[Senate Hearing 105-286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-286
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1059
A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT
OF 1966 TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
JULY 30, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-159 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-056015-2
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 30, 1997
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 6
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 2
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 4
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 12
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 7
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...... 3
WITNESSES
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary of the Interior................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 30
Senator Inhofe........................................... 28
Mosher, James A., conservation director, Izaak Walton League of
America........................................................ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Taylor, Gary J., legislative director, International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Waltman, James, director, Refuges and Wildlife Program, The
Wilderness Society............................................. 20
Article, Troubles Roost at Wildlife Refuges, Memphis (TN)
Commercial Appeal, May 18, 1997............................ 41
Fact Sheet, ``Major Reports that Identified Problems in the
National Wildlife Refuge System''.......................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 33
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
American Mosquito Control Association........................ 45
American Petroleum Institute................................. 48
Edison Electric Institute.................................... 49
Interstate Natural Gas Association........................... 53
Letters:
American Mosquito Control Association........................ 45
National Rifle Association of America........................ 54
(iii)
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Chafee (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Allard, Baucus,
Graham, and Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. We have a hearing today before the full
committee, and the purpose of it is to solicit view on S. 1059,
which is to improve the management of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
S. 1059 is a companion bill to H.R. 1420, which recently
passed the House by the remarkable vote of 407-1. Now, that is
an extraordinary vote. I'm not sure who the one was, but you
don't pass many things by 407-1.
The National Wildlife Refuge System was started in 1903 by
President Theodore Roosevelt with the establishment of the
first refuge on Pelican's Island in Florida. It has since
evolved into a system of Federal lands consisting of 509
refuges in 50 States, covering 93 million acres for the
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants.
Despite 60 years of growth, however, the Refuge System
remained without law governing its administration until 1966
when Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act. Even now, almost a century later, there is
no law that identifies a mission or articulates guidance for
the refuge management.
The 1966 Act brought the diverse collection of refuges into
a unified system of management and authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to allow secondary uses on a refuge, provided they
are ``compatible with the purposes'' for which the refuge has
been established. The allowance of compatible uses has become a
cornerstone of the Refuge System, balancing the needs of the
fish, wildlife, and plants for which the refuge was established
with our own ability to use and enjoy the refuge for a wide
variety of activities.
However, the Refuge System still lacks a true Organic Act,
a basic statute that articulates an overall mission for the
System and that gives refuge managers guidance in determining
what activities are in fact compatible with the purposes of the
Refuge.
Most refuges have been established by the Secretary of the
Interior over the years under a broad range of statutory
authorities, while others have been established by specific
Acts of Congress. These disparate sources of authority, along
with the lack of general mission and guidance for the Refuge
System have led to inconsistency in the management of
individual Refuges. This inconsistency, and other problems with
secondary uses of refuges, have been the subject of numerous
studies over the last two decades, as well as a lawsuit brought
by several environmental groups in 1992.
For several years both sides of the aisle and both sides of
the Capitol have attempted to enact legislation to rectify this
situation. The President has also taken administrative steps
for improved Refuge management with an Executive order issued
in March 1996.
Earlier this year, after a month of negotiations among a
broad range of stakeholders, the House passed H.R. 1420, which
I previously referred to. It is incumbent upon us to
expeditiously take up this legislation. Last week I, along with
Senators Kempthorne and Graham, introduced S. 1059, which
virtually mirrors the House bill, H.R. 1420, except for two
fairly narrow, but important, changes. Both bills establish the
mission of the Refuge System as one to conserve fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitat. Both bills allow compatible uses on
refuges, but give priority to wildlife-dependent recreational
uses, such as wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing. The
bills give substantive guidance and procedures for determining
whether uses are compatible with both the mission of the
overall system and the purposes of the individual refuge. The
bills require comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge.
One difference between these two bills is that the Senate
bill clarifies that compatible uses can be both wildlife-
dependent and other uses. The other difference is that the
Senate bill requires monitoring of the status and trends of
fish, wildlife, and plants on refuges.
My hope is to mark up 1059, and have it signed by the
President quickly, if possible. With that I look forward to
this morning's testimony from our distinguished panelists.
Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, my statement pretty much
summarizes yours. I have nothing much to add to be in the
record, except to underline the need for legislation so we have
a solid statutory basis for managing the refuge. I know that
Senator Graham has introduced legislation. Actually I think it
was S. 823. He has worked very hard to try to get some
consistency and some stability in the management of the Refuge
System. The House, has come up with a pretty good bill.
Anything can be improved upon, but it is incumbent upon us to
get this thing passed this year.
I appreciate your efforts, both and the Secretary.
Senator Chafee. Senator Kempthorne, do you have anything to
say?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Kempthorne. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
I want to applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for moving quickly on
the Wildlife Refuge bill. It is indeed a testament to the
importance of this legislation that the committee is holding
this hearing today, less than 1 week after the chairman's bill
was introduced in the Senate. There has been a great deal of
interest in this legislation and in moving it quickly.
The original House bill was negotiated between Chairman Don
Young and Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. Their
efforts to work together to develop a consensus bill show once
again that we can improve our environmental laws and make them
work better. Chairman Young and Secretary Babbitt deserve a
great deal of credit for getting this difficult issue to the
point where it is today.
The bill that Senator Chafee has introduced, along with
myself and Senator Graham is based largely on Chairman Young's
work, although it does make a few changes. One of those changes
was particularly important to my State of Idaho. When we
reviewed the House bill, we discovered an internal ambiguity in
the bill, which could have been taken advantage of by those who
might want to eliminate many legitimate uses of Wildlife
Refuges.
My concern was that the bill's exclusive focus on so-called
``wildlife-dependent'' activities might be interpreted down the
road as a signal that Congress intended only for these kinds of
activities to qualify as potentially compatible activities on
Federal wildlife refuges, and that the many other uses of
refuges that can now be authorized, if they are compatible with
the purposes of a refuge, would be left out. That would be a
significant problem.
Under the law now, our national wildlife refuges support
many uses, including wildlife-dependent uses, such as hunting
and fishing, but also important nonwildlife-dependent uses like
grazing, oil and gas production, electricity transmission, and
even family picnics and weddings. Under the House bill any one
of these activities arguably could have been eliminated on
Federal refuges simply because they are not wildlife-dependent
activities. In Idaho, for example, ranchers who were once
promised that they would retain the right to graze their cattle
on the Greys Lake Refuge, might have lost that right because an
individual refuge manager, already hostile to grazing,
interpreted the House language to preclude grazing as a
compatible use. This is an important issue for my State because
grazing occurs in four of the five Idaho refuges.
So I have included language in our bill to ensure livestock
grazing, and other legitimate activities on refuges, can
continue to be considered compatible uses on a wildlife refuge.
With that change I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill,
and for the first time it will establish hunting and fishing as
priority uses on wildlife refuges, and will ensure that other
legitimate and compatible uses can continue in the future.
Of particular interest and importance to me, to Idaho, and
to other western States is the provision in the bill that
provides ``Nothing in this Act shall create a reserved water
right, expressed or implied, in the United States for any
purpose.'' I strongly support this provision now, as I have in
the past.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed
in the record, and I will summarize from it.
Senator Chafee. It certainly will be. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, today we will discuss management of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This is a topic of particular interest to me
and to millions of Californians who recreate and take spiritual
refreshment in the more than thirty refuges that are in my State.
Established in 1906, the National Wildlife Refuge System has been
the backbone of our efforts in protecting the quantity and quality of
our nation's fish, wildlife and plant species. Our nation has
rightfully seen fit to set aside 92 million acres of land and water in
all 50 States and territories. Fully one-third of these lands are
wetlands, surely one of the more threatened and critical ecosystems in
our country. The diversity of these lands is absolutely astounding,
ranging from the stark beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
Alaska, to the verdant richness of the Cabo Roja National Wildlife
Refuge in Puerto Rico.
Equally diverse are the reasons why people visit the refuges. More
than 24 million people come to observe and photograph the always
fascinating and colorful plant, fish and wildlife. Another five million
come to try their hand at landing that big one that will be the basis
for umpteen fish stories for years to come. Generations of hunters have
enjoyed the solitude and abundance of nature that refuges provide. All
in all, more than 37 million people are drawn to our refuges annually.
California is fortunate indeed in having 37 National Wildlife
Refuges encompassing more than 400,000 acres. They are equally diverse
in their physical nature and why people visit them.
The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is
situated in the densely populated San Francisco Bay area, which is home
to more than six million people. The refuge, with its mudflats, salt
marshes, and rich estuarine lands, is a small remnant of a once vast
``baylands'' that teemed with plant and wildlife. Today less than one-
quarter of the salt marshes that made up the bay remain, primarily in
protected lands such as the refuge. The refuge provides a welcomed
respite from the daily grind for more than 300,000 visitors per year.
They come primarily to walk the trails, observe the wildlife, and to
learn more about the magic of San Francisco Bay.
Some 300 miles to the north straddling the Oregon-California State
line is the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. The Lower Klamath
Refuge was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, and was
our nation's first waterfowl refuge. It is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places as both a National Historic Landmark and a
National Natural Landmark. The 47,600-acre refuge is a varied mix of
shallow marshes, open water, grassy uplands, and croplands that are
used by marsh birds and waterfowl. This wonderful place is visited by
more than 200,000 people annually.
Mr. Chairman, I cite these two refuges to demonstrate the rich
variety and importance of National Wildlife Refuge to the people of my
State of California. I am sure that each committee member can cite the
importance of refuges to the citizens of their home States.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you personally for introducing the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Curiously, the
Refuge System has never had a clearly defined mission. Your bill will
correct this by clearly establishing the conservation mission of the
System, while providing managers clear direction and procedures for
making determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses
of the System and individual refuges.
Your bill will also require the Secretary of Interior to prepare a
comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. Developed with full
public participation, these comprehensive plans will assist managers in
clearly articulating the long-term purpose of each refuge, and how
activities on the refuge can help realize that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, the value of the National Wildlife Refuge System
cannot be measured solely in acres of wetlands, numbers of waterfowl,
variety of threatened and endangered species protected, or dollars to
the local economy. Perhaps the more important value of the refuges is
as a reminder of what America once looked like. A reminder of the
diversity of the plants, wildlife, and fish that once blessed every
corner and every acre of our wonderful country. A reminder of a time
when the wonder of a wind-swept field of royally clad lupines or a
lonely cry of a loon could be enjoyed on a daily basis.
Or perhaps the ultimate purpose of our Refuge System is as a
harbinger of what our country can once again be, with thoughtful
leaders and the perseverance of all people who hold wild things dear
and important. I hope that for the sake of future generations of
Americans, this ultimate purpose will someday be realized.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Boxer. The topic of the National Wildlife Refuge
System is of particular interest to me, and to millions of
Californians who recreate and take spiritual refreshment in the
more than 30 refuges that are in my State. We are indeed very
fortunate to have refuges encompassing more than 400,000 acres,
Mr. Chairman. They are equally diverse in their physical nature
and why people visit them. For example, the Don Edwards--San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is situated in a densely
populated area of San Francisco Bay, which is home to 6 million
people. The refuge, with its mud flats and salt marshes, is a
small remnant of a once vast phalanx that teamed with plant and
wildlife.
Today, less than one quarter of the salt marshes that made
up the bay remain, primarily in protected lands, such as the
refuge. The refuge provides a welcome respite from the daily
grind for more than 300,000 visitors per year. They come
primarily to walk the trails, observe the wildlife, and learn
more about the magic of San Francisco Bay, and some 300 miles
to the northeast, straddling the Oregon-California State line
is the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. The Lower
Klamath was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908
and was our Nation's first waterfowl refuge.
Mr. Chairman, I cite these two to demonstrate the rich
variety and importance of national wildlife refuges to the
people of my State. I'm sure that each committee member can
cite the importance of refuges to the citizens of their home
States.
I want to thank you personally for introducing the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Curiously the
system has never had a clearly defined mission and your bill
will correct this by clearly establishing the conservation
mission of the system, while providing the managers clear
direction and procedures for making determinations regarding
wildlife conservation and public uses.
Your bill will also require the Secretary of the Interior
to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge,
develop a full public participation. These comprehensive plans
will assist managers in clearly articulating the long range
purposes of each Refuge and how activities on the refuge can
help realize that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, the value of the National Wildlife Refuge
System cannot be measured solely in acres of wetlands, number
of waterfowl, variety of threatened and endangered species, or
dollars to the local economy, although all of those are very
important. But perhaps the more important value of the refuge
is as a reminder of what America once looked like, a reminder
of the diversity of the plants, wildlife, and fish that once
blessed every corner and every acre of our wonderful country, a
reminder of a time when the wonder of a windswept field or a
lonely cry of a loon could be enjoyed on a daily basis, and I
think that this bill is extremely important.
Mr. Chairman, there is one small issue that I don't believe
has yet been addressed in the bill, which I hope we can work
on, and that's a public health concern. I've heard from some
public health advocates in my State, specifically they are
fearful of an unintended consequence which is not being aware
that we, at some of our reservoirs, could become breeding
grounds for mosquitos and other pests, and that could endanger
the people, and I'm hoping that we can work together with
public health officials to address this issue. I don't think it
is that difficult to do, but I do think we should have a
section of the bill that recognizes this problem.
With that I want to again thank you and do all I can to
work with you to get this through the Senate.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. Well said,
and we will take a look at that problem you mentioned.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on this
bill, and I am looking forward to testimony from Secretary
Babbitt.
Colorado has a wildlife refuge. We don't have the 30 that
California has, but I think that----
Senator Boxer. We have 37.
Senator Allard. I stand corrected, 37. I appreciate that.
But the thing that I would stress in my comments is that we
need to be sure that we do give a lot of flexibility to local
managers of this refuge that Senator Boxer pointed out. A lot
of these refuges are in different situations, like the one in
Colorado has been described as the largest metropolitan
wildlife refuge, and it is actually a refuge that was built on
a Superfund site, because obviously it's not an area that was
ever going to be developed because of the contamination of the
groundwater in that area, and the purpose, obviously, is
conservation of wildlife. It was a very common sense use of
that particular land in the Denver metro area. It provided open
space, and it also provided a good educational opportunity
because it was close enough to many schools in the area that
students could be brought out and learn to appreciate the value
of wildlife, to study wildlife, and it has been used for some
studies, by the way, to evaluate the interaction of wildlife in
a metropolitan area, particularly the wildlife that you would
find on the eastern plains of Colorado.
I think that local flexibility is very necessary for these
administrators of these wildlife. Again the primary purpose,
obviously, is to conserve wildlife. It is a nesting area for
eagles. We do have burrowing owls, which are not too common.
Many times people, particularly school children, have the first
opportunity to see a burrowing owl in that particular area.
When you have a confined area, I can visualize down the future
there may be some problems of one particular species in that
wildlife refuge taking over the refuge, because there are no
natural predators there, and there needs to be some local
management to take care of that problem if that should happen,
and if you allow, for example, too many antelope or too many
deer, it could contribute to overgrazing and some erosion of
land and maybe have another impact on that species within that
confined refuge.
So I really hope that we can move ahead with this
legislation. I support--I have a few concerns, but I think they
will be easily resolved. Hopefully this piece of legislation
will come back soon after the August break, if that's the
desire of the chairman, and I look forward to working with the
committee on this important piece of legislation.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator. I have a
statement by Senator Inhofe to place in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I think S.
1059 begins to solve many problems that may currently exist with usage
on our nations refuges. This bill, for the most part, will benefit not
only the refuge system as a whole, but the plants and wildlife they
protect. There are, however, a couple of concerns that have been raised
with regard to uses of refuge land that are currently acceptable, but
under S. 1059, may compel Fish and Wildlife Service to change their
view.
First and foremost, S. 1059 is conspicuously silent on the issue of
utility company usage of refuge land, especially rights-of-way for
roads, electric power transmission and distribution lines, oil and gas
pipelines, and telecommunications. Under current regulations, permits
for these type activities are issued for long periods of time,
sometimes up to 50 years. This long-term permit reflects the time and
cost of such an endeavor, which can register between $500,000 and $1
million per mile of transmission line. Additionally, permits of this
length help to maintain a steady and constant stream of utilities
needed by the people of this country. My concern is that the language
in this bill could effectively limit that permit time to 10 years,
subjecting responsible utility providers to unnecessary review, and
possible re-routing, based on the lack of compelling science and data.
Second, I am concerned about the emergency authority created within
this bill. We are granting the Secretary widespread discretion in
suspending activities within the refuge, but providing no opportunity
for the affected party or parties to respond or appeal the decision.
Additionally, the Secretary does not have to consider the potential
cost of his action. I am concerned that this could be significant with
regard to some activities, especially power lines.
This bill moves us in the right direction. I look forward to
addressing the concerns that I have raised with Secretary Babbitt. I
feel comfortable that the members of this committee and the
Administration can move to solidify the position of FWS as stated in a
colloquy on the House floor between Congressmen Young and Saxton. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Our first witness now is the Honorable
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior. I have had the
pleasure of working with Secretary Babbitt on various matters
over the last several years, and want to pay tribute to the
excellent job you've done, Mr. Secretary, and when you're here
testifying on behalf of this legislation, which you worked so
hard on in the House, it reminds us all that the wildlife
refuges, as been set up here, are very, very popular in our
States, certainly in my State. The great brown sign with the
white writing on it saying Fish and Wildlife Refuge is--they
are all very popular. As a matter of fact, if anybody else
wants to give up any acreage, we'll take everything they got.
So, Mr. Secretary, you're on. Go to it. We welcome you
here.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank
you very much.
I have submitted written comments, and I will try to be
very brief. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have little to add to your
opening statement with respect to the characteristics and the
importance of this legislation. It is indeed remarkable, as
several committee members have already noted, that the Fish and
Wildlife Refuges, the oldest of the designated land management
systems in the United States, have remained so long without an
organic act, which we have long had for the National Park
Service, and we have had since the 1970's for the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
This legislation is, therefore, I think, an important
achievement. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the
extraordinary effort, not only of the House leadership, that is
Congressman Young, Congressman Miller, and Congressman Dingell,
but also the direct participation of the Wildlife Legislative
Fund, the State Game and Fish Managers through the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
Audubon Society, and the Wildlife Management Institute, among
others.
The principal features that distinguish this legislation,
in my judgment, are first an unequivocal declaration of the
mission and purpose of the system and of the individual units.
We have had a lot of litigation in recent years that is, I
think, traceable to the lack of a clear, statutory purpose,
which this legislation defines, straight on, as the
conservation and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants.
The real innovation, in my judgment in a political sense,
in this legislation was our ability to bring hunters,
fisherman, sportsmen, and environmentalists together in a
common affirmation of appropriate uses of the wildlife refuge
system. I believe that is the glue that binds this legislation
together. Of course, the mechanism for that is the definition
of wildlife-dependent recreation, specifically affirming the
role of hunting, fishing, photography, environmental education,
and visitation as the preferred, primary public uses of the
refuge system. That is the common ground from which, in my
judgment, all the other provisions flow quite logically.
They include, notably, the compatibility standard, which is
established for all uses and, as Senator Kempthorne pointed out
in his testimony with his changes, it is clear that the entire
spectrum of uses are available subject to meeting the
compatibility standard mandated in the legislation with a
statutory procedure laid out for the determination of
compatibility in a public process.
Lastly, as Senator Boxer pointed out, the importance of
refuge plans, of having a statutory procedure and deadlines,
and a public process for laying out the plans for each refuge.
The changes advocated, in fact, in this draft from Senator
Kempthorne and Senator Graham are entirely acceptable to this
Administration, and I appreciate their willingness to step
forward and discuss those with us to assure that we were not
going to have problems. Senator Graham's language goes to a
very important and essential process of monitoring as part of a
refuge administration.
Lastly, there has been some discussion about the issue of
utility rights of way, which normally are granted for long
periods, 30-50 years, and questions have been raised as to
whether or not the 10-year mandated compatibility review in any
way affects the grant of those long-term easements and rights
of way.
It is our view that the bill pretty clearly indicates that
you do not review the grant of the easements, all you review
each 10 years is compliance with the terms of the original
contract. There is a colloquy in the House legislation that, I
think, makes that very clear. To the extent that that becomes
an issue in your deliberations, I would ask only that in the
spirit of this entire proceeding try to work out mutually
acceptable language, and I will do my best to be available at
any time for any of those discussions in hopes that as this
bill reaches the goal line and we can continue this consensus-
based process.
With that I would be happy to answer any questions or to
leave you to your deliberations, as you choose.
Senator Chafee. Well, I think what we'll do, Mr. Secretary,
is we'll give each Senator 5 minutes to ask you some questions,
and if some have longer than that, we can work that out.
Now, as I understand it, one of the major criticisms of the
current law is that there is no guidance given to the
individual refuge managers to determine whether a secondary use
is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Now, as you
establish a refuge for the manatee, or whatever is it, and then
that is the primary purpose. But then what are the secondary
uses that are compatible with that primary use, and the bill
says that these determinations are to be based on ``The sound,
professional judgment of the manager,'' which itself is defined
as being consistent with the principles of sound fish and
wildlife management. Do you think this gives more guidance than
the current administrative standards? In other words, have we
made some progress here for the individual refuge manager?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I believe we have. The
important definition is the definition in section 5 of
Compatible Use, which makes it clear that any of the uses
cannot materially, ``materially interfere with or detract from
the fulfillment of the mission of the system or the purposes of
the refuge.''
Now, that was drafted as a legal standard. That is a very
explicit, judicially enforceable standard. Against that general
standard, we have decided in the discussions that it is very
important to retain discretion in the refuge manager for many
of the reasons Senator Allard has previously pointed out. There
is no way of making these judgments in 520 refuges by a set of
detailed prescriptions. So, I think the explicit standard, the
generic standard, and the sound professional judgment standard
ought to provide an adequate mix of those two objectives.
Senator Chafee. Where do you think we have made a step
forward in this bill?
Secretary Babbitt. I think we have made a step forward in
the following ways:
First of all, after 100 years we have a definition of the
purpose of the system. Interestingly enough, we have never had
that. All of the previous statutes are devoid of an explicit,
statutory definition of the purpose of the system.
The second important thing is that for the first time, at
least in modern history, we have brought sportsmen and
environmentalists together in an explicit recognition of
wildlife-dependent recreation which includes hunting, fishing,
and environmental uses. I do not think it is any secret that
among the State game managers and the international sportsmen
there is a lot of uneasiness about a system, sort of a
collection of statutes, which did not explicitly recognize
hunting as a statutory purpose, although implicitly it has been
recognized. Indeed the sportsmen are largely responsible for
the financing of much of the modern refuge system.
That compromise is glued together by an additional very
important concept, wildlife-dependent recreation. These are not
exclusive uses, but are preferred uses, and if there are
conflicts among users, the wildlife-dependent users have a
preference. So I believe that the explicit statutory definition
and the hierarchy of uses that are given statutory recognition
and tiered downward are really at the heart of this bill.
Plus, I might add, the planning mandates, which have been
the subject of a great deal of unnecessary litigation.
Senator Chafee. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, I would be curious as to your assessment of the
health of the species and the refuges. Just, how are we doing,
holding our own? Are they deteriorating, declining, coming
back, generally? Are there some that are doing a lot better
than others?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there are lots of different
ways of approaching that. I suppose from the standpoint of
sportsmen, waterfowl would be the primary issue since so much
of this refuge system is devoted to the maintenance of the
flyways for waterfowl. We've had a spectacular comeback of
waterfowl. We are going to have the best duck and goose season
in the last 30 years this coming season. Much of that, I think,
is due to the Administration and protection of the prairie
potholes in the northern Great Plains, and good administration
and a lot of good rainfall as well. So from that perspective,
we are doing well.
I would say that the principal concern within the service
are the pressures of urban use on many of these refuges, and
the fact that they are, by contrast with other land management
agencies, seriously understaffed to handle public use. Now, let
me say that is being addressed in the appropriation side as we
speak, and I'm very grateful for that.
Senator Baucus. There has been some discussion the last
several years about the state of disrepair of some of our
national parks; Yellowstone, for example, Glacier is
deteriorating, a backlog of unmet repairs, maintenance needs,
and so forth. Do the refuges face a similar situation?
Secretary Babbitt. Oh sure. The answer is yes. I think that
any visitor to a wildlife refuge will be impressed at the very
primitive nature of the facilities on that refuge. If you go
out to Blackwater, here, you can see the difference. The
refuges in Montana, a lot of them are being administered out of
double-wide trailers and out of kind of Jerry-built facilities
that show a lot of ingenuity and very little money in their
establishment.
Senator Baucus. That's all a matter of appropriations?
Secretary Babbitt. I think that's the basic issue. We're
going to get a much better appropriation bill this year.
Obviously it's not going to wipe out all that backlog in a
short time period.
Senator Baucus. What about the parks?
Secretary Babbitt. I think you have stated accurately the
condition of the parks. We are making a few small strides; the
increase in visitor fees helps. It would be really helpful in
this year's appropriation bill for the Senate to accede to the
House language allowing us to retain all of the fee increases
in the park system. It would make a substantial difference.
We need to make some additional progress on concession
reform. There is no silver bullet, but these all add up, I
think.
Senator Baucus. But one park raised a million dollars in
fees voluntarily, is that right? You or someone in the service
mentioned to me that one park raised quite a sum of money, the
fees, recently.
Secretary Babbitt. There is no question about that. Just
take Grand Canyon, 5,000,000 visitors, say an average three to
a car, visit a week. We are getting a lot more than $1 million
for the Grand Canyon. I would say it is probably closer to $3,
$4, $5 million. Of course, that's in a context of a budget of--
Grand Canyon--I think it is now up to $25 million a year in
operating budget. The fee increases are going to be segregated
for capital improvements and, in this case, a very exciting
plan to put up a mass transit system.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just have a couple of questions. On page 10 there in the
bill, again we were referring to that section that you referred
to, the administration of the system and the flexibility and
whatnot the balance that you have. There is a paragraph there
that talks about, as a secondary use at least, to assist in the
maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality,
fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each
refuge, and then--that is F and then G--it says, ``acquire,
under State law, water rights that are needed for refuge
purposes.''
So I just want to make it clear for the record that there
is an intention there to make the State a part of that effort
in maintaining adequate water quantity and water quality,
because that can be an issue in an area like the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal where we have a lot of contamination with groundwater,
and sometimes there are concerns at the local area, and just
want to make sure we have the intent where they would be
working with the States in that part of the provision.
Secretary Babbitt. Yes, I think that is accurate.
Senator Allard. OK. Then the other area I have in the bill
is on page 21, subsection 2 there, where it says, ``Nothing in
this Act shall diminish or affect the ability to join the
United States in adjudication of rights to the use of water
pursuant to the McCarran Act,'' and then it has a specific
reference. Actually this is something we already have in
statutory law now, and the question I have is why is it
necessary to repeat it in this particular piece of legislation?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, I would be happy to delete it.
But, I think you will find that most of the ``water buffalos''
who were circling around this legislation were eager to repeat
it, and you will find the one characteristic of the water
buffalo crowd is that they cannot repeat this language too many
times.
Senator Allard. OK. Thank you for your response on that.
I do not have any other concerns in particular. I just had
a few minor things that I wanted to bring up. I did not see
them as real big issues. But wanted to ask you about those and
I appreciate your responses. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Graham.
First I want to say Senator Graham has been very, very
active in this as we know on this committee, your legislation
passed in the Senate one time, not too long ago, did it not,
Senator?
Senator Graham. Almost.
Senator Chafee. Almost. All right. Well, we score for close
ones. But in any event, this is an area where Senator Graham
has been very, very knowledgeable and helpful and interested.
So we are delighted that you are here this morning, Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those kind
remarks and your typical high standard of generosity.
This issue of the future of the National Wildlife Refuge
System has been one of great public and personal concern for
many years. We have all read and personally experienced and
seen on television instances in which our National Refuge
System was being degraded by a number a internal and external
forces.
A major source of those forces comes under the heading of
incompatible uses. In my own State of Florida, a number of
refuges which were established for the protection of specific
species have been degraded by activities that made the refuge
incompatible for that species. I would like therefore to ask
the Secretary some questions about compatibility.
One of the sources of incompatibility has been the use
refuges for military purposes. In previous legislation there
has been some specific language relative to the utilization for
Department of Defence activities, including requirements of a
Presidential Finding before they could be used for that
purpose. This legislation does not have a provision similar to
that. I wonder if the Secretary could discuss how he would
anticipate, or what is the current state of use by the
Department of Defence of wildlife refuges and what resolution
of the conflicts that have existed in the past would he
anticipate in the future?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, the legislation provides that
existing uses by Federal agencies, which have been accepted and
authorized and permitted under Federal law, will continue. Now,
we have had very productive discussions with the military about
these issues. There has been some conflict in the past,
Gullwater Gunnery Range is one that comes to mind, over which
there is a wildlife refuge overlay.
I am satisfied that we have these worked out. I must say
that the Department of Defense has been very cooperative in
working out these issues, and, I think, rather than sort of
digging up all of those old controversies, it is better just to
accept this language, and we are comfortable with it.
Senator Graham. Also in the area of compatibility, there is
a tendency, when a use in or adjacent to a refuge has gone on
for some time, for it to become seen, particularly by people in
the local area, as an accepted activity. It takes considerable
diplomatic skill and finesse if the goal is to moderate or
terminate an activity that is now determined to be
incompatible.
How do you see this legislation as affecting the ability of
the managers of the system, to make a determination as to
whether a use, including uses that have been in place for a
considerable number of years, is compatible with the primary
purposes of the refuge, and then where the decision is that it
is not compatible, to begin the process of backing it out?
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, there is no question it is a
difficult business and it comes from all quarters. A public
recreational user, jet skis come to mind as one where we have
serious issues particularly on the waterfowl refuges, and
others have a tendency to think that what has happened in the
past should be confirmed for eternity. The fact is that the
compatibility standard here, I think, contains a clear
direction, and a judicially enforceable direction, to the
refuge manager that he has got to make a finding that will not
materially interfere with the mission and purposes of the
refuge.
Senator Kempthorne discussed at some length with us the
issue of the Greys Wildlife Refuge in Idaho where we had a
dispute over grazing, which has been resolved quite nicely,
because clearly seasonal grazing at the appropriate levels is
entirely compatible with the purpose of that refuge and
arguably, actually enhances the bird nesting conditions
provided you meet the seasonal timeframes for the grazing. We
have got that one worked out, and I am not saying it is going
to be easy, but we do have a standard and I think it is
reasonable and I think it does not preclude by its terms any
kinds of uses. It simply sets the standard for how that use
should be carried out, and, obviously, some uses may be ruled
out completely.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State
of Florida
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is a long-
overdue ``organic act'' for our magnificent Refuge System. In 1991 and
again in 1993, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife, I
introduced the National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy
Act--legislation which was very similar to that which is before us
today.
My aims then were straightforward. First, to clarify that the
purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to conserve our
nation's diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Second, to improve the process used to determine which public uses
shall be allowed on the refuges. Third, to require the development of
comprehensive conservation plans for each of the refuges and ensure
that the public has ample opportunity to participate in the planning
process as it does in planning for our national parks and national
forests. Fourth, to lay out clear affirmative duties for the Secretary
of the Interior to protect the integrity and plan for the appropriate
expansion of the Refuge System.
My bill had the strong support of conservation groups like The
Wilderness Society, the National Audubon Society, Defenders of
Wildlife, and the Sierra Club. Thanks to Senators Chafee, Kempthorne,
and Baucus, my bill also enjoyed the support of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies along with a variety of
sportsmen's groups. The Environment and Public Works Committee reported
that bill in the 103rd Congress but unfortunately we were not able to
bring the bill to the Senate floor because a number of procedural holds
were placed on the bill.
In the last Congress, the House introduced and passed a radically
different bill that would have harmed our Refuge System. President
Clinton indicated that he would veto the House bill but fortunately, it
was not acted upon by the Senate.
The bill before us today is not identical to the bill I introduced
in prior years. It is not exactly how I would have drafted it, but I am
very pleased that it addresses the four major areas that I outlined
above: a mission statement for the system, a formal process to assess
the compatibility of refuge activities, a planning requirement, and
duties for the Interior Secretary.
Of course, even with passage of this bill, the Refuge System will
only meet its potential to conserve the nation's fish and wildlife if
the Congress appropriates the funds necessary for its proper
management. I am pleased that the House has approved a healthy increase
for this purpose in its FY 1998 Interior Appropriations bill and will
work to ensure that the Senate does as well. Senator Kempthorne and I
and 18 of our colleagues have written to the Appropriations Committee
to urge such funding.
theodore roosevelt's endangered species act
Ninety-four years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt established the
first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island in my state of
Florida. This bold move protected the last remaining nesting colony of
brown pelicans on the Atlantic seaboard. But as critical as this action
was for the pelicans, it had much broader importance for the nation's
wildlife because it began our only system of national lands dedicated
to wildlife conservation.
Before leaving office, Roosevelt went on to establish more than 50
such sanctuaries. Herons, egrets, pelican and other shorebirds, along
with all manner of water fowl found sanctuary on Roosevelt's refuges.
Barge mammals including bison, elk and antelope were also protected. In
this sense, the Refuge was Roosevelt's Endangered Species Act.
Refuges continue to be created to meet the most pressing wildlife
conservation challenges of the day. Refuges have been established for
endangered fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, frogs, bats, and
butterflies. In my state we even have the new bake Wales Ridge Refuge
established for endangered plants. And while we have many refuges to
protect endangered species, we know that many other species would be
headed for the endangered species list were it not for the protections
afforded by the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Today the Refuge System includes more than 500 refuges and 92
million acres which makes it larger than the National Parks System. Yet
in the lower 48-states, the Refuge System amounts to less than 4
percent of the federal public lands and less than 1 percent of the
total land area of those states.
In Florida we have twenty-five refuges encompassing more than a
million acres of land and water. These include refuges to protect our
manatees, Florida panthers, sea turtles, Key deer, crocodiles and those
endangered plants.
public support and use of the refuge system
Our Refuge System has been strongly supported by bird watchers,
hunters, and anglers throughout its history--even though there was very
little recreation permitted for much of the system's history. For
example, hunting was a rarity on refuges until 1949, but hunters and
sportsmen's organizations were strong supporters of the system even in
those early years because they realized that without protected
habitats, there could be no wildlife.
Today, the Refuge System provides ample opportunities for fish and
wildlife related recreation including wildlife observation, nature
photography, and hunting and fishing, as well as environmental
education. But these public uses are clearly secondary to the long-
standing primary purposes of the Refuge System to conserve fish and
wildlife and habitats. S. 1059 continues this clear distinction between
the purpose of the Refuge System to conserve fish and wildlife, and the
priority uses of the system which are those related to learning about
or enjoying fish and wildlife.
problems in the system
Unfortunately, public use has not always been carried out in a
manner that is consistent with the well-being of our refuges and their
wildlife. A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office found that
secondary activities considered by refuge managers to be harmful to
wildlife resources were occurring on nearly 60 percent on our refuges.
Power boating, mining, military air exercises, off-road vehicles, and
air boating were cited as the most frequent harmful uses. Oil and gas
drilling, timbering, grazing, farming, commercial fishing, and even
wildlife related recreation such as hunting, trapping, and wildlife
observation in some instances were also found to harm wildlife or
habitat. A 1991 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed
the GAO's findings. The Service found that harmful activities were
present at 63 percent of the refuges.
At one time, for example, the Key West National Wildlife Refuge
harbored the only known breeding colony of frigatebirds in the United
States. The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, also in the
Florida Keys, hosted numerous colonies of wading birds. But increased
activity within the refuges by jet skiers, power boaters, water skiers,
campers, and others was the most likely reason that the frigatebirds
abandoned the refuge rookery and the chief culprit behind the fact that
other birds have showed signs of declining breeding success.
Refuge managers, despite their best efforts, have often been
susceptible to outside pressure to allow these damaging activities
because the laws governing the Refuge System are not completely clear.
Furthermore, decisions about which activities were compatible with
wildlife conservation purposes have often been made without adequate
public input or written records. The problem had been compounded in
past years by lack of periodic reevaluations of uses.
action to restore integrity to the refuge system
Fortunately, the Clinton Administration has taken a number of steps
to resolve many of the problems in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
I like to believe that the interest and oversight that we provided in a
bipartisan fashion in the 102nd and 103rd Congresses set the stage for
these improvements.
A number of harmful economic, recreational, and even military
activities have been eliminated or appropriately reduced. In Florida,
for example, action has been taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
reduce the number of people allowed to scuba dive along side manatees
in the Crystal River refuge that was established to protect the
manatee. Likewise, the Service has taken action to reduce public use at
the Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge. And a back-country plan has
been implemented in the Florida Keys to greatly reduce conflicts
between people and wildlife.
President Clinton has also issued an Executive Order on the
management of the Refuge System that specifies that the mission of the
refuges is to preserve a national network of lands and waters to
conserve our wildlife diversity. The Executive Order also appropriately
ensures that recreational pursuits that are related to fish and
wildlife will take priority over other activities not so related.
Now, as in the past, I am gratified to be part of the process of
updating the laws that govern our magnificent National Wildlife Refuge
System. It is my sincerest hope that this new law will improve the
Refuge System for the benefit of our nation's fish and wildlife and for
generations of Americans to come.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator.
One quick question, Mr. Secretary. This planning seems to
make sense. I know that they give you plenty of time. I think
it's 15 years. I do not know who would do the plan. I suppose
that each--let's see, the Secretary shall prepare a
comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge. So that's a
big task, a big undertaking.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, it is. But I read Secretary
clearly, in the terms of this legislation, to mean refuge
manager. I think that's quite clear.
Senator Chafee. So then they'll come up with plans, then
come before your Department, and then that'll sort of set up
guidelines for how each one is going to be run for the ensuing
years. Is that correct?
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct. We reckon that with our
existing budget projections, we should be able to get through
the full cycle in probably about half that time, probably about
8 years, and I also would add that we have had a long round of
compatibility work done already under court order that some of
the members may be familiar with.
Senator Chafee. I have no further questions.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Neither do I. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. No, Sir.
Senator Chafee. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. No.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you again, Mr. Secretary. We
appreciate your obvious time and are grateful for you coming up
today.
Secretary Babbitt. Chairman, committee members, thank you.
Senator Chafee. All right, our next panel will be Mr. Gary
Taylor, legislative director for the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Mr. James Mosher, conservation
director of the Izaak Walton League; and Mr. James Waltman,
director, Refuges and Wildlife Program of The Wilderness
Society.
So we have the environmentalists up before us now, and Mr.
Taylor, if you want to proceed, please.
STATEMENT OF GARY J. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES,
WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to share with you today the
perspectives of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies on S. 1059. I am Gary Taylor, legislative
director of the association, and I bring to you today our
enthusiastic support for this bill. As you are aware, Mr.
Chairman, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members
of our association.
Quite simply, we believe the bill provides a needed and
sound underpinning in fish and wildlife conservation for the
administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It is a
bill that is good for fish and wildlife, it is good for the
National Wildlife Refuge System, and we believe it's good for
our citizens who will appropriately use and enjoy our national
wildlife refuges for compatible activities such as hunting,
fishing, nature observation and photography, and conservation
education. We applaud you and Senator Baucus for having a
hearing on this landmark legislation, and urge you to
expeditiously report the bill to the Senate floor, protect it
from further amendments, and send it back to the House for
concurrence, and on to the President for signature.
Secretary Babbitt has shared with you the process which has
resulted in the consensus language in the House companion bill,
and which the House sent to you, as you observed, with an
overwhelming vote of 407-1.
We would again like to recognize and thank Secretary
Babbitt, Congressman Young, Congressman Dingell, Congressman
Saxton, and Congressman Miller for their leadership role in
shaping this consensus. I also would like to recognize that the
foundation for the bill, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, was
laid in the 103d Congress in a bill from Senator Graham,
Senator Baucus, and yourself, and we certainly appreciate your
pioneering efforts in this endeavor.
Let me quickly now summarize why the International
Association strongly supports this bill. First, the bill
establishes an overarching mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats
for the use of present and future citizens of the United
States.
It also gives the Secretary affirmative responsibilities to
manage the system to meet this mission and to protect the
ecological integrity of the units within the system. We believe
such an overarching objective is necessary to give direction
for management of the system in fish and wildlife conservation.
Refuges are not junior grade national parks, nor are they
glorified national recreation areas. They can and should
represent the best examples of the science and practice of fish
and wildlife management, where wildlife- dependent recreational
uses should be given priority public use considerations so that
our citizens can enjoy and learn about the fish and wildlife
found on these public lands.
Second, the bill gives the Secretary the authority to
permit compatible uses of refuges only after and when the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service acting through the
refuge manager, exercising professional judgment consistent
with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, and
available science and resources, finds that the use will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the mission of the system of the purposes of the individual
refuge.
This is the same standard for compatible use that the Fish
and Wildlife Service policy has applied to this determination
for many years. In giving the Secretary the authority to permit
compatible uses, the bill adopts in statute, as a policy of the
United States, the provisions of the President's 1996 Executive
order which affirms the legitimacy of compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation as a priority general public use of the
system.
The bill further directs the Secretary to facilitate that
use, subject to necessary and appropriate restrictions. The
bill does not change the standing of other uses under existing
law. The association strongly endorses this perspective because
wildlife-dependent recreational use is derived from healthy and
robust fish and wildlife populations. These uses are generally
minimally intrusive, and they provide opportunities for our
citizens--birders, anglers, hunters, educators, and students to
enjoy and learn about fish and wildlife conservation on lands
dedicated for this purpose.
As you are also aware, Mr. Chairman, sportsmen and women of
this Nation have contributed significantly to the support of
the National Wildlife Refuge System through their purchase and
use of Federal waterfowl stamps, their support for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act program, and other Federal-
private share programs for acquisition of national wildlife
refuges. Giving wildlife-dependent recreational uses priority
general use consideration recognizes the contribution of the
Nation's sportsmen and women.
Third, the bill recognizes that national wildlife refuges
are important components of, and contribute to, the larger
ecosystems in which they are found, and, as such, should be
managed with appropriate attention to the surrounding land. The
bill further recognizes the need for, and directs, cooperation
with the State fish and wildlife agencies in meeting objectives
for fish and wildlife conservation on the refuge, and in
coordinating the role of the refuge in meeting statewide
objectives for fish and wildlife.
Finally, we fully support individual refuge conservation
planning and involvement of the public as provided for. We
appreciate the fact that planning and compatibility processes
are not so burdensome that the professionally trained refuge
manager is not perpetually engaged in process instead of
accomplishing on the ground objectives for fish and wildlife
conservation and their habitats and providing appropriate
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses. This is where the managers, we feel, should be spending
their time, not on onerous process or in litigation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to address any
questions you might have.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. I think
the points you made were good ones, and we'll have the chance
to ask you questions when we finish with the panel.
Mr. Mosher, we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. MOSHER, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, THE IZAAK
WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, GAITHERSBURG, MD
Mr. Mosher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I'm Jim Mosher, conservation director of the Izaak Walton
League of America, and am pleased to have the opportunity to
talk with you about the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997.
The League is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year,
having originated just a few years after the birth of the
refuge system. Our mission is to conserve, maintain, protect,
and restore the soil, forest, water, and other natural
resources of the United States and other lands, and to promote
means and opportunities for the education of the public with
respect to such resources and their enjoyment and wholesome
use.
Our support of the National Wildlife Refuge System is more
than seven decades old. Following the league's first national
convention in 1923, we became the principal driving force in
establishing the Upper Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge,
which set aside 300,000 acres of bottomland and riparian
habitat in the upper Mississippi River basin. Subsequently we
played a substantial role in establishing or expanding the
National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge in Utah--that incidentally, I believe, was the first
refuge to specifically permit recreational use of the area,
setting aside some 60 percent as sanctuary and allowing public
hunting on the remaining 40 percent; Horicon National Wildlife
Refuge in Wisconsin; Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge
in Washington, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in
New Jersey, Hamden Slough in Minnesota, Patoka in Indiana, and
the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia.
We are now, incidentally, working to support establishment
of the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge which lies
on the Illinois-Indiana border. This refuge would restore a
part of what was originally a half million acres of wetland.
It's unlikely that over the past 75 years any other
national conservation group has devoted a higher percentage of
its energy and resources to the refuge system. I believe this
record is clear evidence of the importance of the refuge system
to our members as well as their commitment to our Nation's
systems of public lands.
I'm pleased to speak on behalf of our 50,000 members in
support of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
We believe S. 1059, and its companion, H.R. 1420, provide for
reasonable and sound management of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and balance multiple interests in a manner that first
protects the integrity of these valuable natural areas.
The League believes refuges should be available to
carefully controlled hunting, fishing, and other compatible
recreational uses to the extent that these uses do not intrude
upon environmental values or primary management purposes. This
long established league policy is fully consistent with the
President's Executive Order 12996, and I believe the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act will effectively
implement the full intent of that Order.
We believe it is important and long overdue that the refuge
system be provided a legislatively established mission, and
that this mission recognize the overarching importance of the
protection of wildlife and other natural resources. There must
also be provisions for a process by which compatibility of uses
can be determined, with an opportunity for citizen input. It is
important that a planning process be established that will
identify the fiscal, staff, and program needs of the refuge
system. This bill accomplishes these goals, and does so in a
manner that provides for an appropriate balance between
protection and use. This bill also culminates several years of
debate and previously failed attempts to craft legislation that
could garner consensus among the very many divergent interests.
We urge the committee to move expeditiously to bring this
bill to the full Senate for consideration. It is a good bill.
The time is right. Conservation of all our natural resources,
and especially our public lands, may be the single most
important issue by which future generations measure our
success.
Lastly, I take this opportunity to thank Secretary Babbitt
and his staff, members and staff of the House of
Representatives, and the environmental and conservation groups
that participated in the difficult negotiations that produced
this bill. The nearly unanimous passage by the House is a
measure of that success.
I thank the chairman and members of this committee again
for the opportunity to share the League's assessment of the
bill, and our views, and continued support of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Mosher.
Mr. Waltman, The Wilderness Society.
STATEMENT OF JAMES WALTMAN, DIRECTOR, REFUGES AND WILDLIFE
PROGRAM, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Waltman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify before this committee on behalf of The Wilderness
Society and our more than a quarter million members.
I have to say it's a pleasure to testify in support of
legislation. I think it's been a while since I have done that
personally, perhaps the last time----
Senator Chafee. I've noticed that.
Mr. Waltman. I think I appeared before this committee----
Senator Chafee. Nice to have your support in this.
Mr. Waltman [continuing]. Was 3 years ago on behalf of
Audubon, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and
Sierra Club, and a bunch of others in support of Mr. Graham's
legislation. It's very nice to come back and support
legislation again.
As my written testimony explains in some detail, The
Wilderness Society has worked as long and as hard as anyone to
pass the kind of comprehensive, organic legislation that is now
before you. The lack of a clear, comprehensive statute for the
system has been at least partly to blame for a myriad of
problems, and as Senator Graham indicated, there had been
report after report over the years that identified these
problems in some detail, there have been TV shows, and the
like.
Fortunately, the Clinton administration has been chipping
away at those. The problems are not as egregious as they had
been, but we still need to pass this bill, and finish the job,
and make sure we can prevent some of those from creeping up in
the future.
One of the things that has been a particular problem for
the refuge system is its lack of a comprehensive law has often
left it subject to the bullying of other agencies and all
manner of other interests. In particular, there has been no
clear affirmative duties for the Secretary of the Interior to
protect and provide for the refuge system. This Act, S. 1059,
would change that.
Our goals for a refuge organic Act have been pretty
straightforward. First, an unambiguous statement that the
purpose of the refuge system is to conserve fish and wildlife.
Second, a formal process to review compatibility of refuge uses
that provides opportunities for public review and comment.
Third, again, affirmative duties for the Secretary to protect
and provide for these places. Fourth, a requirement that all
national wildlife refuges prepare a comprehensive plan and be
managed pursuant to that plan. Fifth, a marked improvement in
the quality of the science that underpins key refuge management
decisions.
Mr. Chairman, S. 1059 is not the exact bill that we would
have drafted. It is the obvious product of compromise, but the
bottom line for The Wilderness Society is that we support this
bill because it contains each and every one of those major five
elements that we've thought important for so long.
We are particularly pleased that this bill includes a
provision to improve monitoring of the status and trends of
fish and wildlife and plants on the refuges, a provision that
was lacking from the House bill.
We also support the straightforward principle that refuges
must first be for the conservation of fish and wildlife.
Second, where appropriate and compatible, and where funds are
available, they should foster wildlife observation, hunting,
fishing, and environmental education. These are activities
through which the public can understand and appreciate and
learn more about fish and wildlife.
Finally, those activities that are unrelated to fish and
wildlife must receive the lowest priority. We think this bill
clearly sets up that framework and it's more than appropriate.
Our testimony includes some technical amendments that we
think would improve the bill, but having said that, the
important thing is to move expeditiously toward passage. We
urge you to think very closely before accepting any special
provisions dealing with specific refuges or specific uses. I
understand there has been a fair amount of back and forth in
the last week over the question of utility right of ways. I'd
be happy to answer some questions on that. We're very concerned
as you might imagine about some of what we've heard.
I have to say that we've been somewhat frustrated perhaps,
that the debate has centered so much on the single issue of
hunting. Hunting is an appropriate use of the refuge system. I
think we've kind of established that with absolute certainty in
the Congress of late, but there are a lot of other issues that
could benefit from review by this committee once we get this
bill passed. How is the refuge system doing to conserve
endangered species? How is the water quality and quantity on
the refuges? What are we doing to preserve wilderness
characteristics in refuges? What is the impact of overflights
on refuges?
This bill exempts overflights from compatibility. But
exempting them from compatibility is not going to make that
problem go away, and at some point we are going to have to
figure out how to address that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to finish by thanking you,
Senator Graham, Senator Baucus, and Senator Kempthorne for your
continued interest in the refuge system. It's demonstrated
obviously by this hearing today, and by your efforts to
increase appropriations for the operations and maintenance of
the refuge system. We are very hopeful that this bill----
Senator Chafee. Senator Allard. Don't forget Senator
Allard----
Mr. Waltman. My peripheral vision failed me there. Senator
Allard, thank you as well. But we hope this bill----
Senator Chafee. His interest in this has been very helpful
as we----
Mr. Waltman. That's right. We're going to--we've got a new
century of challenges facing the refuge system in a few years.
We're hopeful this bill will help the system meet some of those
challenges that face it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much.
I think it is important that we, as each of you said, that
we all remember that these refuges were not set up as areas
where people could water ski or jet ski. They were set up for
wildlife conservation, preservation, and to preserve the
habitat as well. That's the principal reason these were set up.
Now if others come along with what can be called compatible
uses, all right. That's what is provided here. But there's no
right for a demand. They do not have a demand, a right to water
ski. They can water ski if it's compatible. Sometimes that's
forgotten. This area is set aside, and there it is, and why
can't we, the jet skiers, have our use of it just like the
hunters do, or whoever it might be. That's why we have got to
bear in mind the whole idea of why these places were set up in
the beginning.
Now, I'd like each of you to briefly respond to this
question. Some concern has been expressed recently regarding
the possible consequences of this law on existing rights of
way, such as electric utility lines, pipelines, and refuges.
Specifically this law requires that secondary uses be subject
to periodic re-evaluation and be eliminated or modified if not
compatible. Long standing rights of way maybe threatened in the
future.
Now, what do you say to that, Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I concur with Secretary Babbitt's
interpretation of what the bill does and how it would be
applied to a review of the compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit, and not the fundamental easement
authority to begin with. I think the House colloquy and the
report language also affirm that, that was the intent of the
language, and I believe that if there was further discussion on
that, that characterized the House colloquy and proposed
language here, that we would not object to that.
Senator Chafee. As I understand it, what it means is that
you can't question whether there be a utility line through
there that is there, that's got an easement, but you can deal
with the so-called ``terms and conditions.'' Is that the way
you understand it?
Mr. Taylor. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
Senator Chafee. What do you say, Dr. Mosher?
Mr. Mosher. Well, the League's primary concern with any
user activity associated with the refuge always remains and
that is that the integrity of the ecosystem must receive first
priority. I would clearly defer to the Secretary's evaluation
as to whether or not this piece of legislation adequately
serves him in that regard.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Waltman.
Mr. Waltman. I think the important thing to do is think
about why we are passing this law. We are passing this law to
clarify that the purpose of the refuge system is to conserve
fish and wildlife. You know, we understand the interest in the
utility industry for some certainty, but our concern, I guess,
is if you've got an activity such as the right of way that may
have been found to be compatible 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. If
the conditions change, say you have a particular species that
is in more trouble today than it was 30 years ago, the Fish and
Wildlife Service needs to be able to adjust the original terms
and conditions, if necessary, to insure that the activity
remains compatible.
I think it's highly unlikely that you would go in and
remove a power line or a pipeline. That's not what folks have
in mind here. But the Fish and Wildlife Service should be able
to go back, if necessary, and make some adjustments to the uses
that were authorized within those rights of way.
Senator Chafee. Well, that's the so-called ``terms and
conditions.''
Mr. Waltman. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to come back to this issue of compatibility, because
I think it is at the heart of the concerns that led to this and
previous legislative efforts to strengthen the wildlife refuge
system.
In this legislation there is the concept of wildlife-
dependent recreation. It's referred to on page 8 in the
discussion of the policy that will be utilized in the
administration of the system. It is used again on page 15 in
discussing the regulations that the Secretary shall issue
relative to the compatibility process.
But in the definition of compatible use, which is on page
4, it states the term ``compatible use'' means a wildlife-
dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that in
the sound professional judgment of the director will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of
the mission of the system or the purpose of the refuge.
I'm concerned about the phrase, any other use of the
refuge. It seems as if there's a disconnect here. Throughout
the body of the bill there's a lot of focus on this concept of
wildlife-dependent recreational use, but in the definition of a
compatible use that seems to be shattered by saying any other
use, i.e. not wildlife-dependent is also potentially
permissible. That disconnect concerns me.
I'd be interested in the panel's discussion of that and how
they would see in the administration of this Act, that
expansion, to include in the definition of compatible use, any
other use would be managed.
Mr. Waltman. I'll start out with that. I think that there
are two principles at play in the bill here, one being that
only those activities that are compatible with the purpose of
the refuge and the mission of the refuge system can be allowed.
That can include wildlife-dependent activities, and it could
include nonwildlife-dependent activities.
But the second principle in this bill is that there is a
priority within the uses, such that when an individual refuge
is setting out and establishing a management plan that decides
what's going to be allowed on that refuge, the first category
of activities that will be considered will be those that are
dependent on the presence of wildlife: the wildlife
observation, fishing, hunting, environmental education. Those
activities must be compatible to be permitted, but they are to
take priority over other activities that may not be related.
Having said that, if the refuge can sustain it, if there's
adequate funding to monitor and oversee, other activities can
be permitted on a refuge. Obviously, from the perspective of
The Wilderness Society, we would hope that the large majority
of activities in the refuge system are the so-called wildlife-
dependent activities.
Senator Graham. I'd like to get the comment of the other
panelists, but I would like to direct your attention for
possible subsequent comment to page 15, lines 3-11, which talk
about what will happen after there has been a compatibility
determination for wildlife-dependent recreational uses. It
seems as if we are in fact putting the wildlife-dependent uses
into a subsidiary category to all other uses, because they
become subject to this secondary review, and I can't find any
place where other than wildlife-dependent uses, which have once
been found to be compatible, are subjected to a similar
subsequent review.
I ask that as a question, and would be interested in your
comment.
Mr. Taylor. Senator, I believe the preceding clause to what
you referred addresses all other uses, starting on the bottom
of page 14. The difference, I believe, is in the timeline
called for, a mandated review of activities. Those provisions
suggest that either for wildlife-dependent uses or other uses,
if conditions change significantly that a review can be made at
any time, but certainly not less than for wildlife-dependent
uses every 15 years, and for other than wildlife-dependent
uses, the bill calls for a 10-year minimum review.
To your first comment, Senator, I believe that the bill
never intended, nor contemplated that only wildlife-dependent
uses could be found to be compatible, and that as Mr. Waltman
pointed out, the intent of the bill was to give a priority to
wildlife-dependent uses, so that if everything else were equal,
including a compatibility determination, but both could not be
accommodated, that the wildlife-dependent uses would be given
priority. But I believe the addition of the language in the
definition of compatible use does not detract either from the
requirement for a compatibility determination of those uses or
the prioritization that the bill seeks to give to wildlife-
dependent uses. So I think it simply clarifies that there is a
universe of more than wildlife-dependent uses that the
Secretary can find compatible as long they go through the
appropriate process and judgment against the standard.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Well, I take it in conclusion that
referring to the language that Senator Graham was referring to
and--you've got the copies of the Act in front of you? If you
turn to page 4, where Senator Graham was discussing line 6 and
actually line 7, the term compatible use means a wildlife-
dependent recreational use--OK. No one will argue with that--or
any other use of a refuge that in the sound professional
judgment will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of the mission.
So you think even though it does not have to be--well, for
example, grazing. In this case the--how would this work? Let's
say that they do not want grazing, but they can't show that it
will materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission, and clearly it's not a wildlife-dependent
recreational use, but it is any other use that--and, in
fairness, it does not interfere. So you go ahead with the
grazing. Is that right?
Suppose that the rancher sues and says I want to be able to
graze there?
Mr. Waltman. My understanding of this bill is that there's
nothing in here that requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to
permit a use, even if that use may be compatible. For example,
there are unfortunately a number of refuges today that have few
or no staff whatsoever. Obviously a refuge with no staff is
going to have difficulty overseeing public uses. So whether
theoretically a birdwatching activity or a grazing activity may
be put together that could be compatible for that refuge, if
the Fish and Wildlife Service does not want to allow it for
other reasons, it does not have to. That's been the
longstanding policy and legal standard that has undergirded the
refuge system at least since the 1966 Act.
Senator Chafee. The rest of you agree?
Mr. Mosher. I would concur with what Mr. Waltman has said,
and I, reflecting on this, am reminded of Senator Kempthorne's
comments and concerns, and I think this addresses those
concerns as well, and particularly with respect to the grazing
issue. Again, from the League's perspective, our primary
concern is the protection of the resource, wildlife, and the
habitat that supports that, and the functioning of the
ecosystem.
That, to our satisfaction, is dealt with in the
compatibility standards.
Mr. Taylor. Just one additional observation, Mr. Chairman.
I think the definition of the term ``sound professional
judgment'' gives the manager the discretion in exercising that
to address circumstances as Mr. Waltman may have suggested
where you have a refuge where there is no staff, that while a
use may be found to be compatible, it's not consistent with
good administration to allow it if it requires some oversight
and there's no staff available there.
Senator Chafee. OK, gentlemen. I think there are no more
questions. We want to thank you very much for coming.
Panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee
members. Thank you.
Senator Chafee. That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to express the Administration's support for S. 1059, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This Committee
has played an important role in the development of this legislation.
About 4 years ago, it was this Committee which recognized the need for
organic legislation and began the effort which has led us to the
threshold of consensus represented in S. 1059.
But this effort has not always been so amicable. During the last
Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation over the
strong objections of the Administration. This Congress began
essentially in the same way. In March, Chairman Young called me before
the House Resources Committee where we had a fairly unproductive
hearing--not unlike many others--where we exchanged our respective,
seemingly irreconcilable, positions.
But afterward, outside of the hearing room, Chairman Young and I
had a brief conversation and he expressed his desire to talk and try to
work out a compromise. I decided to take him up on his offer, and we
then invited Congressmen Miller, Saxton and Dingell to each commit
their respective staff representatives to a process of focused
discussion. We also invited the Wildlife Legislative Fund; the Audubon
Society; the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies;
and the Wildlife Management Institute.
We met once a week, for about 5 weeks. The environmental community
wanted an unequivocal statutory declaration that wildlife conservation
is the mission of the Refuge System. The hunting and fishing community
and the state wildlife managers wanted statutory recognition that their
activities constitute an appropriate use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, recognizing that the decision to allow hunting and
fishing on any refuge must be predicated by an individual analysis and
determination that the specific hunting or fishing program is
compatible with the conservation mission of the system and purposes of
the refuge. The result is a bill that will strengthen and improve our
National Wildlife Refuge System as it heads into the 21st century.
The House of Representatives approved that bill by a vote of 407-1.
With a couple of significant variations, S. 1059 is that same bill and
I would like to take a few minutes to explain why it is so important
for this Committee and this Senate to consider and pass this bill as
soon as possible.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's greatest system
of lands dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife. It is a
system founded in faith; a belief that, in a country as bountiful and
diverse as ours, there ought to be special places that are set aside
exclusively for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. These
special places are National Wildlife Refuges, where appropriately
enough, the conservation needs of wildlife are paramount.
S. 1059 keeps this faith, by recognizing that the central,
overarching purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is, and
should remain, the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitat.
The bill maintains the crucial distinction between wildlife
conservation as the dominant refuge goal and compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation as a priority public use. Wildlife conservation is
our purpose. The opportunity for compatible recreational uses are the
important benefits that flow from this purpose. Appropriately then, the
bill recognizes that the use of our refuge lands and waters, to the
extent that such use can be allowed, shall be reserved first to those
recreational activities which depend and thrive on abundant populations
of fish and wildlife. The obligation of the refuge manager is thus
clear: wildlife conservation is foremost. Where recreational activity
is appropriate, let compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including
hunting and fishing, come first.
This does not mean that other compatible non-wildlife dependent
activities cannot also be allowed within a wildlife refuge. Rather, it
simply acknowledges that those compatible activities which are truly
dependent upon the presence of wildlife should, logically, be accorded
a priority within a wildlife refuge over other proposed activities
which are not tied to the presence of wildlife. Senator Kempthorne has
authored a provision in S. 1059 which clarifies that both wildlife-
dependent as well as other uses of refuges--like grazing for instance--
can be ``compatible uses'', as long as they do not materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or
the purpose of the refuge. This proposed change is acceptable to the
Administration.
The bill maintains the strict policy that all refuge uses must be
``compatible''. It sets up a sensible, consistent and public process
for the Service's managers to follow in making compatibility
determinations, and it adopts the Service's longstanding regulatory
standard for compatibility.
S. 1059 appropriately defines the specific categories of wildlife-
dependent recreation which are to be considered as the ``priority
public uses'' for the refuge system: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. Where compatible, refuge managers are to provide
increased opportunities for these uses and enhance the attention they
receive in refuge management and planning.
Finally, the bill maintains the historic Refuge System policy that
refuges are ``closed until open''. That is, in order to ensure that
wildlife needs come first, existing refuge lands and waters are closed
to public uses until they are specifically opened for such uses.
However, a new process is established for identifying compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational activities prior to the acquisition of
new refuge areas, thereby avoiding the temporary closure of on-going
compatible recreational activities.
Senator Graham has inserted another notable provision, requiring
the Secretary to ``monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and
plants in each refuge.'' Improving our biological capability at, and
understanding of each refuge is vital to accomplishing our conservation
mission. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Biological Resources
Division of the U.S. Geological Survey will be working hand-in-glove to
fulfill this requirement and again, you have the Administration's full
support.
Another issue which arose during House consideration of the bill
concerns utility rights-of-way and other refuge uses which may be
authorized for periods of many years. In the case of utility rights-of-
way, authorizations are usually granted for periods of 30 to 50 years.
Since the bill requires review of each non-wildlife dependent refuge
use, at least every 10 years, the utility industry is concerned that
these reviews not be interpreted to require a new permit process at
each 10 year interval. This is not the case and during House
consideration the Administration supported a colloquy to clarify that,
in the case of such long-term authorizations, these reviews would
examine compliance with permit terms and conditions and would not
require a new permitting process. I understanding that some Senate
Members may be interested in legislative language to codify this view.
Provided language can be drafted that accurately reflects the House
colloquy, I believe it would have the Administration's support.
Attached to my written statement is a summary of the key provisions
of S. 1059. Mr. Chairman, let me say simply that your bill contains all
of the key ingredients that will help improve our refuge system and we
should get this legislation enacted as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, we have today an opportunity to enact historic
legislation that embodies the principle that whether they cast a line,
pitch a decoy, or click a shutter, the 30 million Americans who
annually visit and enjoy our refuges have one common and enduring
interest--the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitat.
Ultimately, that is what the National Wildlife Refuge System is about
and that is what this bill will promote and ensure.
I look forward to working with the Committee to enact this
legislation as soon as possible. I am happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
______
Attachment
key provisions of s. 1059, the national wildlife refuge system
improvement act
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act represents a
consensus among diverse constituencies with interests in the management
and use of the Refuge System. Negotiations leading to the development
of the nearly-identical bill passed by the House involved Interior
Department Secretary Bruce Babbitt; the legislation's sponsors,
including Congressmen Don Young, John Dingell, Jim Saxton, and George
Miller; and representatives of environmental and sportsmen's groups.
This legislation strengthens protections for individual refuges and
for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Its main components improve on
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by
amending it to include a unifying mission for the Refuge System and a
new process for determining compatible wildlife-dependent public uses
of refuges.
Key provisions of S. 1059 mirror those found in President Clinton's
Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, signed in March 1996. Provisions
coinciding with the Executive Order are the mission statement, priority
public uses, and a requirement that the environmental health of the
Refuge System be maintained.
Mission
The legislation establishes a strong and singular
conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System:
``To administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of
the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.''
The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to
ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires
the Secretary maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System.
Priority Public Uses
The legislation establishes certain wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as priority public uses where compatible with the
above mission and the purpose of individual refuges. These uses are
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
The legislation establishes these wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as ``legitimate and appropriate'' public uses of the
Refuge System. It states that these uses should be facilitated where
compatible but does not mandate them.
The legislation retains refuge manager's authority to use
their professional judgment to determine compatible uses and whether or
not they will be permitted. It establishes for the first time a
statutory process for determining what constitutes a ``compatible
use,'' and retains the regulatory definition of ``compatible use''
currently used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior
Department agency responsible for managing the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to temporarily suspend the compatibility standard to cope with an
emergency on a refuge threatening public health and safety or that of
any wildlife population.
Public Involvement
The legislation requires public involvement in any
decisions to allow new uses and renew existing uses.
The legislation requires public involvement in the
development of comprehensive refuge management plans and requires that
such plans be prepared for every refuge.
Other provisions
The legislation's new compatibility process exempts uses
by other federal agencies with primary jurisdiction over the land on
which a refuge is located and use of airspace over a refuge (which is
regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration). The legislation also
provides for continuation of existing uses of refuge lands by other
agencies under applicable laws and agreements.
The legislation maintains the status quo with respect to
all aspects of water rights.
The legislation maintains the status quo with respect to
state management of resident wildlife outside of refuge lands.
______
Questions from Senator Inhofe to Secretary Babbitt
section 1
I have some concerns about rights-of-way within refuges across the
country, so I am glad to see that your testimony is supportive of the
Colloquy between Congressmen Young and Saxton. I do, however, still
harbor some skepticism about the future interpretation of this
legislation.
Question 1. Would it be acceptable to the Administration to exempt
utility rights-of-way from the provisions of S. 1059?
Answer. The Administration would not support exempting utility
rights-of-way from the compatibility provisions of S. 1059. We are not
aware of any valid reasons for doing so. Requests for rights-of-way on
refuges are considered under section 4(d) of the existing National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 US.C. 668dd(d)(1)(B),
which is not changed by S. 1059. This point needs to be emphasized--the
current statutory provisions and criteria for granting rights-of-way
through refuges are not changed by S. 1059 or its companion House bill,
H.R. 1420.
S. 1059 does require that each non-wildlife-dependent use be re-
evaluated for compatibility not less frequently than every ten years.
The Chafee amendment specifies that for long-term uses, such as
pipeline rights-of-way, the review will cover compliance by the permit
holder with the terms and conditions of the permit, not the existence
of the right-of-way. This provision merely requires on a specified,
periodic basis something that under current law is done on an ad hoc
basis.
Question 2. As part of the compatibility review process, do you
anticipate that the question of whether or not pipelines should be
allowed in refuges will be an issue?
Answer. I do not anticipate that question being an issue. The
review process to which you refer deals with existing authorized uses
and will ensure that their compatibility is maintained It will not
address the broader question of allowing rights-of-way generally.
Question 3. Could the result of one of these reviews be a decision
not to allow pipelines in refuges?
Answer. No, as noted in the answer to Question 2, the reviews would
not be dealing with the broader question of authorization of rights-of-
way generally.
Question 4. It concerns me that the compatibility review process
could become a mechanism that activists could use to simply stop
development, even if there is not adverse impact on the refuge. Often
there may be no practical alternative route available to the pipeline.
Are there safeguards here to make sure that the outcome of the review
process is decided on the merits and not simply on politics?
Answer. Yes, there are. The review process will be governed by
strict procedures and standards that are required by S. 1059 to be
adopted as regulations. These regulations will be adopted only after
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. It would be very
difficult to make non-merit-based decisions under this framework.
section 2
S. 1059 will give the Secretary new authority to ``temporarily
suspend * * * any activity in a refuge * * * if the Secretary
determines it is necessary to protect the health and safety of the
public or any fish or wildlife population.'' I am concerned that this
new authority will give the affected parties little opportunity to
respond or appeal the decision.
Question 1. What assurances could you give me that abuse of this
power will not take place?
Answer. The Secretary would only use the emergency powers clause if
an event or set of circumstances demanded immediate action. An example
might be temporarily closing access to certain public access roads or
trails due to impending flooding which threatened public safety.
Another example would be a waterfowl disease outbreak on a refuge.
Waterfowl diseases amplify quickly and can threaten large numbers of
birds. In a case such as this the Secretary would need to take swift
action to stem the spread of the disease to the larger population.
The emergency powers clause is not intended to be used to resolve
longer term management issues. These would be dealt with through the
planning process and/or compatibility determination process, both of
which would require public involvement under S. 1059.
Question 2. Would the Administration consider legislation that
would allow an appeals process?
Answer. No, an appeals process would render this section
ineffective. This clause would only be invoked when an emergency
required immediate but temporary action to protect the health and
safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population. An appeals
process would eliminate the Secretary's discretion in reacting to such
an emergency. We believe that the requirement to make a specific
finding of necessity to protect health and safety precludes abuse.
section 3
Answers 1, 2 and 3. My comments on the Diane Rehm show were not
directed at the work of Dr. Christy or Dr. Lindzen, and I have no
reason to suspect that the results of their work are influenced by the
source of their funding. Both scientists raise important questions over
specific aspects of the science of climate modeling and prediction.
This sort of debate is an extremely important and healthy aspect of the
international scientific process, and it is precisely this type of
honest back-and-forth discussion that ultimately results in scientific
consensus.
However, it is also clear to me that there are those who wish to
cloud the debate, not by engaging in scientific argument, but by
changing the subject entirely. They realize that they cannot argue with
the well-accepted scientific recognition that atmospheric change of the
magnitude that is now occurring must have significant effects on
climate and weather, and ultimately on humans as well as plants and
animals. Instead, they point to the legitimate scientific debate over
whether particular weather events like storms or floods represent
unequivocal evidence of the beginnings of climate change, or over
particular elements of the climate modeling debate, and assert that
there is no scientific consensus over the larger issue. This is simply
not true. Continued support for activities that are intended to cloud
the issue will not assist the American public in making sound choices
about how to respond to this urgent threat.
In this regard, I must commend the actions of those leaders in
American industry who have stepped forward to acknowledge the problem
and the need to act. Foremost among these is John Browne, Chief
Executive of British Petroleum, who acknowledged the scientific
consensus and stated that ``it would be unwise to ignore the mounting
concern.'' It is precisely this type of leadership that is required if
we are to face the challenge of climate change responsibly.
______
Questions from Senator Boxer to Secretary Babbitt
Question 1. One of the more spectacular and robust refuges is the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. How will this bill
affect exploration for oil in ANWR?
Answer. S. 1059 will not result in any changes in Service policy
with respect to provisions for oil and gas development and exploration
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Development and exploration
will continue to be prohibited by the provisions of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Question 2. Other federal agencies have extensive experience at
developing management plans for their units. Development of these plans
have been controversial, time consuming, and costly. Will the
comprehensive refuge plan process be as contentious? What are you going
to do to ensure that the experiences of other agencies will not be
repeated?
Answer. Unlike other agencies that have multiple use mandates for
their lands, S. 1059 provides an explicit primary mission for the
National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes priorities for use of
refuge lands, and reemphasizes current standards and requirements for
decisions on allowing such uses. The fact that S. 1059 provides
statutory directives for the very issues which often lead to conflicts
during multiple-use planning should help us avoid such during our
planning process.
We have already done comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges in Alaska, and at a number of refuges elsewhere, often those
with existing conflicts. It has been our experience that while the
planning process itself can be contentious, the final plans generally
resolve, not exacerbate, the controversies. It is our expectation that
the more explicit standards in S. 1059 would result in an even more
satisfactory planning process than has occurred in the past.
Question 3. How much are the refuge plans going to cost? How long
will the refuge plans take to complete?
Answer. S. 1059 requires that the development of conservation plans
for all refuges be completed within 15 years of enactment. We estimate
that the cost to prepare 250 comprehensive conservation plans for 511
refuges during this time period will be approximately $2.5 to $3
million annually.
______
Prepared Statement of Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with you the
perspectives of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (IAFWA) on S. 1059. I am Gary Taylor, Legislative Director of
the Association, and I bring to you today the enthusiastic and
wholehearted support of the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies for S.
1059. Quite simply, we believe this bill provides a needed and sound
underpinning in fish and wildlife conservation for the administration
of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System. It is a bill that is good
for fish and wildlife, good for the NWR System, and good for our
citizens who appropriately use and enjoy our National Wildlife Refuges
for compatible activities such as hunting, fishing, nature observation
and photography, and conservation education. We applaud you and Senator
Baucus for having a hearing on this landmark legislation and urge you
to expeditiously report the bill to the Senate floor, assiduously
protect it from other amendments and send it back to the House for
concurrence and on to the President for signature.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental
organization of public agencies charged with the protection and
management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The
Association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife
agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments of the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been
a key organization in promoting sound resource management and
strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and
managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
Secretary Babbitt has shared with you the process which resulted in
the consensus language in the House companion bill, H.R. 1420, and
which the House sent to you with an overwhelming vote of 407 to 1. We
would like to again recognize and thank Secretary Babbitt and
Congressmen Young, Dingell, Saxton and Miller for their leadership role
in shaping this consensus. Secretary Babbitt's personal involvement in
shepherding this bill is reflected in its success and reflects his
personal commitment to ensuring the integrity of our National Wildlife
Refuges for fish and wildlife conservation, a commitment our State fish
and wildlife agencies also share. I would also like to recognize that
the foundation for this bill was laid in the 103rd Congress in a bill
from Senators Graham, Baucus and Chafee and we appreciate your
pioneering efforts in this endeavor.
Let me now quickly summarize why the 50 State fish and wildlife
agencies strongly support S. 1059 and H.R. 1420.
First, the bill establishes an overarching mission of the NWR
System to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats for the use and
enjoyment of present and future citizens of the United States. It also
gives the Secretary affirmative responsibilities to manage the System
to meet this mission and protect the ecological integrity of the units
within the System. We believe such an overarching objective in statute
is necessary to give and ground direction for management of the many
disparate units of the System in fish and wildlife conservation. NWRs
aren't junior grade national parks nor glorified national recreation
areas--they can and should represent the best examples of the science
and practice of fish and wildlife management, where wildlife dependent
recreational uses should be given priority public use considerations so
our citizens can enjoy and learn about the bountiful fish and wildlife
on these public lands.
Second, this bill give the Secretary the authority to permit
compatible uses of NWRs only after and when the Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) (through the Refuge Manager), exercising
professional judgement consistent with principles of sound fish and
wildlife management and available science and resources, finds that the
use will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission of the System or purposes of the individual refuge. This
is the same standard for compatible use that the FWS policy has applied
to this determination for years. The bill further goes on to require
the Secretary to establish a process in regulation for compatibility
determinations, including providing opportunity for public involvement.
In giving the Secretary the authority to permit compatible uses,
the bill adopts in statute as a policy of the United States the
provisions of the President's 1996 Executive Order which affirms the
legitimacy of compatible wildlife dependent recreation as a priority
general public use of the System. S. 1059 further directs the Secretary
to facilitate that use, subject to necessary and appropriate
restrictions. The bill does not change the standing of other uses under
existing law and policy of the USFWS. Further, as you are aware, Mr.
Chairman, the bill does not prohibit other uses, as long as they meet
the compatibility standard, and in most cases compatible wildlife
dependent recreational uses and other compatible uses can be
accommodated, but if they are both equally compatible but can't be
accommodated, the bill gives a priority to wildlife dependent
recreational uses. The Association strongly and wholeheartedly endorses
this perspective because wildlife dependent recreational uses derive
from healthy and robust fish and wildlife populations, they are
generally minimally intrusive, and provide opportunities for our
citizens--birders, anglers, hunters, educators and students--to enjoy
and learn about fish and wildlife conservation on lands dedicated to
this purpose. As you are also aware, Mr. Chairman, sportsmen and women
of this Nation have contributed significantly to the support of the NWR
System through their purchase and use of federal waterfowl stamp funds,
their support for the North American Wetland Conservation Act program
(which as you know is funded in part from interest on Pittman-Robertson
funds), and other federal-private cost share programs for acquisition
of NWRs. This provision giving wildlife dependent recreational uses
priority general public use consideration recognizes their
contribution.
Third, S. 1059 recognizes that NWRs are important components of and
contribute to the larger ecosystems in which they are found and as such
should be managed with appropriate attention to the surrounding lands.
The bill recognizes that State fish and wildlife agencies are the
presumptive front line managers of fish and wildlife within their
borders and have the statutory stewardship responsibility to ensure the
vitality of fish and wildlife resources for their citizens. This bill
further recognizes the need for, and directs cooperation with State
fish and wildlife agencies, in meeting objectives for fish and wildlife
conservation on the refuge, and in coordinating the role of the refuge
in meeting statewide objectives for fish and wildlife. Most State fish
and wildlife agencies have developed statewide comprehensive fish and
wildlife resource and habitat conservation plans which can be helpful
to the USFWS in meeting their refuge objectives. We also appreciate the
Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption for the Secretary in
coordinating conservation efforts with State agencies.
Finally, we fully support individual refuge conservation planning
and involvement of the public, as provided for in the bill. We also
appreciate the Act that the planning and compatibility processes are
not so burdensome that the professionally trained refuge manager is not
perpetually engaged in process, instead of accomplishing on the ground
objectives for fish and wildlife conservation and their habitats, and
providing appropriate opportunities for compatible wildlife dependent
recreational uses. This is where the NWR managers should spend their
time, not in onerous process, or in litigation. We believe that the
bill strikes the necessary balance for planning and public involvement
but without being burdensome or constraining the exercise and
application of sound professional fish and wildlife science and
management by the refuge manager.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the 50 State fish and wildlife
agencies enthusiastically support S. 1059 and H.R. 1420, and again
would like to recognize the efforts of Congressmen Young, Dingell,
Saxton, Miller, Secretary Babbitt, Senators Chafee, Graham, Kempthorne,
and Baucus for bringing us to this point. We urge expeditious Senate
passage without further amendment and are hopeful for quick House
concurrence and a Presidential signing ceremony this summer.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association's
perspectives and I would be happy to address any questions you might
have.
______
Prepared Statement of James A. Mosher, Ph.D., Conservation Director,
Izaak Walton League of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Jim Mosher,
conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America, and I am
pleased to have this opportunity to talk with you about the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
The League is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, having
originated just a few years after the birth of the refuge system. Our
mission is to conserve, maintain, protect and restore the soil, forest,
water and other natural resources of the United States and other lands
and to promote means and opportunities for the education of the public
with respect to such resources and their enjoyment and wholesome use.
Our support of the National Wildlife Refuge System is more than
seven decades old. Following the League's first national convention in
1923, we became the principal driving in establishing the Upper
Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge which set aside 300,000 acres of
bottomland and riparian habitat in the Upper Mississippi River basin.
Subsequently, we played a substantial role in establishing and/or
expanding the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah that I believe was the first refuge to
specifically permit human recreational use of the area, setting aside
60% as sanctuary and allowing public hunting on the remaining 40%, the
Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin, Protection Island
National Wildlife Refuge in Washington, Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge
in Minnesota, Patoka National Wildlife Refuge in Indiana, and Great
Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia. We are now working
to support the newest refuge the Grand Kankakee Marsh Wildlife Refuge,
which lies on the Illinois and Indiana border and would restore a part
of what originally was a 500,000 acre wetland. It is unlikely that over
the past 75 years any other national conservation group has devoted a
higher percentage of its energy and resources to the refuge system.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of our 50,000 members in support of
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. We believe
this bill provides for reasonable and sound management of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and balances multiple interests in a manner that
protects the integrity of these valuable natural areas. The League
believes refuges should be available to carefully controlled hunting,
fishing and other compatible recreational uses to the extent these uses
do not intrude upon environmental values or primary management
purposes. This long established League policy is fully consistent with
the President's March 1996 Executive Order 12996, and I believe the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 will implement
the full intent of that order.
We believe it is important and long overdue that the refuge system
be provided a legislatively established mission statement and that this
mission statement recognize the overarching importance of the
protection of wildlife and other natural resources. There also must be
provisions for a process by which compatibility of uses can be
determined with an opportunity for citizen input. It is important that
a planning process be established that will identify the fiscal, staff
and program needs of the Refuge System. This bill accomplishes these
goals and does so in a manner that provides for an appropriate balance
between protection and use.
This bill is the culmination of several years of debate and
previously failed attempts to craft legislation that could garner
consensus among many divergent interests. We urge the committee to move
expeditiously to bring this bill to the full Senate for consideration.
It is a good bill, and the time is right. Conservation of all our
natural resources and especially our public lands may be the single
most important issue by which future generations measure our success.
Lastly, I take this opportunity to thank Secretary Babbitt and his
staff, members and staff of the House of Representatives and the
environmental and conservation groups that participated in the
difficult negotiations that produced this bill. Its nearly unanimous
passage by the House is a measure of their success.
I thank the chairman and members of this committee again for the
opportunity to share the Izaak Walton League's assessment of this bill
and our views and support of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
______
Prepared Statement of James R. Waltman, Director, Refuges and Wildlife
Program, The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify
on behalf of The Wilderness Society and our more than a quarter of a
million members in support of S. 1059, the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society
is devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, protecting America's
national lands, and fostering an American land ethic.
s. 1059 is long overdue
The Wilderness Society has supported ``organic'' legislation for
the National Wildlife Refuge System similar to that under consideration
today for close to three decades. Congress made a start towards such a
statute when it passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act as section 4 of the 1966 Endangered Species
Preservation Act. But that legislation is far less comprehensive than
the laws governing the management of our National Parks, National
Forests, and the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
The lack of a clear, comprehensive statute for the Refuge System
has been at least partly to blame for a myriad of problems. The very
purpose of the system has often been ambiguous. Political pressures
have led to the establishment and continuation of activities that harm
wildlife and habitat on the refuges. Planning for the refuges has been
haphazard at best. Research and monitoring of fish and wildlife
populations has been lacking. Perhaps worst of all, other federal
agencies, both within and outside of the Interior Department have often
``bullied'' the Refuge System. In fact, even the Fish and Wildlife
Service has occasionally contributed to the undermining of refuges as
this testimony will later point out.
Our goals for a Refuge System organic act have been
straightforward:
An unambiguous statement that the purpose of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is to conserve the nation's diversity of fish
and wildlife.
Although at least in theory, each national wildlife refuge is
established with an individual purpose of set of purposes, there is no
Congressionally approved overarching mission statement for the Refuge
System.
A formal process for reviewing the compatibility of refuge
activities that provides opportunities for public review and comment.
Over the years, many of the refuges have been subjected to
activities that have undermined the purposes for which these areas have
been established. (See Appendix I for a partial list of government
reports on these problems). During these years, there have been at
least three ``major thrusts'' by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
address these problems, the most recent of which by the Clinton
Administration. But the endless pattern of broken * * * fixed * * *
broken * * * fixed will never end unless a formal process is enacted to
review and reevaluate the compatibility of refuge activities
Affirmative stewardship obligations for the Secretary of
the Interior to protect and provide for the Refuge System.
The Refuge System has been a step-child within the federal
government at least in part because there are few explicit legal
mandates for the Secretary of the Interior to provide for its well-
being.
A requirement that all national wildlife refuges be
administered pursuant to a comprehensive conservation plan developed
with full public involvement.
Long range planning is essential for the proper and consistent
management the national wildlife refuges. Unfortunately, by our
estimation fewer than a sixth of the refuges have prepared such plans
and some of these are extremely old and out of date.
A marked improvement in the quality of science upon which
refuge management decisions are based.
Earlier this decade, as part of its draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement on the Refuge System, the Fish and
Wildlife Service indicated that fewer than a third of the refuges had
even rudimentary inventories of their fish and wildlife populations. To
ensure that sound decisions are made in the management of the refuges,
the Fish and Wildlife Service must have an adequate understanding of
the status and trends of their fish and wildlife populations and
habitats.
S. 1059 is not the exact bill that we would have drafted. It is the
obvious product of compromise. In our view, the bill places too much
emphasis on recreation. But we are quite pleased that the bill contains
each of these major elements that we have supported for so many years.
S. 1059 contains: (1) a clear conservation-based mission statement for
the Refuge System; (2) a formal compatibility process; (3) affirmative
duties for the Secretary of the Interior; (4) a planning requirement;
and (5) improved monitoring of fish, wildlife, and plants in the
refuges. The latter provision was wisely added to the House-passed bill
to help ensure that refuge management is based on a firm understanding
of fish, wildlife, and plant populations.
In addition, S. 1059 would recognize wildlife observation, hunting,
fishing, and environmental education as ``priority public uses'' of the
System. This is an appropriate policy that was the centerpiece of
President Clinton's Executive Order 12996 on the management of the
Refuge System. This policy was also included in Representative George
Miller's ``Theodore Roosevelt Wildlife Legacy Act'' (H.R. 952) which we
endorsed. The principle is simple. First and foremost, the Refuge
System should be for the conservation of fish and wildlife and
habitats. Second, where appropriate and compatible, and when adequate
funding is available, those recreational and interpretive activities
that are related to learning about or experiencing fish and wildlife
should be fostered. Finally, those activities that are not related to
fish and wildlife should receive the lowest priority on national
wildlife refuges.
While we believe that the technical amendments described later in
this testimony would improve the bill, we urge the Senate to move
swiftly to pass S. 1059 and not to tinker unnecessarily with this bill.
No special amendments for specific refuges or specific activities--such
as utility right-of-ways--are appropriate. Any such amendments would
cause us to reassess our support of the bill.
the national wildlife refuge system is a national treasure
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of national
lands established specifically to conserve fish and wildlife. The
System includes more than 92 million acres of the most biologically
diverse lands in America. From wetlands to forests, tundra to deserts,
prairies to tidal pools, the National Wildlife Refuge System
encompasses lands and waters in all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and far Pacific islands.
The first refuge was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1903 on Florida's Pelican Island to protect wildlife that was being
decimated by market hunters. Herons, egrets and pelicans; gulls, terns
and other shorebirds; and all manner of waterfowl found sanctuary on
Roosevelt's refuges. Large mammals including bison, elk and antelope
were also protected. In this sense, the Refuge System was Roosevelt's
Endangered Species Act. To this day, refuge management forms the core
of recovery efforts for scores of endangered and threatened species--
from Key deer to whooping cranes, masked bobwhite quail to Ash Meadows
blazing stars, red wolves to Lange's metalmark butterflies. Many other
species would be headed for the endangered species list if not for the
protections afforded by the National Wildlife Refuge System.
A variety of unique ecosystems have been preserved within the
Refuge System. Wetlands like the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia,
Okefenokee in Georgia, Klamath Basin marshes in northern California-
southern Oregon, and Mississippi River floodplains are found in the
System. Arctic tundra and prairie potholes, tropical Hawaiian forests
and Maine woods, Sonoran deserts and high deserts are all found in the
Refuge System. It would be difficult to invent a better apparatus to
monitor the status and trends of America's fish and wildlife and their
habitats than the more than 500 national wildlife refuges.
The vast majority of the Refuge System (about 95 percent) was
withdrawn from the public domain. Two million acres (2.3 percent) of
the System has been acquired with funds from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and 1.7 million acres (1.8 percent) has been acquired
from sales of Duck Stamps to duck hunters and others who purchase the
stamps as an entrance pass to refuges. Other areas have been acquired
with funds from the Wetlands Loan Act (the ``loan'' was forgiven by
Congress when it passed the 1986 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act) and
from donations.
For the first half of its ninety-four year history, the Refuge
System was managed almost entirely to provide complete sanctuary for
wildlife. The 1929 Migratory Bird Conservation Act continued the
standard set by Roosevelt, requiring refuges established under its
authority to be ``inviolate sanctuaries'' for migratory birds. A
handful of refuges allowed limited hunting. In 1949, an amendment to
the Duck Stamp Act permitted migratory bird hunting on up to 25% of new
refuges acquired for migratory bird conservation. In 1958, Congress
increased this maximum allowable area to 40%.
Today, the Refuge System provides exceptional opportunities for
wildlife-related recreation and environmental education. In 1996, over
27 million people visited national wildlife refuges to observe and
photograph wildlife. Five million anglers and 1.5 million hunters went
to the refuges, and nearly 500,000 students visited the refuges for
environmental education programs. But we visit the refuges on the
wildlife's terms. Nearly a third of the refuges contain such sensitive
habitats or wildlife populations that public visitation is prohibited
because in the Refuge System, wildlife must come first.
s. 1059: years in the making
Just a few years after passage of the 1966 Endangered Species
Preservation Act and its component National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, an esteemed panel of wildlife experts issued a
report to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall on the Refuge System. The
Leopold Committee, as it came to be known after A. Starker Leopold who
led the study, reported that ``What is still lacking is a clear
statement of policy or philosophy as to what the National Wildlife
Refuge System should be and what are the logical tenets of its future
development.'' The Committee recognized that without such an underlying
philosophy, the Refuge System would be unable to resist ``pressure for
larger picnic grounds, camping facilities, improved swimming beaches,
motorboat marinas, water skiing, bridle paths, target ranges, and other
assorted forms of play which are only obliquely related to refuge
purposes.'' This was the first of numerous such reports on the status
of the Refuge System (Appendix I).
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, Mr. Harry Crandell, Wildlife
Program Director for The Wilderness Society and a former branch chief
in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Refuges, developed a
number of ideas for legislation to help address the challenges outlined
by the Leopold Committee. Mr. Crandell left The Wilderness Society in
1973 to join the staff of the House Interior and Insular Affairs
Committee where he worked closely with Congressman John Dingell. Many
of Mr. Crandell's concepts were included in Congressman Dingell's
``National Wildlife Refuge System Organic Act of 1974.'' While that Act
did not pass, a number of its provisions became law as the 1976 ``Game
Range'' amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act.
A decade later, after a career which spanned 24 years in the Fish
and Wildlife Service and included the position of Chief of the agency's
Division of Refuges, Mr. William Reffalt became the Society's Program
Director for refuges and reinitiated efforts to update Refuge System
law. After producing several reports on the widespread problems that
the Refuge System was experiencing with incompatible commercial,
recreational, and other activities, the Society helped persuade
Congressmen Mike Synar and Gerry Studds to direct the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate these problems. In 1989, the GAO
released its report: National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems
with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action. Between 1989 and 1994, The
Wilderness Society and other conservation organizations vigorously
supported Refuge System legislation introduced by Senator Bob Graham
and Congressmen Studds, Synar, and Sam Gibbons in response to the GAO's
report.
In 1994, we supported the compromise bill developed with the help
of staff from Senator Graham, Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, and
Senator Kempthorne and approved by the Environment and Public Works
Committee. Notably, that bill had the support not only of The
Wilderness Society and other conservation groups, but also the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife
Management Institute, National Rifle Association, Wildlife Legislative
Fund of America, and other recreation interests.
During the 104th Congress and first months of the current
Congressional session, The Wilderness Society and other conservation
groups fought vigorously against the House bill whose title is now
shared by S. 1059--all the while expressing frustration that the hard
fought compromise of 1994 had been abandoned.
Today, once again we have an opportunity to pass a bill with broad
support. Let's make sure we finish the job this time.
wildlife-dependent recreation is appropriate in the refuge system
America's hunters have made a valuable contribution to the National
Wildlife Refuge System. With the purchase of Duck Stamps, waterfowl
hunters and others who purchase the stamps as an entrance pass to
refuges have funded the acquisition of 1.7 million acres (1.8 percent)
of refuge lands. Many hunters were strong supporters of the Refuge
System even in the first forty-six years of the system's history when
hunting was a rare exception on refuges.
Although existing law already recognizes hunting as an appropriate
use in the Refuge System that may be permitted where determined to be
compatible with refuge purposes and when funds are available to
administer it, S. 1059 would further declare hunting to be one of
several activities to be considered ``priority public uses.'' The House
passed its version of this bill by near unanimous vote. If there are
any organizations devoted to eliminating hunting from the Refuge System
they must be the least persuasive around.
If The Wilderness Society has any lingering disappointment
regarding the bill before the Committee, it is that the debate
surrounding it has been so dominated by this one issue. Hunting can be
an appropriate use of areas within the Refuge System. Having
established this with utter certainty, we hope that discussions about
the future of the Refuge System will focus more on the conservation
issues facing these lands and waters, including endangered species
preservation and recovery, wilderness protection and restoration, and
water quality and quantity.
endangered species conservation on the refuges: are we getting the job
done?
Although we urge the Committee and the Senate to pass this bill as
expeditiously as possible, once this bill is enacted, we urge you to
review more closely the many important conservation issues facing the
Refuge System. For starters, the Refuge System would benefit from a
thorough review of the efficacy of its programs to protect and recover
threatened and endangered species. This may be an appropriate topic for
a hearing in conjunction with your efforts to reauthorize the
Endangered Species Act.
Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System represents an
important part of the federal government's share in the effort to
protect and recover endangered and threatened species. More than 60
national wildlife refuges have been established specifically to
conserve endangered and threatened species. In addition, a provision of
the 1966 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act amended the
purposes of all refuges established pursuant to the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act so that such refuges are to be administered to
``conserve and protect migratory birds in accordance with treaty
obligations * * * and [to conserve] other species of wildlife found
thereon, including species that are listed pursuant to [the Endangered
Species Act].'' Refuge lands established under the Refuge Recreation
Act are also to be administered for endangered or threatened species.
All told, 482 refuges provide more than 250 listed species with vital
habitats at some point in their life cycle.
One would hope that the Fish and Wildlife Service would place a
high priority on the management of threatened and endangered species on
refuges--particularly on those refuges established specifically to
conserve such species. For a rough assessment of how imperiled species
were doing on the refuges and other national lands, we reviewed the
Service's 1994 report on the status of recovery efforts and species
inventories for each of the four major national lands agencies. As we
would have expected (and hoped), according to the Service's 1994
report, species occurring on refuges were fairing better than average:
20% of the endangered and threatened species that occurred on refuges
were improving and 37% were stable. This index of success (57%
improving or stable) was nearly twice the rate for species that did not
occur on refuges. On the 60 refuges established specifically to
conserve endangered and threatened species, 25% were improving and 44%
were considered to be stable.
For species occurring on U.S. Forest Service lands, 14% were
improving and 31% were stable. Numbers for the Bureau of Land
Management and National Park Service were most likely artificially
high. Ten percent of the listed species on BLM lands were improving and
36% stable, but BLM reported only those species on which they had spent
conservation funds in the last four fiscal years. We would expect
species that occur on BLM lands but for which the agency has not
expended resources to be doing more poorly and thus would bring down
these percentages. Twenty percent of listed species occurring on
national parks were increasing and 37% stable, but the most recent
species lists the National Park Service had was from 1988--species
listed more recently are generally in worse shape that those for which
the Endangered Species Act has had a number of years to work and we
would therefore expect more recently listed species to lower these
percentages as well.
While these admittedly rough calculations suggest that, compared to
other federal lands, the Refuge System is doing better than average at
conserving endangered species, real problems do exist--even on those
areas established specifically to conserve listed species.
Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service sometimes shares
accountability for these problems.
The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (AZ) contains
nearly all of the critically endangered Sonoran pronghorns in existence
in the United States. Fewer than 150 of these animals exist today. Yet
the Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued an incidental take permit
for the Marine Corps to harass this endangered species while increasing
by fivefold its low level training flights over the refuge. The Marines
have several alternative training sites; the pronghorn has no where
else to go.
The Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge was established by
an act of Congress in 1980 ``to preserve fragile barrier island habitat
along the Alabama Gulf Coast'' for a variety of wildlife species
including ``nationally endangered and threatened species indigenous to
this ecosystem.'' Yet recently one division of the Fish and Wildlife
Service has issued incidental take permits for condominium developers
to destroy habitat for the endangered Alabama beach house and kill
individuals of this species within the acquisition boundary of this
national wildlife refuge established for their protection.
Of course, the developments would also destroy habitat for a
large number of migratory birds would arrive here from their
wintering grounds in Central and South America and the many
other species that depend on the rapidly disappearing barrier
island ecosystem. In fact the development to be permitted by
the Service is to occur within an area designated as ``Priority
I'' lands for acquisition by another unit of the very same
agency. If ever there was a case of the right hand not knowing
what the left is doing, this is it.
Unfortunately, research that we have conducted over the past
several months indicates that a number of the refuges that have been
established specifically to conserve endangered species have also been
harmed by simple neglect--even as the Fish and Wildlife Service has
found the means to increase recreational programs across the Refuge
System. Of the 44 endangered species refuges that we have contacted to
date, 12 had no staff or budgets and were administered nominally from
other refuges sometimes hundreds of miles away; and 7 had very limited
staff and no biologists. Ten of the refuges fully acknowledged to us
that they have no monitoring programs in place for the species under
their care and could not therefore hazard a guess as to whether the
species are increasing or declining.
The Crocodile Lakes NWR (Florida) has no staff based
within 2 hours of the refuge. As a result, poaching of this endangered
species continues. The staff that are nominally assigned to this refuge
has no idea of the population numbers or status of the crocodiles
because there are no monitoring programs in place. The refuge is also
home to two endangered rodent species and an endangered butterfly.
Ten of 19 endangered Mississippi sandhill cranes at the
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR (Mississippi) were killed by predators
which broke through a deteriorating holding pen prior to the birds
release.
Piping plover breeding success has dipped at the E.B.
Forsythe NWR (New Jersey) after sustained increases, perhaps because
the refuge's seasonal position in charge of monitoring and protecting
the birds from disturbance was eliminated.
Antioch Dunes NWR was created to protect two plant and one
butterfly species that are found only on the refuge. Unfortunately,
exotic plants and beetles have invaded the refuge and threaten these
species. Little has been accomplished to address these threats because
there are no staff dedicated to the refuge. The refuge shares one part-
time biologist with four other refuges.
Watercress Darter, Fern Cave, Key Cave and Blowing Winds
Cave refuges have been established in Alabama to conserve endangered
and threatened species but none of these refuges have any dedicated
staff. Staff from the Wheeler refuge visit these four refuges about 2
or 3 times a year.
Green Cay NWR is home to 98% of the entire population of
the St. Croix Ground Lizard. However, non-indigenous rats are killing
the trees and seedlings and that make up the forest canopy within which
the lizard survives. Plans for a rat control and reforestation project
have been developed by the refuge manager, but these have not been
implemented because the refuge has no dedicated budget or staff.
Clearly many of these problems are related to funding or the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. It is unclear to what
extent S. 1059 will address these concerns. We are hopeful, however
that this bill will help raise the stature of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and enable it to achieve its great potential to conserve
America's fish and wildlife.
refuge system operations and maintenance funding must be increased
As indicated above, many of the problems facing the National
Wildlife Refuge System are due to inadequate funding and staffing (see
attached cover story from Memphis Commercial Appeal). We are pleased
that the House-passed Interior Appropriations bill contains a
significant increase for this purpose and that the Senate
Appropriations Committee has provided most of the increase contained in
the House bill. On this point we want to say a special thank you to
Senators Kempthorne and Graham for spearheading a letter to the
Appropriations Committee in support of the House level and to Senators
Chafee, Reid, Lieberman, Moynihan, and the others who signed that
letter. We hope the conference will approve the full House amount.
conclusion
In conclusion, The Wilderness Society supports S. 1059 and urges
its prompt passage by the U.S. Senate. We are hopeful that this bill
will help combat political pressures that have often led to the
establishment and continuation of activities that harm wildlife and
habitat on the refuges. It will ensure that comprehensive plans are
developed for each refuge. It will improve research and monitoring of
fish and wildlife populations on the refuges. And perhaps most
importantly, this bill should help raise the stature of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and help it reach its great conservation
potential.
While we believe that the technical amendments described in the
attachment to this testimony would improve the bill and would not upset
the delicate political balance upon which it is founded, we urge the
Senate not to tinker unnecessarily with S. 1059. No special amendments
for specific refuges or specific activities--such as utility right-of-
ways--are appropriate. Any such amendments would cause us to reassess
our support of the legislation. The Wilderness looks forward to working
with the Committee to enact the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act.
______
Technical Amendments to Improve S. 1059
S. 1059 could be improved with the following technical amendments.
However we urge the Senate to pass this bill promptly and to refrain
from any unnecessary amendments that would slow the bill's passage. In
particular, no amendments for specific refuges or specific uses are
appropriate at this time.
S. 1059 contains a definition for the word ``compatible''
that we believe is overly vague (``a use that will not materially
interfere with or detract from'' refuges purposes). We understand that
the definition has been in the Fish and Wildlife Service's policy
manual for a number of years but believe that at times it has not been
workable. The House Resources Committee clarified in its Committee
Report on the bill H.R. 1420 that a compatible use is one that will not
have a ``tangible adverse impact'' on refuge purposes. We suggest that
this language is more workable than that provided in the bill and that
it may make sense to simply insert this ``operational standard'' into
the bill.
We have had some concerns that the bill's provision
establishing the compatibility process could be construed by some to
actually increase administration discretion in allowing uses and
decrease public accountability for those reviews of agency decisions.
Specifically, the bill states that compatibility decisions are to be
based on the ``sound professional judgment'' of the Director. The bill
subsumes the role of science within the judgment of government
officials (definition ``3''). The parenthetical phrase (``sound
professional judgment'') has raised the concern that a court, in
evaluating whether an allowed use meets the compatibility standard,
would conclude that the decision is ``committed to agency discretion by
law'' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, and is
therefore not reviewable.
To address this concern, the Committee could modify the draft's
definition of compatibility so that these decisions are ``based on the
best available science and reflect the best professional judgment of
the refuge official.'' This is the approach that all active parties
agreed to in a negotiated redraft of Senator Bob Graham's bill in the
103rd Congress
This concern was at least partially addressed in the House
Committee Report with language ensuring that compatibility reviews will
continue to be reviewable, although we'd still prefer the underlined
bill text to ensure that too much discretion is not granted to the
agency and that science is more clearly the determining factor.
Section 6 of the bill authorizes the Interior Department
to enter agreements that exempt activities ``authorized, funded, or
conducted'' by other federal agencies from the compatibility standard
on the several dozen so-called ``overlay'' refuges. Overlay refuges are
those that are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a refuge but
are held in title by another agency. For example, the Corps of
Engineers was required to set aside land as a national wildlife refuge
to mitigate the impacts of a number of its projects but continues to
hold title to a number of these refuges.
We believe that it makes no sense to exempt from the compatibility
standard activities of such agencies on lands that were set up to
mitigate activities of those same agencies. At the very least, this
provision should be limited to only those activities that are directly
related to the purpose that the agency is there in the first place. In
other words, the Corps could do things that it needed to do to in
accordance with its projects but couldn't authorize incompatible county
road construction, ball fields, or other unrelated activities.
In addition, oversight by the Committee on the status of these
``overlay'' refuges at some point in the future would be helpful.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH286.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH286.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH286.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH286.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH286.044
American Mosquito Control Association,
July 30, 1997.
Hon. John H. Chafee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing to you today about a
matter of national public health importance. It relates to H.R.
1420, an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, that is currently under consideration by
the Senate Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries and
Wildlife. As currently written, this legislation clarifies the
mission of the refuge system but lacks a provision for
protecting certain aspects of the public's health in and around
these federal lands.
The American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) and its
2,000 members from local mosquito and vector control programs,
various state and federal agencies, university professors and
researchers, and others dedicated to the prevention and control
of mosquitoes in all 50 states, does not believe that this bill
adequately addresses public health risks that may be created by
existing natural conditions or current water management
practices on federal refuges. We have enclosed a brief summary
expressing our concerns and are submitting recommended
amendments that we believe should be incorporated into this
legislation.
The AMCA hopes that these amendments can become part of
H.R. 1420 as it is revised so that the many visitors and
adjacent residents can more fully utilize and enjoy these
refuges without danger to their health and well-being. The
procedures that we endorse are environmentally compatible with
the mission and objectives of the federal wildlife refuge
programs.
Members of our Association are available at any time to
meet with you or your staff to discuss this situation.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Clark, Ph.D.,
President.
------
Prepared Statement of the American Mosquito Control Association
Containing Recommended Language to Address the Public Health Issues
Associated with H.R. 1420
Good day. I would like to thank you, Senator Kempthorne,
and other distinguished members of the Senate Subcommittee on
Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife for the opportunity to
attend your Subcommittee meeting today and discuss an important
matter with you. I am Dr. William H. Meredith of the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and
today I represent the American Mosquito Control Association
(AMCA) of which I am a member. I am accompanied today, also in
representation of the AMCA, by Ms. Judy A. Mansen,
Superintendent of the Cape May County (New Jersey) Mosquito
Commission and Past-President of the AMCA; and by Mr. Chester
J. Stachecki, Jr., Program Administrator of the Delaware
Mosquito Control Section in the Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control, who is Past-President of the Mid-
Atlantic Mosquito Control Association.
On behalf of Dr. Gary G. Clark, President of the AMCA and
its members, I will present a position statement from our
Association for your consideration and action in regard to the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (H.R.
1420). In association with this position statement, I would
like to offer several worthy amendments developed by the AMCA
for your consideration, which we hope you will adopt and
include in the proposed act.
Before I begin, I would like to give a little background
about our Association. The AMCA is a professional association
with over 2,000 members from all 50 states, Canada and many
other countries. The AMCA's membership is composed of front
line, operational mosquito control personnel in state, county
or municipal mosquito abatement or vector control programs or
in federal military service; federal, state or academic-based
scientists in fields of entomology, public health,
epidemiology, toxicology, ecology, wildlife management, aquatic
biology or other scientific disciplines; and technical
representatives from companies that manufacture mosquito
control products and equipment or which provide mosquito
control services. For over 60 years, since its founding in
1935, the AMCA has promoted safe, responsible, environmentally-
sensitive mosquito control practices to safe-guard the public's
health, safety and welfare. The legacy of this scientifically-
based approach to mosquito control has been the protection of
humans and domestic animals from pestiferous and disease-
carrying mosquitoes, increased recreational opportunities and
tourism, and enhanced residential and commercial development in
urban areas. Benefits of organized mosquito control have been
realized by many of the states represented on the Environment
and Public Works Committee.
The AMCA believes and actively promotes an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) approach to solving mosquito production
problems. The IPM strategy ensures that efficacious, cost
effective mosquito control is achieved in a safe and
environmentally-compatible manner. The AMCA's recent
recognition by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as an exemplary partner in the EPA's ``Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program'' reflects the AMCA's commitment to this
approach. The AMCA is one of only a handful of organizations
receiving this unique distinction.
The proposed National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (H.R. 1420) addresses many of the problems
associated with the management of the nation's federal wildlife
refuges. However, the proposed act does not address the issue
of the health and well-being of refuge visitors and residents
living near these federal properties. As background, it is
important to understand that many wildlife refuges, by the
nature of their existence, produce very large numbers of
mosquitoes that affect the health and well-being of human and
domestic animal populations. State-operated wildlife refuges,
which can create similar mosquito problems, accommodate or
routinely pay service fees for mosquito control and strive to
develop management plans that reduce mosquito problems and thus
their costs for control. In contrast, federal wildlife refuges
do not presently have any such incentives, and as a result of
existing natural conditions or current water management
practices, many continue to produce large numbers of
mosquitoes. Many of these mosquitoes are a major pest problem
while others pose an increased risk of human disease to people
in certain parts of California, Virginia, Florida, Maryland,
Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Delaware,
Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas, and other states. This
problem is exacerbated when refuges are established or exist in
proximity to urban population centers.
The specific problems created by the presence of these
mosquitoes represent a potentially serious public health threat
(that can and must be alleviated). Many of the mosquito species
produced on these refuges transmit diseases such as mosquito-
borne (arboviral) encephalitis and malaria to humans and equine
encephalitis and dog heartworm to animals. Additionally,
negative quality-of-life and economic impacts on tourism and
local development are created when swarms of mosquitoes
produced on these refuges move into residential and
recreational areas beyond the refuge boundaries and begin to
take blood from children and adults. Some of the mosquitoes
produced on refuge property fly up to 20 miles in search of a
blood meal. Presently, the control response for the mosquitoes
from these federal refuges, in those areas where organized
mosquito control exists, is provided by local taxing districts,
or state or local control programs. Often these programs do not
receive adequate operating funds to abate the problems that
originate on federal property, or are hindered by refuge
management policies from implementing appropriate control
procedures.
Clearly, this is not an isolated problem present on one or
two refuges, but one of national dimensions. A problem of this
magnitude can only be addressed through statutory reform of the
administration of federal wildlife refuge system and by
legislation such as H.R. 1420. Developing a statutory charge
for the Department of the Interior to provide for or
accommodate mosquito control on refuge lands is the best way to
promote the resolution of differences between mosquito control
programs and refuge managers.
To address this situation, the AMCA offers seven specific
amendments for inclusion in the current version of H.R. 1420
that is being considered by the Senate Subcommittee on Drinking
Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife (see Appendix 1). The AMCA
recommends that these amendments be incorporated as legislation
on federal refuge reform is formulated.
The first issue of concern to the AMCA is responsibility
for production of mosquitoes. The language in Amendment 1
places responsibility for resolving the problems associated
with mosquito production on national wildlife refuges directly
with the agency and specific refuge administrator responsible
for creating or allowing these problems to occur. Just as
importantly, it encourages development of a cooperative and
collaborative working relationship with state or local mosquito
control programs to implement environmentally-compatible
control measures. The recommended changes also provide a
significant incentive for refuge administrators to utilize
appropriate water management practices to prevent mosquito
production.
The second issue (Amendment 2) relates to the recognition
that refuge management practices can have an impact on the
public health of the surrounding community. This impact should
be understood, considered and addressed by the refuge
administrator.
In Amendment 3, the AMCA reiterates its concern about due
consideration of public health problems originating on refuge
property, utilization of appropriate management practices to
mitigate mosquito production, and consultation with
knowledgeable public health officials in the prevention or
resolution of these problems.
In paragraph L in Amendment 3, we recommend addition of
this public health language requiring that refuge
administrators consider the impact of refuge operations on the
production of mosquitoes and other organisms that adversely
affect the health and well-being of humans and domestic animals
that live on or near their refuges, and encourage them to take
reasonable steps to reduce these impacts. Clearly, this
statutory language is needed to require the System and its
refuge administrators to consider and reduce mosquito problems
that originate on the property that they manage. Without this
statutory language, the AMCA is concerned that some individual
administrators within the Refuge System will continue as in the
past to allow or accept the creation of mosquito problems
without being held accountable for the prevention or resolution
of these problems.
The language in paragraph M in Amendment 3 sends a strong
message to refuge administrators about the importance of public
health, safety and well-being of refuge visitors and in
particular refuge neighbors, and encourages administrators to
reduce problems by utilizing appropriate water management
practices and other measures to prevent and control as much as
possible the production of mosquitoes and their movement beyond
refuge boundaries.
The language in paragraph N ensures that refuge
administrators will consult knowledgeable public health
officials on the safest, most effective, environmentally-
sensitive, and cost efficient ways to mitigate the threat to
public health and safety in and near the System. When properly
applied, the abatement practices that the AMCA is advocating
are entirely compatible with the mission and goals of the
federal wildlife refuge system.
The statutory language in Amendment 4 is needed to ensure
that steps are taken to reduce risks to public health, safety
and well-being through the establishment of regulations by the
Secretary, along with other proposed regulations.
The language in Amendment 5 reinforces the need to take
steps to reduce risks to the public health, safety and well-
being and that these issues are considered as compatible uses.
Amendment 6 simply adds the words ``* * * health and'' in
an existing phrase in the bill, and reiterates the point that
refuge uses are consistent with public health and safety.
The statutory language in Amendment 7 is needed to ensure
that state and local health and mosquito control officials are
given an opportunity to advise the Secretary or specific refuge
administrators on the public health impacts of proposed
conservation plans and how to mitigate any negative impact on
public health.
In summary, the AMCA offers these amendments in an effort
to statutorily ensure that the System and its refuge
administrators consider and address the threat to public health
that is being created on many of our national wildlife refuges.
We believe that once the problems have been identified and
responsibility for the resolution of these problems is placed
with the administrators of the System, many quality-of-life and
public health problems that currently exist will be prevented
or mitigated by the use of modern mosquito control practices.
This, will make areas nearby or adjacent to national wildlife
refuges, and even the refuges themselves, healthier and more
enjoyable environments.
The AMCA and its members throughout the United States
strongly encourage the adoption of these statutory changes.
------
Appendix 1
Amendments to H.R. 1420 (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997) offered by the American Mosquito Control Association
(1) Amend Section 2 (FINDINGS) by adding a new paragraph
(6) and renumbering subsequent paragraphs.
``(6) The System provides for the protection of
public health, safety and well-being of the communities
in and near refuges by providing for or incorporating
appropriate mosquito control activities on refuge
land.''
(2) Amend Section 5(a)(4)(C) (ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM)
by adding the following phrase after the words, ``the United
States,'' on line 19.
``(C) * * *, to promote public health within the
System and its surrounding communities,''
(3) Amend Section 5 (ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM) by
adding new paragraphs (L), (M), and (N), and renumbering
subsequent paragraphs.
``(L) consider the impacts of refuge and System
operations on the production of mosquitoes and other
organisms that adversely affect the health and well-
being of humans who use the refuge and System or who
live nearby, as well as domestic animals on or near
refuges, and take reasonable steps to reduce these
impacts;
(M) promote the public health, safety and well-being
of Refuge visitors and neighboring urban and rural
communities by using appropriate water management and
mosquito control practices to prevent or diminish, as
much as possible, the production of pestiferous or
disease-carrying mosquitoes and their movement from
Refuges;
(N) consult with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, including but not limited to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; state and/or local
public health departments; and state and/or local
mosquito or vector control districts, concerning
efforts to mitigate threats to public health and safety
in and near the System,''
(4) Amend Section 6 (COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES) by adding a new paragraph (v) to Section 4(d)(3)(B)
which reads as follows:
``(v) provide for steps to be taken to reduce any
unintended or inadvertent risks to the public health,
safety and well-being associated with any use,''
(5) Amend Section 6 (COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES) by adding a new paragraph to Section 4(d)(4) which
reads as follows:
``(C) any steps taken to reduce any unintended or
inadvertent risks to the public health, safety and
well-being associated with management of a refuge.''
(6) Amend Section 6 (COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES) by inserting a new phrase after the word ``public''
in line 21 in Section 4(d)(3)(A)(I) which reads as follows:
``(I) * * * health and''
(7) Amend Section 7 (REFUGE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRAM)
by adding a new phrase after the word ``governments'' on line
24 in Section 4(e)(4)(A) which reads as follows:
``(4)(A) * * * state and local public health
officials, state and local mosquito abatement
officials,''
------
Prepared Statement of the American Petroleum Institute
S. 1059: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a trade
association with over 350 members engaged in all aspects of the
petroleum industry. API respectfully submits this statement of
its views for the record in S. 1059, the National Wildlife
Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) 1995
data, the oil and gas industry produces hydrocarbons from over
1100 wells on 36 federal wildlife refuges in the states of
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas. Louisiana has 607 wells on wildlife
refuges. There are 346 active wells on wildlife refuges in
Texas, according to the FWS data. As a result, there are also
significant appurtenant oil and gas production facilities on
wildlife refuges, as well as numerous oil and gas pipelines
that traverse wildlife refuge lands. Oil and gas production has
occurred on these lands for many years.
Our industry has an exceptional record as an environmental
steward on these refuge lands, conducting its activities in a
safe, careful and thoughtful manner fully compatible with
wildlife-dependent activities.
For example, Conoco, an API member company, has conducted
exploration activities and operated wells in the Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge on the Texas Gulf Coast for more than
50 years. Aransas is home to hundreds of wildlife species,
including the endangered whooping crane. Wetlands, and native
grasses and oaks also thrive along side exploration, production
and pipeline transportation in the refuge. Yet the whooping
crane population has increased from a low of 15 birds that
wintered in Texas in 1941, to a flock of over 140 birds that
wintered on or near Aransas in 1994. This example of the
compatibility of oil and gas industry activities on wildlife
refuges is not an isolated one.
Another example of our industry's excellent environmental
records within wildlife refuges is the case of Chevron's
stewardship within the Delta National Wildlife Refuge in
Louisiana. The 48,000 acre refuge is located on the
southernmost edge of Louisiana where the Mississippi River
empties its suspended sediment load into the Gulf of Mexico.
Along with 240 species of birds that live in or migrate through
the refuge, there are also significant deer and alligator
populations. Chevron has operated there since 1949. In 1997 it
received the National Health of the Land Award presented by the
Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the
Interior for its outstanding environmental practices in
managing its Romere Pass field within the Refuge. Chevron has
worked not just to preserve, but to enhance the environment
within the Refuge by funding the creation of more than 300
acres of new marsh land within the Refuge, resulting in new
habitat for many species. Chevron has compatibly produced over
100 million barrels of oil and 445 billion cubic feet of
natural gas from about 100 wells within that Refuge.
Kerr-McGee, another API member, has operated in the Breton
Sound National Wildlife Refuge since the early 1950's. More
than 100 million barrels of oil and 320 billion cubic feet of
gas have been produced there. Current production totals 7500
barrels per day. The FWS has also repeatedly honored Kerr-McGee
for its outstanding environmental record for production in
environmentally sensitive areas.
Since API members engage in substantial activities on
wildlife refuges, API is concerned that several provisions in
H.R. 1420--the substantially similar wildlife refuge
improvement bill passed by the House of Representatives in May
1997--may be misinterpreted by regulators or the courts as
signaling a change in the current national policy that oil and
gas operations are generally compatible uses in numerous
refuges. As a result, periodic compatibility reviews could
become permit conditioning exercises, or subject oil industry
operations to challenge on the grounds that oil and gas
activities are per se disfavored because they do not constitute
a wildlife-dependent use, as defined in the bill.
The definition of ``compatible use'' in the Senate bill
includes the phrase ``other use'' in addition to the
``wildlife-dependent recreational use'' definition passed in
H.R. 1420. API believes that this addition clarifies that oil
and gas activities are valid, compatible uses within wildlife
refuges, and are in no manner subordinate, disfavored or
inconsistent with the public safety standard, the mission of
the system, or other goals and findings declared in S. 1059.
Development of oil field infrastructure, including wells,
pipelines, and rights-of-way are very capital intensive.
Activities within environmentally-sensitive areas such as
wildlife refuges can increase investments materially. Company
engineers, biologists, hydrologists, and other scientists have
worked with refuge managers to design environmental safeguards,
almost always at significant added cost. API members have
demonstrated significant abilities in working with refuge
managers to protect and enhance wildlife and habitat while
producing domestic oil and gas supplies. API and its members
believe that report language, floor statements, and final bill
language in S. 1059 should remove any ambiguity that could
unintentionally result in a change of national policy that has
permitted compatible, environmentally sound oil and gas
activities on wildlife refuge lands for many years.
------
Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is pleased to be able
to submit written testimony to the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee for consideration during its
deliberations on S. 1059, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. It does so on behalf of the 202
shareholder-owned electric utilities that comprise its
membership.
S. 1059 and its nearly identical House-passed companion
measure, H.R. 1420, is significant legislation. The legislation
will strengthen the overall management of the nation's wildlife
refuges, wielding them from 508 disparate, individual units
into a system whole. The proposed administrative and management
changes will encourage greater consistency in decision-making
among the different refuges and provide minimum procedural
steps, including public participation, that should be followed
by refuge managers. Most importantly, S. 1059 appears to
resolve a long-standing controversy regarding the continuation
of hunting, fishing, and other wildlife- dependent recreation
within the refuges in a way that is acceptable to all sides
with an interest in the issue.
EEI and its member companies believe that many of these
changes will benefit the refuge system, the species they
protect, and the American public for whom they are conserved.
At the same time, inasmuch as the primary consideration in
drafting and negotiating this legislation was a resolution of
the wildlife-dependent recreation controversy, EEI believes
that it is appropriate for the Committee to look beyond this
issue and consider the potential effect of the proposed bill on
other significant and important uses within the nation's
individual refuges. These uses range from non-wildlife-
dependent recreation, such as rock climbing, boating, and
hiking, to productive uses, such as oil and gas production, and
especially rights-of-way for roads, electric power transmission
and distribution lines, oil and gas pipelines,
telecommunications and canals. Many of these uses have had a
long-standing presence in some refuges and have been regarded
as appropriate compatible uses of their respective refuges.
Indeed, under current law, the Secretary of the Interior is
given explicit authorization to approve rights-of-way where
they are compatible with the specific purposes of the refuges
where they are located. It is under these determinations that a
number of EEI member companies own, operate, and maintain
transmission and distribution lines within various refuges.
EEI is concerned that various provisions of the bill, taken
together, may compel a change in the current Fish and Wildlife
Service view that rights-of-way are generally compatible uses
of the refuges, and convert long-term rights-of-way permit
periods into de facto 10-year terms. EEI discussions with the
House Resources Committee and with key negotiators for
Secretary Babbitt, indicate that these results were not the
negotiators' intent and would be unintended consequences. These
views were expressed in a June 3 colloquy between Resources
Committee Chairman Don Young and Rep. Saxton (on behalf of Rep.
Goss) during the House floor debate on H.R. 1420. (See
attached) Believing that the colloquy cannot and does not
wholly address EEI concerns, EEI is pleased that the Committee
has a fresh opportunity to evaluate how the bill may affect
rights-of-way as a continuing use of the nation's refuges.
Since there are 92 million total acres in the national
refuge system, it will not surprise the Committee that in some
places in the country, the provision of electricity to rural
and urban population centers has required the establishment of
utility corridors through refuges for transmission and
distribution lines and their related facilities. Some of these
rights-of-way are of recent origin. Some existed prior to the
creation of a particular refuge and only became subject to
refuge restrictions upon incorporation. In other instances,
wildlife refuges have been created on land leased by utilities
to the Fish and Wildlife Service for that purpose so long as
transmission lines and related facilities can continue to be
operated, maintained, and, if necessary, expanded to assure a
reliable supply of electricity to the given utilities' customer
base.
In all of these situations, shareholder-owned utilities
have been an important partner in helping refuge managers to
fulfill the purposes of the individual refuges. Utilities, as
large landowners, have a long tradition of sound and effective
management of habitat and wildlife. Utility rights-of-way and
related buffer zones, where ever they are located, frequently
provide excellent habitats, including valuable edge
environments for threatened and endangered plants, birds, and
animals. A number of these that are especially good for
observing wildlife have been referenced in the Defenders of
Wildlife's Watchable Wildlife Viewing Guides. Our member
companies are therefore justifiably proud of their fish and
wildlife expertise, and it is this experience they bring to the
table when rights-of-way transverse a refuge system.
Furthermore, unlike other uses within a refuge, which
generally operate under year-to-year permits, utility rights-
of-way are long-term. By regulation, utility rights-of-way are
granted for permit terms that can extend for as long as 50
years. The lengthy term acknowledges that construction of a
transmission line is a costly endeavor. An average, rule of the
thumb estimate is that it costs $500,000 to $1 million per mile
to build a transmission line in this country. The lengthy
duration of a permit also recognizes that once the transmission
line is operational, it is part of a grid that provides power
throughout entire regions. The connection is part of a design
to assure the reliable transmission of power, avoiding
disruptions that could threaten public safety and health. Re-
routing of such grid-connected transmission lines can easily
run into the millions of dollars--assuming arguendo that they
can be re-cited and relocated at all in today's world. They
should, therefore, not be compelled to move in the absence of
clearly convincing site-specific rationale and supporting data.
The benefit of the lengthy permit term for rights-of-way,
however, does not flow just one-way. The length allows for the
development of a long-term relationship between the local
utility and the refuge, founded on a mutual commitment to
problem-solving and cooperation on habitat and wildlife
management issues.
In 1994, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E)
completed construction of a 500 Kilovolt (KV) transmission line
through the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge, which is part of
a transmission loop providing power to the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area, Annapolis and Baltimore. The project took 15
years to complete, partially due to litigation on another loop
segment. As part of the approval for the Patuxent line, BG&E
was required to build a 15-acre wetland as a mitigation
measure, but the resulting project has become, according to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the national model for creative
wetlands development. BG&E went beyond basic requirements to
construct a comprehensive 35 acre project, which include 27
acres of unusual, high-quality wooded wetlands, ponds and
nesting areas for migratory water fowl, and an extended viewing
area that is now heavily used by Boy Scouts and school systems
to educate American children on wildlife and habitat values.
BG&E also contributed $100,000 to the support of the Fish and
Wildlife Service's refuge visitors center.
Of perhaps equal interest to this Committee, however, are
the opportunities for research and experimentation that the
right-of-way corridor provides to the Patuxent Refuge. It is
being used for research on enhancing seeding and attraction of
wildlife and to evaluate the success of created wooded
wetlands, crop experimentation, and other ecological research.
These activities are generally precluded on refuge lands. Thus,
the presence of the right-of-way is fulfilling critical
research needs that ultimately will benefit wildlife management
and habitat protection not only in the local area, but also
elsewhere in the country. The same type of productive
relationship between EEI member companies and the Fish and
Wildlife Service occurs through the Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee, which focuses on the detection and
prevention of bird interactions with power lines. The same
group recently held a seminar for federal employees on this
subject at the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge.
Thus, EEI's comments are provided today, mindful both of
the commitment of our member companies to cooperate in the
fulfillment of the purposes of the refuges where they are
located and their concern about how this legislation may
affect, in the future, important transmission and distribution
lines in their grid and are located on land subject to the
jurisdiction of this bill.
First, EEI is concerned about how the bill gives priority
to wildlife-dependent recreational uses in refuges over other
types of uses, appearing to require the subordination of other
uses. For example, section 5 of the bill establishes the policy
that ``compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the
priority general public uses of the System and shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management.'' It
imposes a duty on the Secretary of the Interior to administer
the refuge system in a way that ``ensure[s] that priority
general public uses (of which wildlife-dependent recreation is
the only one) receive enhanced consideration over other general
public uses.'' Furthermore, Section 7 outlines elements that
the Secretary must consider in developing the comprehensive
plan for each refuge. Most of these relate to the primary
wildlife protection purposes of the refuges, except for a
requirement to identify the opportunities for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation.
These provisions do not acknowledge or address long-
established existing uses, such as rights-of-way that have been
determined in the past to be compatible and that provide an
important service to the American public and, indeed, to the
refuge itself Although the National Wildlife Refuge System Act
being amended by the bill does explicitly authorize grants of
easements within the system for such facilities as power,
telephone, and other lines, EEI is concerned that the bill's
prioritization of uses will lead refuge managers to be less
inclined or less able to approve such rights-of-way.
Specifically, we are concerned that wildlife-dependent
recreational uses will get first and perhaps even exclusive
priority, even if utility rights-of-way may be more benign or
helpful in fulfilling the purposes of the refuge than those
other uses. EEI believes that rights-of-way should also be a
general priority use and not merely a subordinate use.
Second, Section 6 of the bill expressly prohibits the
Secretary from initiating or permitting uses of a refuge, or
the expansion, renewal, or extension of an existing use on a
refuge, unless the Secretary determines that the use is
``compatible'' and ``not inconsistent with public safety.'' The
bill requires the Secretary to issue regulations within two
years of passage for determining whether a given use of a
refuge is compatible. These regulations must require
reevaluation of each non-wildlife-dependent use at least every
10 years (or more often if conditions under which the use is
permitted change significantly or there is new information
regarding the effects of the use). Existing uses appear to be
grandfathered until such time as they are modified.
Under current law, the Secretary's authority to allow uses
is permissive. H.R. 1420 and S. 1059, however, impose
incorporates an absolute prohibition into the exercise of the
authority, arguably making his determinations more easily
subject to legal challenge. The provisions subjecting uses to
regular compatibility reviews fail to recognize current policy,
which allows certain uses of refuges to be appropriately
permitted for extended periods of time (no more than 50 years
for power lines and no more than 30 years for oil and gas
pipelines). The current policy acknowledges that the longer
time frames are needed in order to provide sufficient certainty
for those uses to occur. As a consequence, the restrictive
provisions in the legislation raise questions about the
continued ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue
permits for periods longer than 10 years and about the validity
of the longer-term permits that already have been issued. EEI
has previously provided the Committee with suggested language
to attempt to address this concern.
Third, Section 8 of the bill gives the Secretary new and
unfettered authority to ``temporarily suspend * * * any
activity in a refuge * * * if the Secretary determines it is
necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or any
fish or wildlife population.'' The bill does not require
procedural protections in the exercise of this authority, such
as advance notice and an opportunity for the affected parties
to respond or appeal the decision. It also does not require the
Secretary to weigh the consequences of his or her actions in
exercising the new emergency authority, including the public
health and safety and economic effects of suspending an
activity--which may be quite significant. Where power lines are
concerned, since they cannot be casually shut down or easily
moved. Inclusion of the new emergency authorities also does not
recognize the host of other existing federal statutory and
regulatory requirements and authorities that safeguard public
health and safety and fish populations.
As a result, we are concerned about the potential for
arbitrary or inconsistent exercise of the emergency power
authority, in particular as it pertains to utility rights-of-
way and other such long-term established, beneficial uses of
the refuges. Even though the new grant of emergency powers may
be appropriate for some uses, like hunting, it may not be
helpful to pubic health or safety where transmission lines are
concerned.
Finally, EEI is concerned that many of the provisions of
H.R. 1420 and S. 1059, including the new requirement for
compatibility determinations and other administrative and
management decisions to be made in light of the new mission of
the refuge system, not just the individual purposes of each
refuge, work together to change the scope of review regarding
these decisions, if not also the actual standard of review.
Coupled with the subordination of other uses to wildlife-
dependent uses, these provisions may adversely affect how
wildlife managers can view rights-of-way, notwithstanding the
current stated intentions of the Fish and Wildlife Service to
view such rights-of-way favorably.
EEI notes here that S. 1059 makes an important improvement
to the basic text of H.R. 1420. That change in the definition
of ``compatible use'' solves a related concern that H.R. 1420
contained an internal ambiguity in the language that could lead
to an interpretation that non-wildlife-dependent uses are, by
definition, no longer compatible activities in a refuge. EEI
supports the change contained in S. 1059.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the concerns raised here,
EEI and its member companies believe that S. 1059 makes some
important changes in the public interest, even if a close
reading of those changes suggest that they may not make
complete sense for long-term uses like rights-of-way. EEI
believes that the June 3 colloquy that occurred between
Resources Committee Chairman Young and Rep. Saxton (on behalf
of Mr. Goss) on the House floor, with the concurrence of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, was an important step towards laying
to rest the utility industry's concerns. The colloquy states
the Committee's view and intent that the bill should not impact
rights-of-way, nor create a higher standard for rights-of-way
than exist at present. Only the process is being changed.
Furthermore, as to rights-of-way, the colloquy interprets the
requirement for fresh compatibility reviews every 10 years, at
a minimum, to mean an examination of the permittee's
``compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit,'' not
the existence of the right-of-way.
Because EEI and our member companies are concerned that the
Fish and Wildlife Service may not be able to sustain this
interpretation, to the extent it may be perceived as in
conflict with the plain meaning of the language of the bill,
EEI urges the Committee to incorporate language into S. 1059
that reflects the interpretation stated in the House colloquy.
Additionally, EEI urges the Committee to use such legislative
tools as the Committee report and floor statements related to
S. 1059, or other consideration of H.R. 1420, to restate the
intent of the authors of the bill that rights-of-way not be
adversely affected by the changes made to current law and
should continue to be treated as an important public use and
continue to be granted for the permit terms presently
prescribed by regulation.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and for
the Committee's consideration of these views.
------
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
wildlife refuge system improvements
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: The Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America (INGAA) thanks you for this
opportunity to submit our views on S. 1059, the ``National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.'' By way of
introduction, INGAA is a non-profit national trade association
representing the interstate natural gas transmission companies
operating in the United States and the interprovincial
pipelines in Canada. Our member companies transport and deliver
over 90 percent of the nation's natural gas though a nationwide
system consisting of 280,000 miles of interstate pipeline.
The legislation before the Committee today, and its
companion bill in the House H.R. 1420, focus on the
establishment of clear guidelines and goals for the nation's
500 wildlife refuges. INGAA supports the overall ideals behind
S. 1059 of continued protection of the refuges and their native
species, and increased public enjoyment of these natural
resources. INGAA is concerned, however, that the legislation
may make it more difficult to site, and maintain, certain
pipeline rights-of-way through wildlife refuges even if these
rights-of-way are compatible with the primary purpose of
protecting wildlife on these federal lands.
The process of siting and building an interstate natural
gas pipeline is not an easy one. Pursuant to the Natural Gas
Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the
authority to issue construction permits for interstate
pipelines that are deemed to meet the public interest,
convenience and necessity. As part of this permitting process,
FERC works with the various federal, state and local entities
with an interest in the proposed project. One of these parties
is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
To the extent possible, FERC and the pipeline operator
attempt to avoid crossing wildlife refuges and other
environmentally sensitive areas. When such crossings are
necessary, however, FERC and the USFWS work to ensure that the
pipeline crossings are accomplished with a minimum impact to
the wildlife refuge. Since pipelines are typically buried
several feet underground, the right-of-way can usually be
returned to its natural condition within a short time and
without any major impact to the native species of the refuge.
When a construction permit is issued, it usually grants the
pipeline the use of the approved right-of-way for a 30-year
period.
The pipeline operator may need access to the right-of-way
from time to time in order to ensure that trees or other
vegetation do not pose a threat to the safe operation of the
pipeline. Other than a periodic inspection and/or maintenance,
however, the pipeline operator does not need access to the
wildlife refuge. Where ever possible, and usually pursuant to
the construction permit, the pipeline operator works to ensure
that impacts to the refuge and its wildlife are kept at a
minimum.
This process has worked well, protecting wildlife refuges
while ensuring that natural gas pipeline projects that meet the
public interest on a national level can be built. INGAA
believes that pipeline rights-of-way, when constructed
according to the permit issued by the FERC and approved by the
USFWS, constitute a compatible use within a refuge. For this
reason, we are concerned about the possible unintended
consequences that could arise as a result of Section 6 of S.
1059, new paragraph (3)(B)(vii), which would require a
compatibility review of each existing use at least every 10
years.
INGAA believes questions relating to compatibility are
addressed during the permitting process, and only those uses
that are deemed to be compatible over a 30-year period are
approved. Pipeline projects are, by their very nature, capital
intensive. A pipeline operator needs to know that, once
approved, a pipeline will be able to continue operation so long
as the terms of the permit continue to be met. If, however,
compatibility reviews are required at least every 10 years, the
opportunity is created for those who oppose a given pipeline
for competitive or other reasons to use the new compatibility
process as a way to overturn a previously approved permit.
In its Report to accompany H.R. 1420, the House Resources
Committee noted that ``[t]here are numerous existing rights-of-
way on National Wildlife Refuge Systems lands for roads, oil
and gas pipelines,'' and that ``[t]he Committee does not intend
for this Act to in any way change, restrict, or eliminate these
existing rights-of-way.'' The Resources Committee suggested
that an expedited process for consideration of compatibility
reviews created in new paragraph (3)(B)(v) be used to review
these right-of-way uses in wildlife refuges. While INGAA
appreciates the intent of the Committee, we continue to believe
that, unamended, S. 1059 and H.R. 1420 could create unintended
consequences which could detrimentally impact the continued
operation of facilities which operate in the public interest.
INGAA believes S. 1059 should recognize that pipelines,
electric transmission facilities, and communications
facilities, to name a few, are compatible uses within a
wildlife refuge when these facilities are built and managed
responsibly. We also support language which would, in the case
of natural gas pipelines, require a compatibility review only
when an operating permit expires. Questions regarding
compatibility are dealt with in detail during the permitting
process, and the USFWS is an integral part of that process when
a refuge is impacted. Additional reviews do not add
substantively to that process, and may create an opportunity
for certain project opponents to continually tie up the process
with endless requirements for reconsideration. INGAA does not
believe this is the intent of the sponsors of this legislation.
Finally, INGAA notes that Section 6, new paragraph
(3)(A)(i) states that the Secretary of the Interior shall not
approve a new use, or extend an existing use of a refuge
``unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a
compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public
safety.'' While INGAA supports the overall goal of that
section, it should be noted that in the case of interstate
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulates safety-related matters. In
addition, many state governments regulate the safety of
intrastate and gas distribution facilities. We want to ensure
that the Secretary of the Interior would work in conjunction
with the relevant federal and state officials on any matters
related to the safe operation of pipelines in wildlife refuges,
in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
In closing, INGAA once again appreciates the opportunity to
comment on this important issue. We support passage of S. 1059
with the aforementioned changes, and would like to work with
the Committee in perfecting this legislation.
------
National Rifle Association of America,
Institute for Legislative Action.
Hon. John H. Chafee,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chafee: I would appreciate having this letter
included in the record for the hearing held July 29, 1997 on S.
1059, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The
National Rifle Association of America (NRA) compliments the
Committee for taking expeditious action on this bill.
The NRA wholeheartedly supports S. 1059 for it recognizes
the important role of the hunting community to the conservation
mission of the Refuge System. Hunters' dollars have contributed
to the expansion of the System from a 3-acre island created in
1903 to a network of lands and waters that today comprise more
than 92 million acres. In fact, America's hunters helped to buy
three-fourths of the lands that have been purchased for the
Refuge System. We have a special interest in all legislation
affecting the Refuge System, including legislation that
improves upon the original Refuge Administration Act which this
``organic'' legislation does. The NRA has been involved in the
development of an ``organic act'' for the Refuge System for the
past three Congresses.
The NRA fully supported H.R. 511 introduced earlier this
year, as well as its predecessor which passed the House by a
large margin in the 104th Congress. Recognizing the importance
to our hunter/conservationist members of ensuring that
compatible wildlife dependent activities are allowed in the
Refuge System, the NRA strongly supported a provision of H.R.
511 that would have made opportunities for these activities a
purpose of the System. Although H.R. 511 ensured that these
activities would have to be found compatible with the other
purposes of the Refuge System and the purposes of the
individual refuge before being allowed, the provision became
the focal point of the Administration's opposition to the bill.
During the negotiation sessions held by the Secretary of
the Interior with the sponsors of the bill and representatives
of the hunting, conservation, and environmental communities,
language was agreed to which elevates wildlife dependent
activities to a priority public use, rather than a purpose of
the System. Although we had strongly advocated for the language
of H.R. 511, the revised bill, introduced as H.R. 1420,
achieves our objective of shielding the Refuge System from
anti-hunting lawsuits such as the one filed in the 1980's
claiming that hunting violated the ``refuge'' concept of the
System.
All interests at the negotiating table compromised in some
measure on their original positions in order to create a bill
that all could agree upon. Achievement of a consensus bill was
reflected in the nearly unanimous vote in the House of
Representatives last month on passage of H.R. 1420. The NRA
joins with numerous and diverse organizations in strongly
recommending that the Committee's action on S. 1059 be
sensitive to the level of effort and commitment that has been
invested to date and mirrored in the introduction of S. 1059.
We urge the Committee to bring a bill to the Senate Floor
without amendment or with only technical changes that maintain
this hard won consensus.
A strong and healthy system of lands that meets the needs
of our wildlife resources and the community of people who have
helped to create and perpetuate the System is a legacy for all
of us to safeguard. Again, we appreciate the timeliness in
holding a hearing and trust that the Committee will take action
as soon as possible to help pass this legislation into law.
Sincerely,
Susan Lamson,
Director, Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources.