[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