitat project known as the Mississippi Alluvial
    Valley Habitat Project. The TWRA and 16 partners are working to
    conserve nearly 14,000 acres of bottom-land habitat. What makes
    this unique is that it integrates the goals of the Waterfowl
    Plan with those of Partners in Flight for the first time ever.
    This is one example that has been made possible through the
    actions of the Congress in this regard.
        Clearly, we all share responsibility for the stewardship of
    America's fish, wildlife, and migratory birds. This act is
    evidence, I think, that we take that responsibility seriously,
    and I'd like to recommend it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tanner follows:]

     Statement of Hon. John Tanner, a Representative in Congress from the
                               State of Tennessee

        Chairman Saxton, Mr. Abercrombie, Members of the
    Subcommittee, distinguished guests, I want to thank each of you
    for the time, interest, and energy, you have dedicated to
    conserving, restoring, and enhancing America's wildlife and its
    habitats.
        I appreciate the opportunity you have given me here today
    to strongly endorse reauthorization of the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) with its current annual
    funding level of $30 million and the conservation partnerships
    that continue to grow from it. Today I want to talk about the
    positive results we've seen from those partnerships not only
    nationally, but in Tennessee and throughout the Lower
    Mississippi Valley.
        The Act and its conservation partnerships are working in
    Tennessee and all across America. As a Tennessee waterfowler, I
    need only tell you that this year's Mid-Winter Survey in the
    Mississippi Flyway found more ducks in Tennessee than Arkansas
    for the first time since 1955. A good part of the reason for
    that kind of success is the improving habitat conditions that
    the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has made possible
    relying on public-private partnerships.
        As many of you know, during the mid-1980s waterfowl numbers
    began to decrease because of both declining habitat conditions
    and dry weather across much of the critical northern breeding
    grounds. Recognizing those disturbing trends, sportsmen,
    conservation and wildlife organizations, and state and Federal
    migratory bird managers worked together with government
    agencies and established the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan (NAWMP). In 1986, the United States and Canada
    began implementing the NAWMP as a blueprint to protect and
    restore wetland ecosystems upon which waterfowl rely. Mexico
    became a full partner with the Plan's 1994 Update, and the 1998
    Update is expected to be finalized by May 1998.
        State and Federal migratory bird managers set ambitious
    goals for the NAWMP. Through the creation of 13 Joint Ventures,
    they wanted to conserve and restore at least six million acres
    of quality wetland habitat for waterfowl that would support a
    breeding duck population of 62 million ducks and a Fall Flight
    of 100 million ducks with average weather conditions by the
    year 2000.
        But the NAWMP lacked a stable, reasonably consistent
    program of funding incentives to help pay for the habitat
    conservation required to meet the goals of the NAWMP.
        So in 1989 America's sportsmen and women and a wide array
    of conservation organizations worked closely with the Congress
    to unanimously adopt the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act. President Bush wasted little time signing the bill into
    law. The President, the Congress, and others understood then
    the fiscal and environmental value of non-regulatory
    partnerships to get the most out of limited Federal resources.
        The vision behind it was simple: Stimulate public-private
    partnerships leveraging limited Federal resources with various
    private stakeholders to protect restore and enhance a diversity
    of habitat for migratory birds consistent with the goals of the
    NAWMP.
        First, the Act established a competitive grants program
    managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Second, the Act
    established the North American Wetlands Conservation Council to
    review and recommend wetland conservation projects that are
    ultimately approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation
    Commission, which includes two House members, two Senators, the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
    Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture. So the Congress
    has a role in deciding which projects are funded. Finally, it
    established a fund that relies on an annual appropriation,
    money from a coastal wetland fund, and the interest that
    accrues to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.
        Earlier this year The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus led
    an effort to secure strong bipartisan support for higher
    funding allocations to the wetland conservation fund with the
    signatures of more than 100 House members on a letter written
    by Reps. John Dingell and Curt Weldon. With the active support
    of The Sportsmen's Caucus, House and Senate appropriators this
    month agreed to allocate $11.7 million to fund the NAWCA for
    the fiscal year that began October 1. That's nearly $2 million
    over last year's allocation and it represents a strong
    committment by many in the Congress to ensure the continued
    viability of the Act as we work toward meeting the goals of the
    NAWMP by the year 2000.
        As a co-chair of The Sportsmen's Caucus, I'm here today to
    tell you that the Act is working and there is evidence in every
    region of the country.
        In the United States alone, $137 million in Federal funds
    under the Act have been leveraged with $318 million in private
    funding from nearly 600 partners to launch 260 projects in 45
    states. More than 700 partners in the United States, Canada,
    and Mexico, have leveraged $208 million from the Act with $428
    million to conserve more than 10 million acres of wetland
    habitat up and down the four Flyway corridors.
        Every Federal dollar invested in habitat conservation under
    NAWCA, generates another two dollars in state, local, and
    private investment, for habitat work. Clearly, we are realizing
    significant benefits from our limited Federal investment.
        This year's annual survey recorded nearly 43 million
    breeding ducks in key nesting areas, the highest level since
    the survey began in 1955. This year's Fall Flight is expected
    to exceed 92 million ducks, and breeding populations for eight
    of the 10 major duck species are increasing.
        Clearly, our waterfowlers are fortunate to call the
    southern region of The Mississippi Flyway home.
        No where is the impact of the Act more visible than in
    Tennessee and the Lower Mississippi Valley where some of the
    most innovative conservation initiatives are under way in the
    Mississippi Flyway because of partnerships encouraged under the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
        One of the NAWMP's 13 Joint Ventures is the Lower
    Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, which includes virtually all
    of the congressional district that I represent.
        Since the LMV Joint Venture was launched in 1989, 27 new
    state wildlife management areas covering more than 93,000 acres
    have been created, and 22 other state wildlife management areas
    have been expanded by 39,000 acres. In addition, seven new
    National Wildlife Refuges covering 68,000 acres have been
    established, and 15 others have been expanded by more than
    163,000 acres. Another 63,000 acres of wetland habitat has been
    restored and enhanced on other state and Federal management
    lands. NAWCA has made $18 million available for habitat
    conservation in the LMV Joint Venture leading to $36 million in
    non-Federal partner contributions.
        Perhaps the most significant contribution has been the
    involvement of more than 2,000 private landowners who have
    joined forces with the region's fish and wildlife agencies,
    sportsmen, and conservation organizations to voluntarily
    restore and enhance 140,000 acres.
        In Tennessee alone, eight projects that depend on NAWCA
    funding are either complete or underway including the
    establishment of the Cold Creek Waterfowl Refuge in Lauderdale
    County, Tennessee, that we dedicated just this past August. The
    Act has provided $4.1 million as seed money for those projects
    and that Federal investment has generated more than $10 million
    in additional funds to make these conservation projects
    possible.
        One of those projects is the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
    Habitat Project. It's the brainchild of Gary Myers, the
    executive director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
    and a long-time friend who is one of this country's most
    innovative state fish and wildlife directors. Gary and the TWRA
    last year launched this precedent-setting project that will
    ultimately include nearly 14,000 acres of bottomland habitat
    along the Lower Mississippi River. With $1.5 million in NAWCA
    funds approved last year and in hand, state and private
    partners kicked in another $2.44 million needed to complete the
    project.
        What makes-this ground-breaking project so unique is that
    for the first time ever, Gary, the TWRA, and 16 other agencies
    and private partners he has assembled, are seeking to integrate
    the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan with
    the goals of Partners In Flight (PIF). PIF is in many ways
    emerging as a companion management plan to the NAWMP that
    focuses on non-game migratory birds that winter in the tropics
    and nest in the United States and Canada.
        The MAV Habitat Project is the only one of its kind and it
    recognizes the basic fact that sound habitat conservation,
    restoration, and enhancement, benefits all migratory birds as
    well as many species of wildlife. This is happening with the
    support and active involvement of local farmers. NAWCA funds
    are making it happen.
        Clearly, without NAWCA and the creative public-private
    partnerships it promotes, much of this habitat conservation
    would not be possible. So it is critically important that we
    continue to make conservation funding available through this
    Act. It's not the only cost-share program managed by the
    Federal Government, but it surely is one of the most successful
    with benefits that go well beyond the Act's original goals.
        Indeed, over the past eight years we've learned that the
    Act's conservation successes reach far beyond ducks and their
    habitat. Freshwater fisheries and many wildlife species benefit
    tremendously from healthy wetland ecosystems that are the
    result of the kind of habitat conservation made possible by
    this Act. Healthy wetlands also mitigate flooding and the
    damaging effects of soil erosion not-to-mention playing a major
    role in the replenishing and purification of ground and surface
    water by filtering out pollutants. That's important
    particularly in West Tennessee where cities like Memphis rely
    solely on ground water aquifers for their drinking water.
        The Act enjoys the support of many Members of Congress, the
    Administration, the International Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies, and many conservation organizations led by
    Ducks Unlimited.
        And if you don't believe this kind of habitat conservation
    is important to our economy as well as wildlife, fish, and the
    environment, just look at this year's National Survey of
    Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. In 1996,
    America's 14 million hunters spent $21 billion and 35 million
    anglers spent $38 billion pursuing the twin traditions of
    hunting and fishing. Another 63 million Americans spent $31
    billion observing and photographing wildlife. In Tennessee
    alone, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation activities
    pumped nearly $1.8 billion into the state's economy creating
    thousands of jobs for our citizens.
        That economic investment would not happen without the kind
    of solid habitat conservation made possible in large part by
    the partnership funds available through the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act with the help of America's sportsmen
    and women.
        Thomas Jefferson once said, ``The strength and dignity of a
    nation are determined by how it cares for its resources.'' With
    that I would encourage the Subcommittee to reauthorize the Act
    along with its annual authorized funding level of $30 million
    to ensure that sound wetland conservation initiatives can
    continue to be funded into the 21st Century.
        For decades we've known that sound habitat conservation and
    restoration is the only way to truly ensure that we can pass
    from one generation to the next the American traditions of
    hunting, fishing, and conservation. Because in the end we all
    share responsibility for the stewardship of America's wildlife,
    migratory birds, and fisheries.
        Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
    participate in today's hearing. If I or The Sportsmen's Caucus
    can be of additional assistance on this or any other hunting,
    fishing, and conservation issues please let us know.
                                    ------

          Letter submitted by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

    October 16, 1997

    Dear Mr. Chairman:
        There have been numerous wetland conservation projects
    conserved, restored and enhanced as the result of North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) appropriations.
    Another very positive attribute has been the strong support of
    private partners contributing $2 for every $1 of
    appropriations. NAWCA has proven to be a successful, proactive,
    non-contentious wildlife conservation program that a large
    cross section of entities support.
        Annual requests for NAWCA grants exceed available funding.
    For example, in FY '97, project requests were more than $41
    million. Over the last three years, NAWCA appropriations have
    incrementally increased to meet this growing demand for wetland
    conservation projects. NAWCA is currently authorized at $30
    million. However, the recently introduced legislation reduces
    the authorized funding level to $15 million. Now is not the
    time to hamper NAWCA's growth and diminish the program's
    investment in wetlands conservation. NAWCA is an incentive
    based, landowner friendly program that fosters the development
    of partnerships to protect North America's migratory bird
    habitat in a continental undertaking.
        Our Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency very strongly
    supports NAWCA and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
    (NAWMP) and ask for your support for continued authorization of
    $30 million per year towards this conservation effort.
        Thank you for your support and commitment to wetlands and
    wildlife conservation.

    Sincerely,
    Gary T. Myers
    Executive Director
    Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, John, for the very
    articulate and concise statement.
        Mr. Barry?

        STATEMENT OF MR. DON BARRY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Barry. I, too, would like to have my formal written
    statement submitted for the record and just make a few oral
    comments, if I could.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, in 1989, when the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act was moving through the Merchant
    Marine and Fisheries Committee, I was a staff member at that
    point, working for the chairman of the committee, Walter Jones.
    I think for those of us that worked on this legislation, none
    of us--although we were optimistic as to what it could
    produce--ever anticipated that it would be as large a success,
    and would have the impact that it has had.
        I know that both you and Congressman Tauzin were members of
    that committee. I'm sure you're proud of your support of the
    legislation when it moved through in 1989. And I'm here to tell
    you, as one of the officials responsible for its
    implementation, the Act is achieving exactly the purposes and
    goals you had in mind. And so it's work well done and I would
    commend you for your past efforts.
        Let me just give you a few numbers to provide you some
    examples as to why this has been such a success.
        In the United States alone, the investment of 137 million
    Federal dollars has generated over $318 million in private
    partner funds, including state partners. We've had over 260
    different projects in the United States with 577 different
    partners involved.
        If you take a look at the overall program throughout all of
    North America, the investment of about 208 million Federal
    dollars has generated over $428 million partner funds, for a
    total of $636 million. We've had over 700 partners throughout
    the North American continent participating in the
    implementation of this program.
        And so in times of increasing budget scarcity, I think what
    we're doing here is getting a program that generates money,
    considerable amounts of money, and more importantly, develops
    real partnership networks in support of the overall goal of
    waterfowl restoration and wetlands enhancement.
        The two issues of interest to the administration under this
    particular bill would be raising the authorization level from
    $15 million to $30 million, as it had been previously. I'm
    informed that I believe that that idea is generally acceptable
    to the leadership of the committee.
        We are also interested in recommending that the
    reauthorization for the Act go on a five-year cycle, not a
    four-year cycle, so it could be more in sync with the five-year
    planning cycle that the North American Waterfowl Management
    Plan is on, and that way we'll always have both the Act and the
    plan itself in complete harmony.
        With regards to the Partnerships for Wildlife statute, this
    is the only federally-administered grant program for states
    that supports non-game species conservation. It addresses the
    needs that have been identified by the states. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service works in very close partnership with the state
    fish and wildlife agencies. The wildlife agencies are required
    to find other additional private sector funding to match their
    dollars, and, again, I think for the small investment that it's
    provided, it has been the only source of Federal funding to
    support state efforts to help avoid listings under the
    Endangered Species Act and to provide better information on
    non-listed species.
        The one area that I would note that the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has brought to my attention under this particular Act,
    the current Act authorizes, I believe, a 4 percent assessment
    of administrative costs. Because the overall amount for this
    program has been appropriated such low levels, and since this
    program provides basically a very small grant, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service believes that the 4 percent assessment for
    administrative costs is inadequate to cover their actual
    expenses in managing the program. We would like to at least
    offer to work with the Committee and the Committee staff to
    discuss this in more detail, and to see if there is an al-

    ternative way that administrative costs can be handled for
    administering the program.
        Last, but not least, we are talking--we're considering a
    bill which would correct a technical error in one of the
    coastal barrier maps that occurred in 1990. This involves
    Florida map 35P, as it's known, and it was designed originally
    to include an area that's known as an otherwise protected area.
    Unintentionally, property which had already been developed was
    included within the coastal barrier unit, and this bill today
    would propose to correct the--make a technical correction to
    the coastal barrier maps to correct the error that was made and
    to exclude an area that did not qualify originally, at the time
    that the original maps were developed. This administration
    supports the technical correction. We believe it corrects an
    error that we all made at the time.
        And I think, just as an aside, I would like to particularly
    urge this Committee--this is a small bill. This is a small
    correction that it would make, but I would urge the Committee
    not to overlook it in the rush of other business that you have.
        A lot of us in this town talk about private property rights
    and respecting private property rights, and this is a situation
    where we have an opportunity to correct what was clearly an
    administrative error in the designation of the maps, and I
    would just urge you to look for some opportunity to move this
    particular bill, so the affected landowners feel that their
    needs are being addressed. I don't think it would be very
    difficult at all to attach this as an amendment to some other
    proposal or something like that. And I would just urge you to
    not overlook and ignore this proposal merely because it seems
    to address the very small acreage of ground.
        On balance, we support all of these bills, and I'm prepared
    to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very
    much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barry may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Barry. I have just two
    questions--one that relates directly to the authorization level
    for H.R. 2556.
        As you know, the bill, as currently written, would
    authorize the expenditure of $15 million annually, and I
    propose to increase that to $30 million annually, which I think
    you agree with. Can we also assume that the administration will
    then request more than $15--perhaps as much as $30--million in
    funding for fiscal year 1999?
        Mr. Barry. Well, as you know, I would probable be dragged
    out of my office and shot by OMB if I would suggest,
    prematurely, what the administration will be including in its
    fiscal year 1999 proposal. I think, in all seriousness, this is
    the right thing to do, to increase the authorization.
        What the numbers show us is that the support for the North
    American Act is growing constantly, and I think what we're
    suggesting it that if this is a five-year authorization, we
    should not prejudge what levels of appropriated funding will be
    provided and what the future levels of appropriated requests
    could be. And I think it's wise to give yourself that cushion
    to allow future administrations to increase the funding level,
    taking into account all of their overall competing budget
    needs. So I think it's a wise move and we support it.
        Mr. Saxton. I think we get it. Okay.
        Mr. Barry. So I will pick up the phone and call you the day
    after the President delivers his budget message, and tell you
    what we've asked for.
        Mr. Saxton. Some would suggest that you may be dragged out
    and shot if you didn't make the request.
        Mr. Barry. That's right. I'll remember that, too.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Saxton. Let me ask another question that's related, but
    not as directly as my first question. We have been,
    collectively, quite successful--I know that there are some
    members--in fact, the executive director of Ducks Unlimited is
    here today, and we want to make sure that you know you're
    welcome. We are pleased you're here.
        We have collectively been quite successful in helping
    Mother Nature to provide for a rebound in waterfowl
    populations. Migratory Canada geese are coming back, and there
    are more resident Canada geese around the shore in New Jersey
    than anybody ever wanted to see. The black duck population, and
    mallard population, and other ducks have rebounded. More
    cormorants are around than I ever anticipated seeing. Perhaps
    the most astounding species, in terms of its current
    population, however, is the snow goose. And it has apparently
    rebounded to the point where it may be eating itself,
    literally, out of house and home in the Arctic.
        And I'm just wondering if you had any thoughts relative to
    this issue. There are some Members of Congress who are this
    very day trying to fashion, or at least talk about, some
    solutions to what has been described to me as a population
    which is about to be double what the tundra can sustain. I'm
    curious to know what the position of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service may be, or any other thoughts that you may have
    relative to this issue.
        Mr. Barry. Mr. Chairman, the current population levels of
    snow geese in this country is of significant concern to the
    Fish and Wildlife Service. I know that even Secretary Babbitt
    has received various phone call from his counterpart in Canada,
    other places, discussing this particular problem.
        I have personally not worked on this issue myself. I have
    listened to other people talk about it. I know the Service is
    very concerned about it, as is the Secretary. What I would be
    more than willing to do is to have the appropriate people from
    the Fish and Wildlife Service come up and talk to your staff to
    give you an update on the status of their strategies and
    thinking for how to deal with the overpopulation problem.
        You're absolutely right. The snow geese, when they
    congregate in certain area, can have a very significant adverse
    impact on the habitat, especially up in the Arctic area. And
    the Service is assessing what some of the different options or
    responses might be for dealing with the overpopulation problem.
        Mr. Saxton. There seems to be two schools of thought. One
    school of thought is that we have a collective responsibility
    of trying to deal with the issue in some way, and the other
    school of thought is that somehow Mother Nature will take care
    of this on her own.
        We have provided a food source for this large population
    when they're not in the Arctic, and then when this huge
    population returns to the Arctic, they apparently do so much
    damage to the tundra that the tundra will not recover any time
    in the near future. This is a problem that we in the United
    States have contributed to, and we must seriously look at the
    issue and determine whether or not to take action and what type
    of action we should take.
        So I would certainly very much appreciate--actually, before
    we leave at the end of this session, I would really like to
    have some serious discussion with your folks relative to this,
    to see if we can agree from the administration point of view,
    as well as from the Subcommittee's point of view, what we ought
    to do.
        Mr. Barry. Mr. Chairman, as soon as I get back to the
    Department, I will convey to them your request for a meeting to
    discuss the current situation and I will make sure it takes
    place.
        Mr. Saxton. I appreciate that very much.
        Mr. Tanner?
        Mr. Tanner. Chairman, the Chair is quite correct. The
    migratory waterfowl population has recovered. The Mississippi
    flyway, which is where I have to live--Billy lives on downriver
    in Memphis--is experiencing a remarkable recovery in the number
    of quality game birds: ducks, geese, and so on.
        We are aware of the snow goose in the Sportsmen's Caucus
    and we would like to be of any help that the Chair would desire
    from us at the proper time, and when all this takes place, be
    anxious to lend whatever assistance.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. Mr. Tauzin?
        Mr. Tauzin. I was going to tell you, John, it's ``snow''
    big secret. You've got to take some of the ``snow'' hunting
    signs down.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. In any event, we had a similar problems with
    alligators, by the way. When I first got here in 1980,
    alligators were on the endangered species list. My first visit
    to the Secretary of the Interior was a simple request: Either
    take them off or put Cajuns on, because there were more of them
    than us.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. And I was in the marsh with a friend who is
    here with me today, Billy Coyle from Tarragone Parish. When we
    were there a couple weeks ago, end of July, I've never seen so
    many alligators. We no longer have a nutria problem in
    Louisiana.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. It's amazing. I mean, we do affect sometimes
    unintended consequences with some of our conservation efforts
    and, while they're all well intended, obviously, we have to
    sort of react when things get out of hand. I don't know if we
    can just leave it to Mother Nature, or whether we have to
    seriously think about the consequences we helped create,
    sometimes a damaged habitat for other species, and we got a
    problem here.
        I wanted to make just one point and then ask a couple of
    questions of you. The first is, as John pointed out,
    something's working and I want to thank you for your comments
    about the act.
        I think the Act has contributed and I think a lot of other
    good conservation efforts have all contributed to some of the
    best flyway numbers I've ever seen. I mean, we get reports in
    Louisiana, John, that this is the best hatching year that is on
    record in terms of duck populations and geese populations.
        Mr. Tanner. I heard over 10 years ago, they said there was
    an estimated 40 million ducks on the Mississippi flyway, and
    this year they are saying it'll be a 100 million.
        Mr. Tauzin. Yes, some remarkable numbers, and we're
    beginning to see those reports now coming from our home
    districts, and so something's working. And we have a lot, I
    guess, to be thankful for and that, in fact, we have something
    working.
        What I love about this approach, of course, is that, you
    know, we've had these property rights fights. They'll go on,
    I'm sure. But this approach is so right because it calls upon
    the purchase of easements and the setting aside of critical
    areas, by purchasing them for the general public's benefit and
    for the protection of the species in conservation, which avoids
    the ugly fight between the property owners and conservationists
    over how best to protect these areas, and naturally,
    accommodates very well to the property interest and to the
    interest of conservation. That's a good approach and I want to
    commend all of you who helped support it and push it forward.
        I do have a couple questions, and maybe you can help me.
    What is the criteria for deciding whether a project qualifies
    under the act? Who's involved in setting, in effect, making
    those decisions?
        Mr. Barry. There is a statute itself that sets out some
    general criteria. I think there are about seven of them, and
    the North American Wetlands Council has developed some
    additional guidance to provide criteria for the selection of
    projects.
        They range from the logical one about how the proposal
    contributes to the conservation of waterfowl habitat to other
    factors as well: whether it benefits other wetland-dependant or
    wetland-associated migratory birds; whether the proposal would
    contribute to the long-term conservation of wetlands and
    associated habitats; whether it provides any benefit to
    endangered, or threatened, or candidate or proposed for list of
    endangered species; the partnership opportunities, whether it
    would involve a large number of people or just one or two
    people.
        So there are about seven criteria that the North American
    Wetlands Council uses, in addition to the statutory criteria or
    the further embellishment of the statutory criteria. And it's
    through consideration and ultimate ranking of all of those
    criteria that you'll decide which projects it can go with.
        The problem is, that there are many more projects proposed
    than they have money for, and so they need to rank them and
    make some very tough decisions.
        Mr. Tauzin. Yes. Are there any non-game wildlife
    conservation projects funded the Partnerships for Wildlife Act,
    do you know?
        Mr. Barry. There are a number of non-game proposals. Let me
    put it this way: There a number of projects which have
    significant benefits for non-game migratory birds. There a
    number of non-game species which are dependant upon wetlands.
    So to the extent that you have a well-thought-out, developed
    wetlands conservation initiative that may provide benefits for
    waterfowl, there are frequently other species as well that
    benefit.
        Mr. Tauzin. Sure, they're ancillary, but are there any that
    have no non-game components at all? Or do they all combine both
    the game and non-game aspect?
        Mr. Barry, Congressman. did you mean under the Partnerships
    of Wildlife Program or the North American?
        Mr. Tauzin. Yes, under the Partnership.
        Mr. Barry. Oh, definitely. I mean, the whole program is
    targeted towards non-game species.
        Mr. Tauzin. So under the Partnership Act, it is non-game.
    Are there non-game conservation projects funded under the other
    Act?
        Mr. Barry. Under the North American?
        Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
        Mr. Barry. Yes, I think the answer to that would be that
    there have been no projects under the North American Wetland
    Conservation Act which were exclusively for non-game species,
    but there are clearly a number of projects which have
    collateral benefits.
        Mr. Tauzin. Collateral benefits?
        Mr. Barry. Exactly.
        Mr. Tauzin. Now, in defining the non-game wildlife
    conservation projects that are, in fact, funded under the
    Partnerships, can you give us some examples of what types of
    projects those look like?
        Mr. Barry. There have been a number of, I could probably
    find a list of----
        Mr. Tauzin. Just give a couple of examples.
        Mr. Barry. I'll be giving Max Peterson's testimony here.
        Everything from important bird areas, small mammal baseline
    monitoring, some programs involving studies on bats, on pond
    turtle, neotropical birds. There's considerable concern about
    the effects of our rate of loss of neotropical birds. So it's a
    soup-to-nuts thing. Virtually every little critter that hops,
    crawls, or slithers has an opportunity to be proposed by a
    state fish and wildlife agency for support under this program.
        Mr. Tauzin. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Barry, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
    prepared a map to carry out the changes proposed by Congressman
    Deutsch. The map is now on file with the Committee. For the
    record, does that map place the new boundary line of FL35P so
    that it (a) follows the existing property line that separates
    the platted private property behind the homes located on the
    east side of Baker Road from the State conservation lands that
    adjoins those home lots, and does it follow the water line of
    the State-owned and protected property on the north side of the
    Harbor Island Drive and water line at the end of the full
    length of the lots located on Baker Drive?
        Mr. Barry. I have been instructed that the correct and
    proper answer is yes.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Saxton. Do you have any other questions? Any other
    questions, Mr. Tauzin?
        I would just--let me thank you, Mr. Barry, and also Mr.
    Tanner, who has had to leave, for being with us today.
        I would also like to note again that, as Mr. Tauzin, I
    know, will agree, the folks who are here with us in this room
    from the Fish and wildlife Service are to be commended for the
    great job that we've done collectively, as well as the folks
    that are here from Ducks Unlimited, lead by Matt Connolly
    today. This is a great private/public partnership success, in
    terms of rebuilding of the wildlife populations that we have
    mentioned today.
        I would like to unanimous consent that the statements of
    Mr. Young and Mr. Abercrombie be placed in the records
    following Mr. Tauzin's statement.
        Mr. Tauzin. Can I object?
        Mr. Saxton. You can if you want, but you can't if you want
    any more bills.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. The hearing----
        Mr. Barry. I was just going to mention one thing. I will
    make sure that the Fish and Wildlife Service follows up
    immediately and sets up a meeting with you on snow goose.
        Mr. Saxton. Okay, we'll move onto our next panel, and thank
    you, Mr. Barry, for being here.
        And the second panel is, of course, Mr. Max Peterson,
    executive director of the International Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies; Mr. Matt Connolly, executive vice president
    of Ducks Unlimited, and Mr. Bill Topercer, Ocean Reef Community
    Association.
        We have also been joined also by the gentleman from the
    eastern shore of Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, and we are glad he
    has been able to join us.
        Max, you may begin at your leisure.

        STATEMENT OF R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
        INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You have my statement, so I'll save you some time by
    briefing it. Okay?
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
        Mr. Peterson. I'll put the entire statement in the record.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, the states, represented by the
    International, were original supporters of the 1989 North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act. As mentioned earlier, there
    are three of our state directors who serve on the council that
    ranks all the projects, along with people from other
    organizations.
        So we have been very much involved in the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act since its inception. As has been said
    by you and by Congressman Tauzin, I think in 1989 we didn't
    really realize how successful this program could be, because
    these joint ventures that were established all over the
    country, which were just an idea at that time, really became
    the engine behind this, and using the voluntary nonregulatory
    approaches that Congressman Gilchrest and others talked about
    earlier this week on the Chesapeake Bay, really became the
    driving force behind the remarkable things that have been
    accomplished by this Act.
        So we certainly support the reauthorization of it. We
    support the increase to $30 million in the authorization level.
    We support the five-year cycle which coincides with the plan.
        I have in my testimony some statistics which mostly have
    been covered by Acting Assistant Secretary Don Barry earlier.
    So I won't repeat them, except to say that there are projects
    in almost every State in the Union--you're familiar with the
    projects around Cape May in your own State, where, in answer to
    earlier questions, when you do some work for wetland projects
    there, you benefit both game and non-game. In fact, some of the
    beneficiaries there have been not only waterfowl, but a large
    variety of other migratory birds which use that area. And even
    areas like North Dakota, which is an important waterfowl area,
    some of the most important beneficiaries have been non-game
    species.
        So this makes it, in our view, a model program, where the
    private sector multiplies the money. The states provide in many
    cases the match, or at least part of the match. I think the
    summary of this, I would say, is that if we had more programs
    like this, where we use the voluntary, nonregulatory,
    incentive-based approach for getting things done, we could see
    some remarkable things happen throughout the land.
        Let me, then, turn briefly to the other Act, the
    reauthorization of the Partnership for Wildlife Act, which, as
    indicated earlier, does concentrate on non-game species. It
    does require both a state match and a private match. So $1
    starts out and it becomes $3, which is exactly what happens
    also in the North American Act; it becomes $3.
        It does, though, in this case, by only providing a million
    dollars, it's really a drop in the bucket, because the needs
    out there, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, our needs analysis
    for non-game indicates that about $350 million a year is
    needed, not $1 million. But, still this little $1 million,
    which becomes $3 million, is an important start in doing things
    for non-game. So we support its reauthorization. We would ask
    that you increase the reauthorization to $6.5 million, so that
    we might see this grow some over time.
        Mr. Chairman, that's a kind of quick summary of my
    testimony, and I'll be glad to help answer questions later.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very, Max.
        Mr. Connolly?

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW B. CONNOLLY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
                         DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.

        Mr. Connolly. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. We
    deeply appreciate this opportunity to express the opinions of
    Ducks Unlimited concerning the reauthorization of the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act.
        And I won't belabor the subject because I fully expect my
    mother to come in the door and cut up a big apple pie for us
    here. It seems like everyone has been comforted by what has
    happened in the past 10 years, and I don't think we can rest on
    our laurels, but I think there's a great deal to be proud of
    here.
        We have a program that has in its origins a bottoms-up
    process. Projects come to us from the grassroots level. There
    is a participatory process that's done through volunteers on
    the staff of the Wetlands Council that are provided by state
    agencies, by the Federal Government, by not-for-profits. This
    has attracted the support of Fortune 500 corporations. It has
    had a Boy Scout, an Eagle Scout, come and propose a project to
    be funded, and has been funded.
        What it has as a great virtue is its flexibility. It has no
    burdensome bureaucracy. It has this bottoms-up process that I
    think has given it great, great value with the money that the
    Congress has invested on behalf of the American people. And I
    don't think we can overstate how it has caused creativity in
    partnerships across the country.
        State and Federal agencies often in the past a decade ago
    had a certain antagonistic relationship. There is no longer
    that kind of a relationship. This serves as a catalyst, and it
    serves most beautifully by identifying an opportunity in the
    form of a project, and at that grassroots level, in a voluntary
    way, people come together with a common spirit, and the value
    here is this kick-starts them. They know there's a place to go.
        Now the question was asked by Congressman Tauzin: Who
    participates in the selection? And a body that we've forgotten
    about who actually makes the final decision is the Migratory
    Bird Conservation Commission, which has four Members of the
    Congress participate in that. This is a program that has a
    continuing input on the part of Members of the Congress. In the
    House, Congressman Weldon and Congressman Dingell participate
    in this process. They are the final deciders on what is funded.
        So without being repetitive, I must tell you that this has
    just been so important, and if we can take any indicator of has
    it worked, let us look to a very neutral source; we don't need
    scientists; we don't need computer programs; we don't need to
    build models. As we've heard stated, what we have is waterfowl
    10 years ago, that there were species were saying were going to
    have to be listed as endangered at record lows, and now the
    highest number ever counted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in
    its surveying records--the birds, the resource speaks. Is it
    working? Indeed, it is. And I thank you and the Subcommittee
    for the wisdom that you've shown in the past in making it work.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Connolly may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Topercer?

        STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOPERCER, OCEAN REED COMMUNITY
                              ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Topercer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill
    Topercer, and I'm a homeowner in Key Largo, Florida. On behalf
    of the Ocean Reef Community Association, and our many aggrieved
    homeowners, I want to thank you and the members of the
    Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2401.
        H.R. 2401 makes a technical correction to the Coastal
    Barrier Resources Act, CBRA, withdrawing 11.7 erroneously
    included acres from FL35P of the Coastal Barrier Resources
    System. Similarly, it provides an opportunity to add 3.2 acres
    that were accidentally left the unit boundaries were first
    mapped out.
        By way of background, Ocean Reef Complex is a residential
    community designed in 1974. The master plan was approved by
    Monroe County and the State of Florida in 1976, has been in
    existence for over 20 years and is the home to almost 3,000
    people.
        Back in 1987, when the Department of Interior was reviewing
    properties in the Florida Keys for addition to the systems,
    representatives of Ocean Reef came to Washington to meet with
    officials of the Coastal Barrier Study Group. They were told
    that because Ocean Reef Complex was already developed according
    to the guidelines set forth in the Coastal Barrier Resources
    Act, that Ocean Reef would be excluded from the Coastal Barrier
    Resource System. In fact, when the Coastal Barrier Study Group
    made its final recommendations to the Secretary in 1988, all of
    Ocean Reef was excluded. Similarly, the Secretary's
    recommendations to Congress excluded all of Ocean Reef.
    However, in 1990, the Department of Interior reviewed the
    existing coastal barrier maps in order to add otherwise
    protected areas, or OPAs, to the system under the Coastal
    Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, better known as CBIA.
        Section 2(c) of the CBIA defines that OPA in the original
    Act is an undeveloped coastal barrier within the boundaries of
    an area established under Federal, state, or local law, or held
    by a qualified organization primarily for wildlife refuge,
    sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation
    purposes. Essentially, an OPA is either public property or
    property held by a nonprofit organization for conservation
    purposes.
        When the Fish and Wildlife Service drew the boundaries
    depicting what was intended to have been the undeveloped public
    property included in FL35P, they accidentally included 21 lots
    and 11.7 acres of private property that is part of the Ocean
    Reef development. This property was erroneously included in
    FL35P and should be removed.
        OPAs are not supposed to include private property unless
    the property was an inholding within the established refuge,
    park, or sanctuary. Our property is not an inholding. It was,
    and remains, completely privately-owned property not within the
    boundaries of any park, refuge, or sanctuary, and therefore,
    should not have been included in the OPA.
        For your reference, I've brought with me a 1980 aerial
    photo from which you can easily see both the 21 lots and 9
    homes that existed prior to 1990 in FL35P of the system, the
    small square area in the center of the map there, on the top of
    the center.
        I will attach to my statement to be included in the record
    certificates of occupancy and corresponding plat maps from
    Monroe County Building and Zoning Department. Equally
    important, I will present a letter from the Director of the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledging that
    mistake and stating that modification of this boundary
    constitutes a valid technical correction which the Fish and
    Wildlife Service supports.
        In addition to the fact that the 11.7 acres in unit FL35P
    were erroneously included because they are private property, it
    is clear that the entire Ocean Reef Complex was considered a
    cluster devel-

    opment by Fish and Wildlife Service from inception. In a 1996
    letter to Senator Bob Graham of Florida, Acting Fish and
    Wildlife Service Director, John Rogers, distinguished Ocean
    Reef from any other property that was included in the system.
    He said, ``Ocean Reef was excluded from the system because the
    Service found it to be a cluster of development prior to when
    FL-35 was included in the system.'' Clearly, by its own
    admissions, which is now stated officially in two documents,
    the Service did not intend the Ocean Reef development ever to
    be included in the Coastal Barrier System.
        The congressional and administrative attempt to exclude the
    private property in CBRA's unit FL35P is unequivocal when the
    relevant maps of unit 35P are reviewed side by side. It is
    clear that when the map lines were transcribed in the final map
    of 1990, they did not properly reflect the lines Congress or
    Fish and Wildlife Service originally drew excluding the private
    property.
        Unit FL35P is bifurcated by the entire of the Ocean Reef
    Complex that was excluded as developed. It is clear from the
    map lines that both Congress and Fish and Wildlife intended
    that all of Ocean Reef was to be excluded. I would like to
    offer the members a chance to review the maps which are
    included in your map depicting both the makeup of the entire
    FL35P unit, so they can see how it is purposely drawn in an
    attempt to avoid Ocean Reef community, and second, a map of
    Ocean Reef, so that the members can see for themselves where
    these 21 lots that were included in unit FL35P lie in relation
    to the State-owned conservation land that makes up the rest of
    unit FL35P, and in relation to the rest of Ocean Reef, which is
    excluded. I'm confident after reviewing these maps for
    yourselves, you will agree this is a technical error that
    warrants correction.
        The residents of Ocean Reef Community Association
    appreciate the importance of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
    CRCA has been, and continues to be, a positive force for
    environmental concerns in our community. We have voluntarily
    spent over half a million dollars on a project to restore the
    natural flow and improve the water qualities in the creeks of
    natural waterways around Ocean Reef. We started another
    voluntary project installing markers to protect seagrass beds
    by preventing motorized craft from entering the flats. We
    started a comprehensive recycling program which includes glass,
    paper, aluminum, plastic, newspapers, tires, batteries,
    cardboard, and white items such as refrigerators, stoves, and
    washer/dryers. We have the only tertiary sewage plant in the
    whole Florida Keys. We use reverse osmosis to irrigate our golf
    courses with desalinated water. We have, and continue to be,
    active supporters of the Everglades Restoration Project, the
    National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and this year's Coral Reef
    Resolution. Our interests in H.R. 2401 should not and cannot be
    viewed as anything other than a reflection of our efforts to
    correct what everybody admits was a mistake from the outset.
        The privately-owned residential properties in Ocean Reef
    were inadvertently included in FL35P, an Otherwise Protected
    Area of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and as a result
    of that mistake, we, the homeowners, are now being denied
    Federal flood insurance. Even though this mistake was made in
    1990, we were not even made aware of this problem until 1995,
    because FEMA did not re-publish the maps for Monroe County
    until 1995. As soon as we became aware of the mistake, we began
    to look for ways to fix it. Unfortunately, after meeting with
    Fish and Wildlife, we learned that the only way to fix this
    mistake was by an act of Congress.
        Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, I stand
    before you today to ask you to please correct this mistake by
    supporting H.R. 2401 and allow the boundaries of CBRA's FL35P
    to be returned to that which Congress and the Fish and Wildlife
    always intended.
        The legal requirements of CBRA support H.R. 2401; the Fish
    and Wildlife supports H.R. 2401; our Congressman, Peter
    Deutsch, supports H.R. 2401, as well as our two Florida
    Senators. We now urge the Subcommittee's support as well.
        On a final note, on behalf of ORCA, I would like to thank
    Congressman Deutsch for his assistance in this matter. During
    what I realize is a very difficult and politically-sensitive
    time here in Washington, his support and assistance has been
    unwavering. That being said, in the face of such clear and
    convincing and non-controversial evidence, I urge the members
    of this Subcommittee to please allow this measure to move to
    markup quickly.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Topercer may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Topercer, thank you very much for taking
    your time to come here to articulate your view of this
    situation, and I might say that, because of those who have
    preceded you in explaining this situation to us, I think it's
    fair for me to say that both the administration and the members
    of this Subcommittee agree that a mistake was made, as you
    correctly point out, and that inasmuch as it does take an act
    of Congress to correct it, that is going to happen.
        Mr. Topercer. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Saxton. So we appreciate your spending your time here
    with us today.
        Mr. Peterson and Mr. Connolly, likewise, we thank you for
    being here today to express your views relative to the
    conservation issue that you so articulately and adequately
    addressed. It seems to me that there is a very happy question
    being asked, and that is: Should we fund--should we authorize
    the expenditure of $15 million or $30 million? And the
    sentiment, I believe, from this Committee happens to be that we
    will authorize, I believe, $30 million on an annual basis, and
    as you heard me say while Don Barry was here, we hope that the
    administration will see fit to make a request that is something
    in excess of $15 million for fiscal year 1999.
        That having been said, I don't have any questions relative
    to the bill. I would like, however, because of what is the
    seeming emergent nature of the snow goose problem, to ask you
    to comment relative to the successful growth of the population,
    as well as what you see as--how you define the problem in terms
    of a habitat problem, and also if you could comment on what you
    see as the courses that we might follow to address the issue.
        Max, would you like to comment first on behalf of the
    International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes. In a recent meeting in Phoenix, Arizona,
    that does include people from the United States and Canada
    both, we discussed this problem at some length. There is a
    technical committee now at work looking specifically at the
    options, what are the options to reduce this population. It,
    obviously, means less birds; we have to reduce that population,
    which tended to build up when there was less numbers of other
    birds.
        And so we will have, probably within the next--I think
    within the next six months, we'll have a series of options that
    will be laid out, and we'll be glad to be sure your Committee
    is kept abreast of those options. One, of course, is to
    increase the bag limits, which has already been done this year
    in that flyway, to try to get some more of them taking by
    hunters. But that may not be adequate. So we're looking at
    other options. So we will be keeping your Committee fully
    informed of that.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Connolly, let me--you heard Mr. Barry say
    that he was going to dispatch some folks who are knowledgeable
    about this in the Service to come and chat with us. I would
    like to invite you or your representatives to do likewise, so
    that we can work along with you in developing whatever
    potential solutions there may be.
        And I think it's fairly important that we move as quickly
    as possible because there are some Members of Congress who--and
    I don't say this in any disparaging way--who are ready to move
    forward with what they perceive as the appropriate courses of
    action, and it seems to me that we ought to talk about these
    things a little bit before we rush head-long into one course or
    another.
        So I'll have our staff try to coordinate some meetings in
    the near term or at least a meeting, so that we can understand
    your points of views on these issues.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would
    consider it a privilege and honor to participate with you and
    your staff, and I am deeply appreciative of your sense of
    urgency concerning this matter.
        I think there's several points to keep in mind in this
    situation, and first of foremost is I think some people are
    beginning to presume that this is a generic snow goose problem,
    when in fact it's one confined to certain snow geese
    populations. It is not something that is in the Atlantic flyway
    nor in the Pacific flyway. We're talking about birds in the
    central part of the Nation, the ones that inhabit certain
    portions of the Canadian sub-Arctic region.
        It's been tackled by a diverse group of participants under
    the leadership of the International Association, and they've
    had a lot of scientific studies and a lot of examinations of
    the various options, and there have been recommendations made
    to the Service. And I think having this sense of urgency by the
    Congress will facilitate getting a game plan in action, most
    importantly to me, by next year. And we have to, I think, give
    the American sportsmen a chance to show that expanded wildlife
    management opportunities may bring a resolution to this, and
    examine and monitor what occurs, and if that doesn't do the
    trick, then other matters will have to be contemplated. But I
    think we have to have, as in any business situation, a business
    plan produced, and have each of those steps monitored and
    analyzed every step of the way. And I think that is in motion.
        Mr. Saxton. Mr. Farr and I were chatting just privately
    here about this issue just a few minutes ago, and just by way
    of question, we were wondering whether snow geese have any
    natural enemies, and if so, is there an issue involving the
    lack of such, or what's----
        Mr. Connolly. Well, it's a complicated problem, and it's
    been exacerbated by land use changes that man has created on
    the wintering grounds and on the staging grounds of snow geese.
        Mr. Saxton. Lots of food?
        Mr. Connolly. Right. Unlike ducks, where they breed is out
    of reach of most of man's influence other than by aboriginal
    peoples, and interestingly, the aboriginal peoples seem to be
    more attracted to the dark geese than they do the light geese,
    which is one of the reasons Congressman Gilchrest and his
    constituents are not able to go after the Canada geese, which
    once migrated to the eastern shore of Maryland.
        So it's a very complex international wildlife problem, but
    I think the options that are being laid out and presented to
    the Fish and Wildlife Service are prudent ones that we need to
    get a consensus behind, roll up our sleeves, and commit to
    doing something about it next year.
        But there have to be some expansions in what the
    opportunities are given to waterfowlers, and some incentives
    and some education that will go along with that.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr.----
        Mr. Peterson. Could I add just a word?
        Mr. Saxton. Sure. Excuse me, Max. You can turn off the red
    light, if you don't mind. Thank you very much.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. Peterson. As Mr. Connolly has eloquently stated, this
    is not a problem all over. It's a problem only because of the
    increase in population in some areas.
        In this upcoming briefing, we will ask some Canadian
    provinces to participate in the discussion because a large
    number of these snow geese, as other geese and ducks originate
    in Canada--so the solution probably will have to be a
    continental solution, not just one in the United States.
        On the issue of predators, yes, they do have natural
    predators, but when you get a population buildup like this,
    predators don't increase as fast as the population increases,
    and also there's some limits to what predation will do in
    particular areas where these breed.
        But that's all being looked at by the technical group that
    we established under the international auspices, which does
    include Ducks Unlimited people; it includes Fish and Wildlife
    Service people; it includes provincial people from Canada, and
    the Canadian Wildlife Service people. And I think your sense of
    urgency is helpful to us because we do need to say we need to
    move on with this and not wait for five more years of technical
    information.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
        Mr. Farr?
        Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate having this hearing.
        I wanted to follow up on Mr. Peterson's comment about the
    non-game species needing upwards of $350 million, I think you
    indicated. Has there been any discussion of sources for that
    funding? Would the Partnership for the Wildlife Act be an
    appropriate vehicle for permanently appropriating a source of
    funding or should we have a dedicated source such as the Wild
    Burro Fund, or how about the idea of a non-game wildlife stamp?
    I mean, duck stamps have been very successful. What do you
    think about proposals of how you meet your need for finding
    funding for those purposes?
        Mr. Peterson. Congressman Farr, there is an ongoing effort
    I think, as you may know, that we call Team with Wildlife that
    would address that. We have looked at everything from a stamp
    of some kind to paralleling Wild Burro and Pitman-Robertson by
    simply expanding the current excise tax to include some
    additional products that would be dedicated to a third fund.
        And we've meeting ongoing for the last several months with
    different Members of Congress. I'll be sure that we come up and
    brief you in detail in what we're doing on that, and we do have
    a proposal. We are consulting with Members of Congress about
    whether they would like to--what burden of that they would like
    to deal with, and we'll include you in the briefing for that.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you. And then that would be a dedicated
    source, then, for those species----
        Mr. Peterson. Yes, yes, exactly similar to Wild Burro and
    P-R in terms of being dedicated, distributed estates on a
    formula basis, so that the state would make the decision on how
    to spend it. It would be voluntary, nonregulatory, as the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act is, and we believe that it
    would enhance the same kind of partnerships that Mr. Connolly
    talked about for waterfowl in the non-game area. There are a
    lot of people that would be interested in participating if they
    had a vehicle.
        Mr. Farr. I appreciate that. Is your thought that you'd
    have this put together by the next legislative session, next
    year, or----
        Mr. Peterson. We have it now. We would hope to see action
    on it next year, yes. And we'll be glad, as I say, to go over
    it with you in detail.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Saxton. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have just a question or two for Mr. Topercer--Topercer?--
    --
        Mr. Topercer. Topercer.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Topercer--before I go to Max, who I see more
    here than I do in the Rocky Mountains.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gilchrest. What is different in your community under
    the present regulatory regime that would change with this new
    designation, if the designation is lifted?
        Mr. Topercer. If it's left as it currently is?
        Mr. Gilchrest. No. What's the difference between the way
    you are now to the way you want to become? What restrictions do
    you have as a community to your community?
        Mr. Topercer. The only restrictions are for these 21 lots
    that are restricted and cannot get flood insurance, because the
    line was erroneously drawn when FL35P was incorporated.
        Mr. Gilchrest. So that's it? And once that gets lifted,
    those 22 houses----
        Mr. Topercer. It's 21 lots total. There are currently----
        Mr. Gilchrest. Are there houses on those lots?
        Mr. Topercer. Yes. At the time it was done, there were nine
    houses and there are now ten or eleven, I think, on there now.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see. So besides the 10 or 11 houses,
    the other lots would be----
        Mr. Topercer. Able to be developed, that's correct.
        Mr. Gilchrest. I see. You wouldn't want them to be made
    into a park, so snow geese could go down there in a habitat, I
    guess?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Topercer. I haven't seen a snow goose down there,
    Congressman.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. I just wanted to understand that
    one point.
        Mr. Peterson and Mr. Connolly, sort of a colloquial little
    question dealing with my district. Can either one of you tell
    me--20 years ago, you couldn't find snow geese on the eastern
    shore of Maryland; now there are more snow geese than honeybees
    in some areas. Do you know what has attracted the snow goose to
    the eastern shore of Maryland, to the numbers that they are
    there now? Is it agricultural practices; the weather's a little
    warmer; they've changed their--they don't go to North Carolina?
        Mr. Peterson. There's several factors. Gary Taylor, who's
    from Maryland, who used to be Director of the Fish and
    Wildlife, is in our office, and he and I have discussed this.
    And several things happened. There's a tendency to build a lot
    of additional water developments in that part, you know, to
    have a lot more water. People like water on their land.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, I see.
        Mr. Peterson. And then there are crops around that land
    that are attractive to the snow geese. And we've had several
    mild winters, so that they don't go as far south. They hang up
    further north. All of those things have concentrated more snow
    geese on the eastern shore of Maryland, where I've hunted for
    about 20 years. When I first used to hunt over there, I saw ten
    times as many Canada geese as I did snow geese, and now the
    reverse is true. There's been a number of factors like that.
    The increase in population of snow geese, for example, is one
    reason you've got more of them.
        Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Let me footnote that, Congressman. It's been
    land use change. When many, many years ago the eastern shore of
    Maryland had no geese to speak of, the Chesapeake was known as
    a duck estuary that attracted principally diving ducks and a
    smattering of black ducks. With the advent of cereal grain
    being extensively planted in the watersheds of the Chesapeake,
    you

    began to attract Canada geese, which were opportunistic and
    they fed on the cereal grain residual that was left behind in
    harvesting.
        Snow geese, both on the tundra and on the wintering
    grounds, fed the same way in each place, which was to use their
    bills to pull up tubers and roots, and use the rich nutrients
    that were found in that on the tundra as well as in the salt
    marshes, which is where they principally fed.
        As land use changed and there were more and more advents of
    big fields with residual grain, the snow geese suddenly said--
    the light dawns on my head--``It looks pretty good to me.'' And
    they, too, began to feed on the residual grains, and they
    flourished. Now the difference between the Canada goose and the
    snow goose is--and you see this, I'm sure, in your district--
    the snow geese flocks are enormous, and as such, they are much
    more difficult to hunt than Canada geese. Consequently, they
    just kind of arithmetically keep growing, because there's not
    many spartan souls who have the tenacity to go out and set a
    spread of 2,000 decoys to bring in a 15,000 flock of snow
    geese, as opposed to the Canada geese which are much more
    vulnerable.
        Mr. Gilchrest. The Canada goose is much more orderly when
    they come in and when they leave. The snow geese are a buzz
    like bees the way they----
        Mr. Peterson. They also spiral up. In my hunting over
    there, you look up and there's 10,000 snow geese, as Mr.
    Connolly says, there----
        Mr. Gilchrest. Right.
        Mr. Peterson. And they get off of the lakes, and you think,
    man alive, we're going to find all kinds of snow geese, and
    they spiral up, and lo and behold, you don't get a single shot.
        Mr. Gilchrest. They make a great noise.
        I have just one more quick question before we have to
    leave. How many acreage of tundra have been destroyed in the
    central flyway because of the increased numbers of snow geese?
    Is there a number placed on that?
        Mr. Peterson. It's been several hundred thousand acres that
    have been detrimental effect on them. I don't know where you
    reach the point of being destroyed. But the adequacy of those
    tundra to support not only snow geese, but a wide variety of
    other kinds of critters, has been substantially reduced because
    of that damage.
        Mr. Connolly. It's almost irrevocable, Congressman, because
    it won't recover.
        Mr. Saxton. We're going to have to stop and go for this
    vote. But just let me say, to emphasize the point that Mr.
    Gilchrest is making, and that Mr. Peterson and Mr. Connolly are
    making, the snow goose population in 1976-77 was about 160,000
    in the eastern flyway, according to the numbers I have here,
    it's now just about 600,000. So we can see that the population
    has grown by almost four times, a multiple of four, in that 20-
    year period. In the central flyway the population has grown
    from about 1.1 million to 2.8 million, almost tripled in that
    same period of time. So we really have a major issue here
    that's got to be somehow addressed.
        Thank you very much for coming. We're going to go and get
    this vote. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
    subject to the call of the Chair.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
    Statement of Daniel P. Beard, Senior Vice President for Public Policy,
                    National Audubon Society, Washington, DC

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify on the
    reauthorization of two very important pieces of legislation.
        On behalf of the National Audubon Society, we're pleased
    support enactment of H.R. 2556, a bill to reauthorize the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and the Partnerships
    for Wildlife Act (PWA). Both of these laws have played a
    significant role in expanding habitat for birds. They are vital
    components of our nation's effort to prevent further
    degradation of habitat and to reclaim habitat that has been
    rendered unsuitable for birds and other wildlife by human
    activity.
        We concur with the Administration that NAWCA should be
    reauthorized at the current level of $30 million per year
    through the year 2003.
        In the seven years since it was enacted, NAWCA has proven
    to be an effective tool for wetlands conservation and
    restoration. Through the innovative use of partnerships between
    private citizens, corporations, native Americans, cities,
    states, conservation groups and the Federal Government, NAWCA
    has made progress toward its stated goal of ``conserv[ing]
    North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and the other
    migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend on wetland
    habitats.''
        I would like to take this opportunity make a few points
    concerning the use of NAWCA funds for projects related to
    ``other migratory birds and fish and wildlife.''
        First, it is clear from the language of the statute, as
    well as its legislative history, that NAWCA was intended to
    give equal attention to both game and nongame species. In
    enacting NAWCA, Congress made--among others--the following
    findings regarding nongame species:

              1. The maintenance of healthy populations of migratory birds
            in North America is dependent on the protection, restoration,
            and management of wetland ecosystems and other habitats in
            Canada, as well as in the United States and Mexico.
              2. Wetland ecosystems provide essential and significant
            habitat for fish, shellfish, and other wildlife of commercial,
            recreational, scientific and aesthetic values.
              3. Almost 35 percent of all rare, threatened, and endangered
            species of animals are dependent on wetland ecosystems.
              4. The 1988 amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
            Act of 1980 require the Secretary of the Interior to identify
            conservation measures to assure that nongame migratory bird
            species do not reach the point at which measures of the
            Endangered Species Act are necessary.
        Likewise, the stated purposes of NAWCA was to address both game and
    nongame species. The purposes of NAWCA, as stated in the law, are:

              1. To protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate
            distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems and other
            habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in
            North America.
              2. To maintain current or improved distributions of migratory
            bird populations.
              3. To sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory
            birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl
            Management Plan and the international obligations contained in
            the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other
            agreements with Canada, Mexico, and other countries.
        Migratory birds are defined by NAWCA as:

              ``. . . [a]ll wild birds native to North America that are in
            an unconfined state and that are protected under the Migratory
            Bird Treaty Act, including ducks, geese, and swans of the
            family Anatidae, species listed as threatened or endangered
            under the Endangered Species Act, and species defined as
            nongame under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980.''
        Funding of a wetlands project under NAWCA is, by statute, to be
    based on whether or not the project meets seven criteria. The
    legislative history indicates that ``[n]o single criterion is intended
    to be weighed more heavily than another with the obvious exception of
    the availability of sufficient non Federal money.'' One of the criteria
    is ``the extent to which any wetlands conservation project would aid
    the conservation of migratory nongame birds, other fish and wildlife
    and [threatened and endangered] species.''
        The legislative history of NAWCA supports and elaborates on the
    equal emphasis to be accorded nongame species. It is clear that the
    authors of PICA meant for nongame species to be given equal priority in
    NAWCA funding.
        There are presently a large number of nongame migratory bird
    species dependent on wetland areas that are in decline during some
    phase of their lifespans. For example, the Watchlist includes, among
    many others, the American Bittern, Black Rail, Franklin's Gull, and the
    Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow, all of which are severely threatened by
    habitat degradation and loss due to the draining of wetlands for
    development. These birds are just four of many dozens of species that
    would benefit from NAWCA projects directly focused on protecting and
    restoring specific wetlands that support nongame migratory bird
    populations. Nongame migratory birds are clearly intended beneficiaries
    of NAWCA, and as such should receive attention.
        Currently, it difficult to tell whether NAWCA-supported projects
    are directed at game or nongame species. The annual report on projects
    that the Migratory Bird Conservation Committee (MBCC) is required by
    the law to prepare does not contain information sufficient to identify
    the species being targeted by respective projects. We would request
    that such a description of targeted species be required in the annual
    NAWCA/MBCC report, and we would urge you to include such a directive in
    the Committee report on H.R.2556.
        Section 16(a) of NAWCA requires that the Secretary of the Interior
    undertake an effort to establish agreements, modeled after the North
    American Waterfowl Management Plan or the Tripartite Agreement,
    specifically aimed at protecting nongame migratory birds. To the best
    of our knowledge, the Secretary has not undertaken any such efforts. We
    would ask that the Congress, in any reauthorization bill, urge the
    Secretary to carry out this directive.
        As I mentioned earlier, NAWCA is an important component in a larger
    mission to protect and restore habitat. Increased attention to nongame
    birds, and fish and wildlife through NAWCA is an efficient way to avoid
    the time and expense of listing and restoring species under the
    Endangered Species Act. We would urge that to the extent matching funds
    are available, an equal priority is assigned to providing NAWCA funding
    for nongame species projects.
        Audubon also supports the reauthorization of the Partnerships for
    Wildlife Act. Like NAWCA, PWA is a good example of pro-active
    legislation that prevents the time and expense of invoking the
    Endangered Species Act in order to protect species. PWA has been
    received enthusiastically by the public, as evidenced by the waiting
    list to join. This important program works not only for individual
    species, but also for the broader goal of creating a conservation
    ethic, and involving people directly in the protection of species. It
    is a program that gets people excited about protecting the natural
    world. This is clearly a worthy objective that should be supported and
    fully funded.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6445.052