[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 273, H.R. 274, H.R. 289 and H.R. 417
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 6, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
85-454 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Rob Bishop, Utah Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
officio ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 6, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 289........................... 7
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 273, H.R. 274, H.R. 289, and
H.R. 417............................................... 2
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 417........................... 13
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 289........................... 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Prepared statement on H.R. 273,
H.R. 274, H.R. 289, and H.R. 417........................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Hogan, Matt, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 273, H.R. 274, H.R. 289, and
H.R. 417............................................... 16
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 273, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ERADICATION
AND CONTROL OF NUTRIA IN MARYLAND AND LOUISIANA; H.R. 274, A BILL TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY IN
CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND, KNOWN AS GARRETT ISLAND FOR INCLUSION IN THE
BLACKWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; H.R. 289, A BILL TO EXPAND THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX AND THE
DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND H.R. 417, A BILL TO
REVOKE A PUBLIC LAND ORDER WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN LANDS ERRONEOUSLY
INCLUDED IN THE CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, CALIFORNIA.
----------
Thursday, March 6, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Saxton, Pallone,
Faleomavaega, Ortiz, and Bordallo.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be put into the
record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. We are meeting this morning to talk about a
number of bills, two of which concern the state of Maryland but
a number of which concern Mr. Dingell, Ms. Kaptur and Mr.
Hunter this morning with the nation's resources and the bounty
of nature and how we can help restore its prodigiousness.
So at this point we would like to have the three members
come to the witness table, give us their testimony and we will
work vigorously to ensure that the implementation of their
ideas, their thoughts, their dreams, their visions will be a
part of the American scene.
At this point if we have any other opening statement from
Mr. Pallone?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will review several pieces of
legislation that were the subject of comprehensive hearings last year
and were adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives.
The first bill is H.R. 273, the Nutria Eradication and Control Act.
I am pleased to offer this proposal, along with our colleague from
Louisiana, the Honorable Billy Tauzin. The fundamental goal of this
legislation is to eradicate and control the growing population of
nutria that are devastating thousands of acres of essential wetland
habitat in the states of Maryland and Louisiana.
Nutria are large semi-aquatic South American rodents that have a
prolific appetite for marsh vegetation. At the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge alone, nutria have destroyed at least 7,000 acres of
wetlands and they are literally eating their way through the marshlands
that exist at the nine National Wildlife Refuges on the Delmarva
peninsula.
The second bill is H.R. 274, a proposal I introduced to incorporate
the ecologically important 198-acre Garrett Island within the existing
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Garrett Island, which is
uninhabited, is the site of Maryland's second settlement in the early
1600's, it is the only rocky island in the tidal waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and it has a rich diversity of archeological, natural
and wildlife resources.
The third bill is H.R. 289 introduced by our colleagues Marcy
Kaptur and John Dingell. This legislation would expand the boundaries
of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge. We had an excellent hearing on a similar
bill last year and a compelling case was made to conserve the valuable
resources of the western basin of Lake Erie.
Finally, we will hear testimony on H.R. 417, a bill referred to as
the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Correction Act. This measure will
settle a title dispute between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Bureau of Land Management and adjust the boundaries of the existing
refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has previously testified
that the 140 acres affected by this bill have almost no wildlife
habitat value, they are not a desirable part of the refuge and the
concession known as ``Walter's Camp'' should be supervised by the
Bureau of Land Management. Thousands of people camp, canoe and windsurf
at this facility each year and there seems to be consensus that it was
a mistake to include this property within the refuge.
I look forward to hearing from the sponsors of these measures and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am pleased to recognize the
ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee, the Honorable Frank
Pallone.
______
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we proceed with
the members since they have been waiting for us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Ranking Democrat,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R.
273, H.R. 274, H.R. 289 and H.R. 417
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this morning's hearing
concerning several wildlife-related bills.
I also want to welcome our colleagues, Congressman Duncan Hunter,
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, and the Dean of the House of
Representatives, Congressman John Dingell.
It has often been mentioned that our nation's National Wildlife
Refuge System is one of the Federal Government's best conservation
investments. Since the creation of the first migratory bird refuge at
Pelican Island in 1903 the System has grown to include over 535 refuges
and 94 million acres.
Most importantly, the Refuge System functions as our only network
of lands and waters set aside exclusively for the benefit of fish and
wildlife, including numerous threatened and endangered species.
As such, our National Wildlife Refuges continue to provide
indispensable habitat for fish and wildlife. They also ensure abundant
opportunities for wildlife-oriented outdoor recreation enjoyed by over
35 million visitors annually.
Last year, this Subcommittee heard from a representative of the
Administration that the time has come, perhaps, to curtail any further
expansion of the Refuge System.
At that time, my predecessor, the former ranking Democrat, Robert
Underwood, acknowledged that the nearly $1 billion Refuge System
operations and maintenance budget backlog is a significant limiting
factor to be accounted for when considering new additions to the
System. Nevertheless, such a change in policy would represent a
significant and potentially troubling shift in the nation's approach
toward wildlife conservation.
In my estimation, proposals to expand the Refuge System should be
considered within a broad conservationist context, regardless of
whether the proposal is advanced by administrative action or through
legislation. That context should consider how these potential additions
would protect the ecological integrity of the Refuge System, and how
they might further the purposes of the Refuge Administration Act. After
all, the guiding principle of the National Wildlife Refuge System is an
ethic of stewardship, which recognizes the ecological and cultural
importance of responsible land and animal management.
It is within this more appropriate context that I hope the
Subcommittee will consider legislation to expand the Ottawa and
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuges, and for that matter, other
proposals that may be forthcoming to this Subcommittee.
I ask, what reason is there for Congress to abandon opportunities
to address unmet acquisition or expansion needs for our Refuge System
simply to comply with an arbitrary change in policy by this
Administration? After all, future costs for acquisition are only going
to increase, not decrease.
Furthermore, if it is the new policy of this Administration to
postpone any further expansion of the Refuge System until the budget
backlog is rectified, would it not be better for the Administration to
adjust its own budget priorities to address the backlog first, rather
than siphon off funds to support its own unauthorized budget
initiatives?
We need to ask these questions. Moreover, Congress needs to face
the stark reality: if it hopes to have a Refuge System it can be
equally proud of in the year 2103--the System's bi-centennial--it must
find the will and the means to make the necessary investments today,
tomorrow and in the future. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize for being late.
Mr. Saxton?
Ms. Kaptur, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Saxton. It is our great pleasure to appear before you and I ask
unanimous consent to insert the entire statement in the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Ms. Kaptur. I must begin by saying I could not be here with
two finer colleagues--to my right an elk hunter and to my left
a duck hunter, from what they have been willing to reveal to
us.
Mr. Gilchrest. We are here to conserve today.
Ms. Kaptur. It is a pleasure to again appear before you on
behalf of H.R. 289, to expand the boundaries of the Ottawa
National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge and to thank this Committee, this
Subcommittee, for being so generous to us during the last
session. It was not for our efforts here in the House that the
measure was not able to finally prevail but rather, because of
difficulties on the Senate side and we were very, very hopeful
last year and Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for starting
early. We think this is a wonderful indication that we can be
successful this year.
For the record I wish to state that we have very strong
bipartisan support for our bill, including both senators from
the state of Ohio, as well as from the state of Michigan. So
Senators Voinovich, DeWine, Levin and Stabenow are all in
support of our efforts. We have the support of the state of
Ohio. As you will recall, the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources director Sam Speck came to Washington last year to
testify on behalf of this bill.
Our legislation provides a vehicle by which the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service can expand the boundaries of the Ottawa
National Wildlife Refuge and also the Lower Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge. All transactions would be
completely voluntary with no forced takings. It does not
require the service to do anything it does not want to do and
final determinations of whether to accept any donation of land
or make an expansion of the boundaries would reside entirely
within the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service Secretary
of the Department of Interior's discretion.
The legislation I must also say enjoys the broad support of
our community along the north coast of Lake Erie and one is
really hard pressed to understand how anyone could be opposed
to such a win/win concept in one of America's most important
flyways.
Mr. Chairman, I also did want to stress that our region,
Lake Erie, is the most drawn upon of the Great Lakes. We have a
very fragile resource. It is also the most shallow of the Great
Lakes. So we use it for drinking water but also for recreation
and for commerce and the extraordinary importance of wildlife
refuges, as well as wetlands, to the future health of this
entire ecosystem, I could not stress more strongly how very
important it is to provide this type of authority so that we
can continue expanding our green necklace around our lake.
And the resources of our own Department of Interior and the
Fish and Wildlife Service are heavily concentrated west of the
Mississippi River. I can tell you--and I think even the
department is willing to admit about 70 percent of the refuges
are in the state of Alaska--I can you that within 100 miles of
my district is two-thirds of the population of the United
States of America. We are a distribution hub. We have a lot of
stresses as a result of our industrial and agricultural
heritage. We are glad to have them but we also know that we
cannot exist in an environment that continues to deteriorate.
So we last year were able to secure $1.95 million for a new
education center at the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge to
handle the increasing number of tourists also coming into our
area for the Great Lakes, for the best swimming and fishing in
the entire Great Lakes, and we also provided an additional
$600,000 for land acquisition at Ottawa itself. So we are doing
our part in order to try to build on this incredible system.
And again I thank you very, very much for the opportunity
to testify and I know that this Subcommittee will do what is
right and best for the future. Thank you so very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaptur follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Marcy Kaptur, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, for this opportunity to testify on
H.R. 289 to expand the boundaries of the Ottawa National Wildlife
Refuge Complex and the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge
It is a pleasure to testify again before your Subcommittee. Let me
thank you for your responsiveness in holding a hearing about my
legislation to expand the boundaries of the Ottawa National Wildlife
Refuge as well as the other important bills before you today.
Let me also thank the Subcommittee for support of the same
legislation, which passed the House of Representatives last year. We
were hopeful when we sent the bill to the Senate in the waning days of
the 107th Congress, but at the very end they were unable to pass it.
We are extremely optimistic, Mr. Chairman, about the prospects for
this legislation during the 108th Congress. We have strong bipartisan
support, both in the House and in the Senate, particularly from
Senators Voinovich and DeWine from Ohio as well as Senators Levin and
Stabenow from Michigan. We have the support of the State of Ohio. As
you will recall, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Sam
Speck came to Washington last year to testify in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, as you recall, this legislation merely provides a
vehicle by which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could expand the
geographic boundaries of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and also
the Lower Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. It does not
involve forced takings. All transactions would be completely voluntary.
It does not require the Service to do anything it does not want to do.
Final determinations of whether to accept any donation of land or to
make an expansion of the boundaries would reside entirely with the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the
Department of Interior.
The legislation merely provides an important vehicle by which
private individuals, private businesses, non-profit agencies, and the
general public can express tangible support the Ottawa Refuge and the
Lower Detroit International Refuge through donation of critical
habitat. The legislation mirrors the comprehensive conservation plan
that has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
legislation enjoys broad and deep support in our community and along
the ``North Coast'' of Lake Erie. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, one is hard
pressed to understand how anyone could be opposed to such a win-win
concept.
Mr. Chairman, great things are happening at both the Ottawa Refuge
and the Lower Detroit Refuge. We see the Lower Detroit River Refuge and
the Ottawa Refuge as the key gems in an emerald necklace around the
western basin of Lake Erie. Congressman Dingell started this process
with the Lower Detroit River legislation and we hope to complement his
wonderful accomplishment.
During the recent omnibus appropriations legislation, we were able
to secure $1.95 million for a new education center at the Ottawa
National Wildlife Refuge. Annual attendance will increase dramatically
from the current 120,000, opening the wonders of the Ottawa Refuge to
literally millions of schoolchildren and families in the coming years.
An additional $600,000 was appropriated for land acquisition at Ottawa.
During this centennial year of the national wildlife refuge system,
the Ottawa Refuge is clearly on the move. We believe that we can raise
the profile of the refuge dramatically while keeping intact its mission
of preservation and conservation. We believe this legislation can help
in that process while keeping intact individual property rights.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and the opportunity to
testify.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur. I like the
phrase ``green necklace.'' That is a positive addition to this
effort on your part.
Ms. Kaptur. They are all emeralds.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Honorable Mr. Dingell, the dean of the
House. Good morning, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as possible
out of respect for the Committee. I want to begin by thanking
you, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Pallone for your kindness and also our
good friend from Texas, Mr. Ortiz. We thank you.
This is not a new bill to you so I will ask unanimous
consent to insert the whole of my statement in the record and
just make a few comments if I may.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new bill. You have
seen it before and have acted on it expeditiously, graciously,
efficiently and well and you understand the purposes. We who
come from the Great Lakes love our lakes, just as you love the
wonderful Chesapeake Bay, for largely the same reasons. They
are a great treasure to us, as is the bay to you, and indeed as
it is to all of us.
Having said that, this bill follows the course that was
taken by the original language of the legislation that created
the Detroit River International Refuge. Ms. Kaptur in her
wisdom felt that it was wise to extend those provisions clear
around the western and the southwestern borders of the Lake
Erie Basin. Regrettably, at the time we were moving forward on
that it was not possible to do so.
This is not legislation for massive land acquisitions. It
is indeed really a mechanism for more cooperative management of
the precious resource that is the shores of Lake Erie,
cooperating between Federal, state, local, business, industry,
ordinary citizens, and so forth. And I want to comment just a
little bit so you can see the progress and the success we have
had to the north on the Detroit River Refuge and how it would
work and how it could be built upon under the leadership of Ms.
Kaptur around the southwest part of the basin.
We have had major donations of land from foundations, from
industries, and we will shortly have a cooperative management
agreement involving some 600 acres of really prime wetlands
through the cooperation of Detroit Edison. We also have
achieved purchase and donation of significant amounts of land
through the assistance of foundations and conservation
organizations. And interestingly enough, all of this has been
accomplished in the fashion that you understand Fish and
Wildlife does. It has all been done by willing purchases,
willing donors, and negotiations between willing participants
and parties.
We anticipate that if everything goes well in the portions
of the refuge that now exist we could have as much as 1,000
acres by this fall under either Federal ownership or
cooperative management arrangements or easements, with probably
about 700 acres in fee ownership, interestingly, some of which
will be Federal lands which are being transferred to Fish and
Wildlife, including 160 acres under the administration of the
Corps of Engineers, and other tracts of land which will be
possible to include at very, very low cost.
And isolated tracts can be managed together in an area like
the Great Lakes for the unified benefit of the resource; i.e.,
ducks, fish, wildlife and geese, of which some 7 million ducks
and geese are users of this area every spring and fall as they
move north and south.
So it is the refuge which we have created through the
wisdom and guidance and leadership of this Committee. It has
been a great success and it has achieved the universal support
of citizens in the area--schools, universities, as well as
conservation organizations, ordinary citizens, cities,
counties, townships, and also businesses and industries who
recognize that this is a possibility for us to all pull
together in a remarkable way.
We anticipate that there is a possibility of having a
donation of as much as 200 acres to the Detroit River
International Refuge system coming from a major U.S.
corporation which has businesses along the shore.
So this is an area where people are pulling together to
save and to enhance a previous resource to the benefit of all.
We have just recently gotten $1 million from the Federal
Government which has gone into setting up a park and a refuge
headquarters area and an interpretive center, which will be
administered by the county.
So everybody is pulling together. You can be proud of what
you have done. I will try and see to it that as this matter is
conducted it is not only a success but it is done in a way that
you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, would
appreciate and would approve of and which will bring credit on
this Committee because of the way the matter goes forward.
With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am available for any
questions. I thank you for your courtesy to me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 289
Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone and other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. It is an honor and a
pleasure for me to appear before you today to testify in support of
H.R. 289, legislation that will expand the boundaries of the Detroit
River International Wildlife Refuge to encompass important lands in
Southeastern Michigan and Northern Ohio. I thank the Subcommittee, as
well as the Chairman of the full Committee Richard Pombo, and Ranking
Member, Nick Rahall, for their assistance and for holding this hearing.
This legislation is of immense importance to the people of Southeast
Michigan and our neighbors to the South, in Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, in 2001, thanks to this Committee, and to support
from local grassroots organizations, conservation groups, state and
local governments, as well as our Canadian neighbors, we were able to
pass H.R. 1230, legislation that created the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is already demonstrating
how--working as a team--federal, state, and local officials in the
United States and Canada, can work with businesses, conservationists
and private citizens to preserve our remaining resources along the
River that is improving the quality of life for all our area residents.
H.R. 289 builds on that success.
We passed H.R. 1230 because the Lower Detroit River is an area of
tremendous bio-diversity, with unique geological features and a wide
variety of plant life that attracts numerous species of fish, birds,
and waterfowl. Like many rivers along the Great Lakes, the Detroit
River has suffered the consequences of prolonged periods of unsound
environmental practices'more than 95 percent of its coastal wetland
habitat have been lost.
In the Great Lakes region, there is a great urgency to protect our
remaining high-quality habitats before they are lost to further
development. We must also do our utmost to rehabilitate and enhance
degraded habitat. This is essential to sustain the quality of life
enjoyed by the people living along the Detroit River corridor. The
Detroit River Wildlife Refuge was a good start, but more must be done.
It is my hope that in time, much of the Great Lakes coastline will be
protected using the same commonsense approach of H.R. 1230.
We are here this morning to discuss legislation introduced by my
neighbor to the South, the Honorable Gentlewoman from Toledo, Marcy
Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur's bill, which has my complete support, will expand
the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge to the Western basin on
Lake Erie. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 289, and I
applaud the efforts of my colleague and friend from Ohio for
introducing this important bill.
The Western basin of Lake Erie is vitally important to the economic
and environmental future of the United States. In the 1970's and
``80's, the ecological health of Lake Erie was a running joke--
Fisherman derisively renamed Lake Erie ``the Dead Sea.'' Water quality
was poor, and fish and wildlife suffered as a result.
But in the past two decades, the citizens and governmental
institutions of both the United States and Canada have devoted
increasing attention and resources to the restoration of the water
quality and the fisheries of the Great Lakes, including the Western
basin. Numerous grassroots environmental and conservation organizations
have worked dutifully to address environmental degradation in the
region. I am happy to say that these efforts have been successful,
though there is still much more that must be done.
The Great Lakes account for more than 90 percent of the surface
freshwater in the nation. The Western basin receives approximately 90
percent of its flow from the Detroit River and only 10 percent from
tributaries. The Western basin of Lake Erie is an important ecosystem
that includes a number of distinct islands, channels, rivers, and
shoals that support dense populations of fish, wildlife, and aquatic
plants.
The coastal wetlands of Lake Erie support the largest diversity of
plant and wildlife species in the Great Lakes. More than 320 species of
birds and 43 species of fish have been identified in the aquatic and
wetland habitats of the Western basin. The shallow Western basin is
home to the largest concentration of marshes in Lake Erie, which makes
it a major migratory bird corridor. Seventy percent of the Mississippi
Flyway population of black ducks is concentrated in the Lake Erie
marshes during fall migration.
The importance of Lake Erie is manifested in the United States
congressional designation of the Ottawa and Cedar Point National
Wildlife Refuges. Lake Erie has an international reputation for
walleye, perch, and bass fishing, as well as duck hunting. On an
economic basis, Lake Erie tourism accounts for an estimated
$1,500,000,000 in retail sales and more than 50,000 jobs.
Coastal wetlands in the Western basin have been subjected to
intense pressure for 150 years. In fact, 98 percent of the vast coastal
wetlands systems that existed in Western Lake Erie in the early 1800's
has been lost. What was once a system of 1,540 square miles today has
been decreased to 38 square miles. Along the Michigan shoreline,
coastal wetlands were reduced by 62 percent between 1916 and the early
1970s.
H.R. 289 is very similar in content to H.R. 1230, which this
Committee approved in 2001. It aims to protect the remaining fish and
wildlife habitats of the western Lake Erie, assist in international
efforts to conserve and restore wildlife habitat, and facilitate
partnerships between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Canadian national and provincial authorities, and a wide array of
private and public sector entities.
In Michigan, the Refuge will run from the southern boundary of
Sterling State Park to the eastern edge of Sandusky Bay, Ohio. The
Secretary of Interior is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase
with donated or appropriated funds, or grant conservation easements
within the boundaries of the Refuge. Any and all acquisitions of lands
are voluntary, and Federal takings are strictly prohibited. I would
note that the Secretary shall administer all Federally owned lands,
waters, and interests within the Refuge in accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Thus, the rights of
sportsmen like myself will be fully protected.
It is because this bill is sensible, balanced and foresighted that
it enjoys broad local support in Michigan, Ohio, Canada and beyond. I
would note that H.R. 1230, the predecessor to H.R. 289, also enjoyed
broad support from business and conservation groups, as well as from
local governments.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank the Committee for their assistance. Ms.
Kaptur's bill is an important piece of legislation which will be of
great benefit to the people of Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario, and
represents a sound approach to protecting, preserving, and restoring
the wildlife habitat of the Great Lakes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I would be happy to answer any of your questions or concern at this
time.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Dingell and Ms. Kaptur, and
we will move again expeditiously with your assistance to make
this a reality. I think it is a great idea.
Any questions from any members of the Subcommittee?
Thank you, Mr. Dingell and Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In closing I just
wanted to thank my colleague, Mr. Dingell, for inspiring this
effort and for his wonderful, wonderful leadership in so many
ways.
And I wanted to acknowledge the presence on the
Subcommittee of my dear friends Congressman Ortiz, a member of
the 98th class along with myself.
Mr. Ortiz. 1983.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, 1983, the 98th Congress.
Mr. Ortiz. That is correct.
May I say something? I am so moved by having these
distinguished members. Marcy Kaptur and I came to Congress back
in 1983 and to have the dean of the House of Representatives
among us and then the Chairman of my Armed Services Committee.
I am very, very moved. I believe everything you said. We are
happy to have you with us.
Mr. Dingell. I am honored to be in the company of Mr.
Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. I have not even talked yet.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to thank
Congressman Faleomavaega. We worked on so many issues together
and I did not acknowledge him in my opening remarks, so I
wanted to make sure and thank both gentlemen for their past
support and for your current support. Thank you so much.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Marcy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I also would
like to echo the sentiments expressed earlier by my colleague
from Texas to welcome such distinguished members of the panel,
our good friends Mr. Dingell and Marcy and the distinguished
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Duncan. This is a
real rare honor for our Subcommittee to have such heavyweights
here testifying.
And I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, relying in good faith
on their advocating these three bills, Mr. Chairman, I do
support these proposed bills and sincerely hope that we will
mark them up and get them out of the way as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Saxton. I just wanted to ask, this process is obviously
a process of compromise and I would just like to ask Ms. Kaptur
and Mr. Dingell if there have been compromises in the past on
the areas to be included. I have two maps here. One shows quite
a bit of land to be conveyed and the one that we actually are
dealing with now shows an amount of land that is much less.
I guess the question is you been obviously working with
other parties and you have come to an agreement on the lands
that would most appropriately be included, is that correct?
Ms. Kaptur. That is correct, Mr. Saxton, Congressman
Saxton. We initially, in working with the Department of
Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, were trying to
decide the scope of the boundaries themselves and there was
some discussion particularly relative to the Maumee River which
flows through my district and how far upstream to go or whether
to go there at all.
So these are mutually agreed upon boundaries and I would
ask my dear colleague from the north if he wants to add
anything to that in terms of the boundaries up on the Wolverine
side of this.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you. My colleague asks a very good
question. There are two matters here that are always under
concern when we set up a refuge. One is what will be the refuge
boundaries and the other is what would be the particular lands
to be acquired.
It is pretty hard to give you an answer on either of these
questions. Quite frankly, the wisdom of this Committee, I
think, would be relied on very heavily by me to decide what the
overall meets and bounds of the overall area of the refuge
should be.
With regard to the more specific question of acquisition of
lands or interest in lands, that would have to be addressed
over a greater period of time.
In the case of the refuge to the north, the Detroit River,
we had a donation of about 50 acres. We put in about 320 acres
of land that was already in the refuge system. There is $3.5
million for the purchase of another 400 acres, the remaining
tract of virgin timber and marsh on the entire Detroit River,
one of the most heavily settled areas in the United States.
Edison is getting ready to give a cooperative management
arrangement to the Department of Interior for 600 acres of
land. A major conservation foundation came forward with about
20 acres of land on a wonderful little island out in the river.
There with acquisition with migratory bird fund monies of 160
acres and the Corps of Engineers will shortly be transferring
160 acres to this refuge.
In addition to this, there is an old Nike site at the south
end of Gross Eel, which is a large island on the river which
you have looked at which is being transferred to Fish and
Wildlife with the full support of everybody. BASF is
contemplating making a donation of 200 acres at the north end
of Gross Eel Island.
All of this is voluntary negotiation. Voluntary
negotiations are conducted at arms length by friendly
discussants and the matter has been going forward with
extraordinary goodwill on the part of all concerned. We have
not had a criticism of this refuge from any responsible source.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, may I just add? I am glad Mr.
Saxon asked that question because the original map for the
portion in Ohio included a much larger area and one of the
reasons we attempted to do that, although the Department of
Interior did not agree--we reached a compromise on a much
smaller area--is because if you look at the ecosystem of our
region there is something called the Oak Openings Area which is
an oak savannah which actually should exist on the East Coast
but because of receding lake levels in past centuries, we have
been left with an eastern beach system in the middle of the
Midwest. And local park systems, the metro park systems and
private donations over a number of years have created this
vast--and the Nature Conservancy has been involved in
conservancy efforts of this area called the Oak Opening
Savannah System.
We were hoping that this could all be under the same
umbrella. All of that is locally managed and state managed.
When the department did not see the wisdom of doing that, the
area was delimited a little bit more. They are very heavily
related because there is an area of hardwoods there and then
you have the freshwater and then you have the flyways that we
have been restoring over the years.
And by the way, with the restoration of the flyways, the
number of eagles coming back to the Great Lakes is up. When we
started this effort I think we had like four nesting pairs. I
think we are up to 78 or more now, 78 nesting pairs. So you can
see over the years ago the restoration of a very fragile
ecosystem that was in deep trouble.
We did include in the minimized boundaries the Lake Erie
islands, which are very important. One of those islands, West
Sister Island, is the only national wildlife bird refuge up
there.
So if you were to ask me am I totally pleased with the
boundaries for Ohio? No, not really, because it shows a lack of
understanding of the connectivity of the various systems we are
dealing with there, but it is certainly better than nothing and
it is something that we can build upon. So I just did want to
enter that for the record and I appreciate Congressman Saxon
asking the question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur.
Comment from Mr. Pallone?
Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to say that we are going to try
to expedite the legislation as quickly as possible in both
cases, both bills, because I realize that a lot of time has
been spent on it and that really we should try to get it moving
as quickly as possible. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
For the sake of time and efficiency we are going to go to
the gentleman who is famous for elk hunting. We would like to
bring him over to the Eastern Shore to help eradicate this
little critter called nutria. I am sure Duncan could bring his
team and perform that service for us. Mr. Hunter, thank you for
coming this morning and testifying on behalf of your
legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is kind of neat to
be here with such great colleagues, with Marcy and John.
Actually, along with being the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell
clearly is the best shot in the House, also. I have a lot of
respect for him. And it is neat to be here with you and with my
great colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have a lot
of them here, with Mr. Saxton and also my outdoors comrade here
who has shared some days afield with me and with Ms. Bordallo,
who is a new member of the Armed Services Committee, and Mr.
Ortiz, who went down to Honduras when the 82nd Airborne jumped
in and we received them together there. And Mr. Faleomavaega,
who is a great friend, and Mr. Pallone. So thank you all for
letting us testify.
What I have hopefully should be an easy one. It is
something you passed last year and the Senate never acted on
it. It essentially is a small piece of land, 140 acres, on the
Colorado River next to the Cibola Refuge. It is called Walter's
Camp and it is kind of a little family getaway. It is a little
place you can come and camp and rockhound or fish or hike or
whatever in that very interesting desert country. Unfortunately
when the land withdrawal was executed for the Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge they pulled out a little over 16,000 acres of
land and they unfortunately and mistakenly included Walter's
Camp, which is owned by Frank Dokter, who in fact testified to
you last year on this. They actually included that in the
refuge lines and that was never discovered until just a few
years ago.
So the BLM has been leasing this concession, this little
getaway for working families, and they never realized it had
actually been included in the wildlife boundaries. Fish and
Wildlife has certified that there is no significant wildlife
habitat value in this 140 acres, so they have signed off on
this. And we would hope that we could just renew the
legislation that you did last year and this time try to get the
Senate to move on it in a timely way.
I am also informed, and Larissa Bounds on my staff has been
just great on this. Is Larissa here? She is right behind me and
she informed me that there is actually kind of a short fuse on
this because this concession runs out again and needs to be
renewed. So if we do not act in a timely fashion Frank Dokter
and his family who run this little getaway may be out on the
street, so to speak. So I would hope that you folks could make
that happen.
And Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for all of your
contributions to recreational sports and activities. I know you
used to let me go borrow your canoe that you would pull out of
the hayloft down there at the wharf and the one time when I
came in with my cousins and we tried to kind of get out of the
canoe and slip away and you noticed that we were all wet. I had
one cousin who tried to jump off the little bridge onto the
canoe and upended all of us.
Then I recall the time you came out to rescue us in your
kayak because we had not come in and it was dark and we were
all singing, so you were able to--it was like ``Row the Boat
Ashore'' or something. You were able to locate us and navigate
us in.
Mr. Gilchrest. You were singing that song ``Michael Row the
Boat Ashore.'' You could not see your hand in front of your
face it was so dark. They left in the morning and it was 10 at
night and my wife wanted me to call the Coast Guard. So I
paddled out there, not being able to see anything, but I could
hear them singing.
Mr. Hunter. We are very religious.
Mr. Gilchrest. I do not think it was your cousin that
tipped the canoe. I understood it was a beaver that tipped the
canoe.
Mr. Hunter. Anyway, we had a great time.
And Mr. Saxton, I have been on some trips afield with him
and he seems to forget the flashlight now and then when we are
going out, when we are going to be out at dark, and that has
really impeded our expeditions.
Anyway, thank you for considering this legislation. It is
neat to be here with my colleagues. We have done a lot of
things together and it is nice to be with this great team and
appearing before such neat colleagues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:
Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 417
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this important
hearing on H.R. 417, which is necessary to right a past error by the
Department of Interior in designating the Cibola National Wildlife
Refuge. Mr. Frank Dokter, a former constituent whose family business
depends on the outcome of this legislation, testified before this panel
last year on a similar bill. Although it passed the House, the Senate
unfortunately could not act before the end of the 107th Congress.
Mr. Dokter and his family operate Walter's Camp, a Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) concession on land near the lower Colorado River in
Imperial County, California, near and within the Cibola Refuge. The
facility provides visitors with a family-friendly outdoors experience,
which includes camping, hiking, canoeing, fishing, birdwatching and
rock-hounding. In an increasingly crowded Southern California, Mr.
Dokter and his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life
to many of the region's outdoors enthusiasts.
Walter's Camp was first authorized in 1962, and in August 1964,
Public Land Order 3442 withdrew 16,627 acres along the Colorado River
to create the Refuge. The withdrawal erroneously included the 140.32
acre Walter's Camp, but neither the BLM nor the Fish and Wildlife
Service immediately recognized the mistake. The BLM continued to renew
the original permit, allowing the recreational concession use to
continue unbroken until the present time. However, given the discovery
of the past mistake, the BLM does not have the authority to continue
issuing the concession contracts to Walter's Camp.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM agree that the land has
``insignificant, if any, existing...or potential...wildlife habitat
value,'' as stated in a Department of Interior memo. Therefore, I have
introduced H.R. 417 to correct this mistake and allow the BLM to
continue to issue contracts to Walter's Camp.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I offer my sincere
recommendation that this land be taken out of the Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge, and that Mr. Dokter's family be allowed to continue to
operate their small business providing visiting families with a
valuable outdoor getaway.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
The three of you have done enormous things in your capacity
as public servants for this great nation and all of us want to
extend that sense of appreciation to each of you.
Are there any questions for--Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Saxton. Just one quick one. I would just like to ask
Mr. Hunter. He mentioned that this has a short fuse. What are
we talking about here in terms of time?
Mr. Hunter. I want to let Larissa testify on this. What is
it, Larissa?
Ms. Bounds. I think it is under 6 months.
Mr. Hunter. She thinks it is under 6 months before the
lease expires, but we will get that exactly for you, Mr. Saxon.
Mr. Saxton. That would be great and we will try to do our
job here and we will try to help you get some attention over in
the Senate, as well.
Mr. Hunter. I really appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hunter, Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Dingell,
thank you very much and we will, as has been stated, we will
move expeditiously to move this as quickly as possible out of
the House and the Senate.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This Committee under
your leadership does great work and it is a pleasure to appear
with my two colleagues, especially my friend Mr. Hunter over
here.
Ms. Kaptur. Now wait a minute. Especially?
Mr. Hunter. Marcy, if you would get a couple of guns you
could be a good old boy, too.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Our second panel will be Mr. Matt Hogan, Deputy Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
testifying this morning on H.R. 273, H.R. 274, H.R. 289 and
H.R. 417. Did they send you here alone, Mr. Hogan?
Mr. Hogan. No, they sent me with a full entourage. I was
told I was not allowed to come up here by myself.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is good. I glad you have some team
members with you. Thank you very much and we look forward to
your testimony, Mr. Hogan, and you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MATT HOGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. As you said, I am Matt Hogan, deputy director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate this
opportunity to provide the Administration's views on the four
bills before the Subcommittee today. I request that my written
testimony be made part of the official record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 289 authorizes the expansion of the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge Complex and the Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge. As I will further explain, the Administration
cannot support this legislation.
We are preparing a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan or
CCP for the newly established Detroit River International
Wildlife Refuge, which will include a review of the Michigan
portion of the proposed expansion outlined in H.R. 289. The
public will have the opportunity to comment on this draft once
it becomes available for review.
In 1994, after public review and comment, we adopted an
increase in the size of the Ottawa Complex, totaling 5,000
acres. In 2000, after another round of extensive public review
and comment, we completed a CCP for the Ottawa Complex that did
not propose an expansion beyond the 5,000 acres adopted in
1994. To date we have purchased 552 acres in the approved
expansion area at a cost of $1.3 million with an additional
600-acre acquisition currently in progress.
In contrast to this 5,000-acre expansion, H.R. 289 would
commit the service to a massive expansion of the refuge system
in the same area. The geographic scope of the proposal includes
over 80 miles of coastline covering 40,000 acres.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration is committed to taking
better care of what we have while ensuring that the new
acquisitions truly meet strategic needs of the refuge system.
This includes purchasing in-holdings within currently approved
refuge boundaries, such as areas within the currently approved
5,000-acre expansion area.
Given that we concluded less than 3 years that such a
large-scale expansion in this area was not needed, we cannot
support it now. We note that other opportunities and tools
exist for protecting resources in Lake Erie's Western Basin
besides including lands in the refuge system.
H.R. 274 authorizes the expansion of the Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge to include Garrett Island. As
discussed in detail in my written remarks, the Administration
cannot support this legislation.
At the request of the Subcommittee in June 2002, service
biologists reviewed wetlands and wildlife habitat types
occurring on the island through an analysis of maps, aerial
photographs, soil surveys, biological data collected by various
agencies, and a field inspection on August 8. The service
provided a report to you, Mr. Chairman, in September of last
year. In our report we noted that human activity and
disturbance are evident on some parts of the island, such as
along the railroad and Route 40 right-of-ways that directly
traverse the island and old quarry site. We also identified the
archeological and historic importance of the island based on
its location, its history, and its association with important
persons and events. Ownership by the state of Maryland or a
nongovernmental organization focused on archeological
preservation or a Federal agency focused on cultural resource
management may be more appropriate to protect these
archeological sites on the island.
We are currently developing a CCP or Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for the Blackwater Refuge that will include
consideration of whether to recommend enlargement of the
boundary of the refuge. We are working in close cooperation
with the state and local government and partners in that
process.
We appreciate that you and your constituents would turn to
the Fish and Wildlife Service as custodians of Garrett Island.
However, given our priorities and funding constraints, in
addition to the findings of the September 2002 report, we
cannot support H.R. 274. Nevertheless, the service is willing
to provide technical assistance to help you and your
constituents with this issue.
H.R. 417, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, will correct an error
by returning to the Bureau of Land Management a small area of
approximately 140 acres of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge
located in California. Prior to 1964 this property fell under
the jurisdiction of the BLM and beginning in 1962 the BLM
issued a concession permit on the lands now in question. After
discovery the property was within the Cibola National Wildlife
Refuge, BLM could no longer issue this concession permit.
Since the inclusion of these lands was certainly a mistake
due to the prior existence of the concession, we believe the
most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the
refuge. In addition, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, there is no
wildlife value on the 140 acres in question. For this reason we
support the bill and urge prompt action on H.R. 417.
Finally, H.R. 273, the Service commends the Chairman and
the Committee for recognizing the significant threat posed by
nutria to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The Service has a long
history of commitment to protecting and enhancing the fish and
wildlife resources of the bay through our cooperative efforts
with the states, private landowners, and through habitat
management conducted on National Wildlife Refuges. The Service
cooperates with numerous parties to identify priorities for
nutria prevention and control work. The Service fully
recognizes the threat posed by nutria and we remain fully
committed to cooperative nutria eradication.
The President's 2004 budget request includes $699,000 from
the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and $799,000 from
Refuge Operations funding to meet our nutria control project
obligations for Fiscal Year 2004, an increase of $1 million
above the 2003 request.
During the past year the nutria program completed the
testing of various trapping strategies in the original study
site locations on approximately 3,600 acres. Based on this
success, the program will move ahead and include the entire
acreage of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Bay
Wildlife Management Area and Tudor Farms in Dorchester County.
We are encouraged by H.R. 273 and we stand ready to work
with the Committee and you, Mr. Chairman. We recognize the need
to continue cooperative efforts and we plan to continue funding
nutria eradication within the priorities identified in the
president's budget.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I will
be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hogan follows:]
Statement of Matt Hogan, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 289, H.R. 274, H.R. 417, and
H.R. 273
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Matt Hogan,
Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Administration's views
on four bills before the Committee, the proposed expansion of the
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex and Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge, the proposed expansion of Blackwater
NWR, the revocation of land from Cibola NWR, and the Nutria Eradication
and Control Act.
H.R. 289--Ottawa NWR
H.R. 289 authorizes expansion of the Ottawa NWR Complex and the
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. As discussed more fully
below, the Administration cannot support this legislation.
I would like to begin by giving you a brief summary of Service
involvement in the Lake Erie region. Coastal wetlands within the
western basin of Lake Erie are of significant importance to fish and
wildlife trust resources. These wetlands provide spawning, nursery and
rearing habitat for some 43 wetland-dependent fish species, 26 of which
have significant recreational, commercial or prey value. More than 325
species of birds can be found in the western Lake Erie basin, and the
area annually attracts hundreds of thousands of migrating waterfowl.
The area is also an important staging area for migrating songbirds.
Recognizing these important resources, the State of Ohio established
numerous State Wildlife Areas, Nature Preserves, and Parks in this
region.
The Service is active in efforts to protect and restore coastal
wetlands within this geographic area and we realize the economic,
public use and environmental benefits of protecting and restoring the
coastal wetlands of Lake Erie. In fact, we have four existing refuges
in the area. These refuges are the Cedar Point NWR, Ottawa NWR, West
Sister Island NWR, and the recently established Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
requires the Service to develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
for each refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The CCP
describes the desired future conditions of a refuge and provides long-
range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. It
is during this process that expansion of a refuge is considered and
recommended if increasing the size will help fulfill the purpose for
which the refuge was established. Development of a CCP provides a forum
for meaningful public participation and improved coordination with the
states and local communities. It also affords local citizens an
opportunity to help shape future management of a refuge, recognizing
the important role of refuges in nearby communities.
We are preparing a draft CCP for the newly established Detroit
River International Wildlife Refuge, which will include review of the
Michigan portion of the proposed expansion outlined in H.R. 289. The
public will have the opportunity to comment on this draft once it
becomes available for review.
In 1994 we proposed an expansion for the Ottawa NWR Complex, which
includes Cedar Point, Ottawa and West Sister Island. After public
review and comment, we adopted an increase in the size of the complex
totaling 5,000 acres, by including high-priority wetland habitat areas
in Lucas, Sandusky, Ottawa and Erie Counties, the same general
geographic area as the Ohio portion of the proposed expansion for the
Ottawa NWR. To date, we have purchased 552 acres in the approved
expansion area at a cost of $1,306,200
In 2000, we completed a CCP for the Ottawa NWR Complex. After
extensive public review and comment, this CCP did not propose an
expansion for the Complex beyond the 5,000 acres previously approved.
In contrast to the 5,000-acre expansion included in the CCP, H.R.
289 would commit the Service to a massive expansion of the Refuge
System in the same area. The geographic scope of the proposal includes
over 80 miles of coastline covering forty-thousand acres or more.
The Administration is committed to taking better care of what we
have, while ensuring that new acquisitions truly meet strategic needs
of the Refuge System. This includes purchasingin-holdings within currently approved refuge boundaries. There must be a balance between acquiring new lands and meeting the operational, maintenance and restoration requirements for the resources already in public ownership. Towards this end, the Service is currently developing a plan to guide future growth and land acquisition
for the Refuge System.
Establishing new refuges or significantly expanding existing ones
compromises our ability to address needs at existing refuges.
The Service is currently conducting condition assessments at all of
its refuges facilities. Condition assessments have been completed at 40
percent of refuge facilities and the Service expects the remaining 60
percent to be assessed by the end of 2005.
In addition to the national priorities and funding constraints
discussed above, we have already evaluated a major portion of this
area, and are in the process of evaluating the remainder. After a
careful review of the Ohio portion of the land covered by this bill, we
have concluded, after two different public comment periods several
years apart, that a 5,000-acre expansion of Refuge System holdings is
all that is needed. We are now conducting such a review of the Michigan
lands covered by this legislation through the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge CCP.
We appreciate that Representative Kaptur and her constituents seek
to have the Fish and Wildlife Service expand its role in the Ottawa NWR
and the Detroit River International National Wildlife Refuge. Given
that we concluded less than two years ago that such a large-scale
expansion in this area was not needed, we cannot support it now.
We note that other opportunities and tools exist for protecting
resources in Lake Erie's Western Basin besides including lands in the
Refuge System. Service programs such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife,
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Landowner Incentive
Program, and Private Stewardship Grants can be used in cooperation with
State, local and private partners to restore and protect natural
resources. The States of Ohio and Michigan also receive funds through
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration, and state wildlife grants.
H.R. 274--Blackwater NWR--Garrett Island
H.R. 274 authorizes the expansion of the Blackwater NWR to include
Garrett Island in the NWRS. As discussed more fully below, the
Administration cannot support this legislation. This undeveloped
island, located in Cecil County, Maryland, has generated protection and
acquisition interest from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
and the Cecil County Land Trust, a local environmental interest group.
In an attempt to explain our position, I would like to give you a brief
summary of Service involvement in the Blackwater NWR, our activities in
proximity to Garrett Island, and what we currently know about the
natural resources associated with the island.
The Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex includes Blackwater NWR,
Martin NWR, and Susquehanna NWR. Blackwater NWR was initially
established to protect and manage habitat for migratory birds, and is
designated as an International Birding Area and a Wetland of
International Importance under the Ramsar Convention.
Garrett Island is located in the Susquehanna River, approximately
five miles north of what remains of the Susquehanna NWR, which is one
hundred miles north of the Complex office. At the request of the
Subcommittee in June 2002, Service biologists reviewed wetlands and
wildlife habitat types occurring on the island, through an analysis of
maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, biological data collected by
various agencies, and a field inspection on August 8, 2002. The Service
provided the report to the Chairman on September 11, 2002.
The island is approximately 180 acres in size, slightly less than a
mile long (north-south) and about one-half mile in width. It exhibits a
great deal of topographic relief, with the highest and steepest west-
central section reaching approximately 100 feet above sea level. The
shoreline is rocky along the upper end and along the western sides. A
sandy shoreline predominates the lower portion, especially along the
eastern side where some accretion has occurred. In general, the
majority of the island consists of forested upland habitat, with
limited tracts of wetland in the center and along the eastern
shoreline. Portions of the island were once farmed and/or pastured,
resulting in the forest re-growth present today. Human activity and
disturbance are evident on some parts of the island, such as along the
Railroad and Route 40 rights-of-way that directly traverse the island
and the old quarry site in the west-center of the island. A forested/
shrub wetland, approximately 20 acres in size, is located between the
bridges on soils mapped as tidal marsh. This area is subject to fresh
tidal flooding during the highest tides.
The Service's Maryland Fisheries Resource Office has sampled the
river in the Garrett Island vicinity and report a typical assemblage of
fish species for the area. The Service's Division of Ecological
Services has no records of Federally-listed threatened or endangered
species in the area. The Maryland Department of Natural Resource's
Heritage Program has no records of state threatened or endangered
species.
Garrett Island does have archaeological and historic importance
based on several factors: its environmental setting in the extreme
upper portion of Chesapeake Bay near the mouth of the Susquehanna
River; its witness of the majority of regional human history; and its
association with important persons and events in state, regional, and
national history, particularly in early colonial years. At least one
known site is likely to have high archaeological research value, and
more sites with high information potential are likely to be uncovered
in the future. Ownership by Maryland's State Historic Preservation
Office, a non-government organization focused on archaeological
preservation, or a Federal agency focused on cultural resource
management may be more appropriate to protect these archaeological
sites.
The Service has limited funds with which to purchase lands and
acquire easements to provide protection and management to trust
resources following purchase. Therefore, the Service must be strategic
in identifying lands for inclusion in the NWR System, and must set
priorities for purchase. The Service recognizes that one of the most
important challenges in the land acquisition process is the development
of integrated national and regional wildlife habitat goals and
objectives. When planning acquisitions and setting priorities, the
Service considers known sites of threatened or endangered species and
communities; areas important to the ecological health of lands already
owned (e.g., areas that protect the quality and quantity of water for
wetlands, provide habitat corridors between existing conservation
lands, or are of sufficient size of contiguous lands to protect viable
populations); and, areas important for priority wildlife species (e.g.,
critical stopover habitat for migrating birds). Other factors
considered include the size of the proposal, the relationship to
existing refuges, potential operations and maintenance costs, and the
relationship to habitat and species conservation plans. These
acquisition priorities must also be juxtaposed with the Service's
ability to provide resources requisite for adequate administration of
potential new refuge lands.
The Service has an extensive list of possible acquisitions within
the Northeast Region. Within the Chesapeake Bay, our highest priority
is the Blackwater NWR in Maryland. We are currently developing a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Blackwater refuge that will
include consideration of whether to recommend enlargement of the
boundary of the refuge. We are working in close cooperation with State
and local governments and partners in that process. Continued efforts
in the Blackwater area will allow us to link important habitats
providing valuable wildlife corridors.
This Administration is committed to taking care of what we have,
while ensuring that new acquisitions truly meet strategic needs of the
Refuge System. As I mentioned earlier, this includes purchasing in-
holdings within currently approved refuge boundaries. There must be a
balance between acquiring new lands and meeting the operational,
maintenance and restoration requirements for the resources already in
public ownership. Towards this end, the Service is currently developing
a plan to guide future growth and land acquisition for the Refuge
System.
Establishing new refuges or significantly expanding existing ones
compromises our ability to address needs at existing refuges. The
Service is currently conducting condition assessments at all of its
refuges facilities. Condition assessments have been completed at 40
percent of refuge facilities and the Service expects the remaining 60
percent to be assessed by the end of 2005.
We are appreciative that you and your constituents would turn to
the Fish and Wildlife Service as custodians of Garrett Island. However,
given our priorities and funding constraints, we cannot support H.R.
274. Nevertheless, the Service is willing to provide technical
assistance to help you and your constituents through current Service
programs such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife, the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act, the Landowner Incentive Program, and Private
Stewardship Grants which can be used in cooperation with State, local
and private partners to restore and protect natural resources.
H.R. 417--Cibola NWR
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R.
417, which will revoke a small portion of Public Land Order 3442, dated
August 21, 1964. This Public Land Order withdrew approximately 16,600
acres of public domain lands along the Colorado River in California and
Arizona for the Cibola NWR. The withdrawal erroneously included a small
area of approximately 140 acres in Imperial County at the southern
boundary of the California portion of the refuge. A similar bill, H.R.
3937, was passed by the House last year, but was not acted upon by the
Senate.
Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, beginning in 1962, the BLM issued
a permit for a public recreation concession on the lands now in
question. Because neither the Service nor the BLM recognized the
mistake in legal descriptions on the ground, the BLM continued to renew
the original permit and the recreational concession use has continued,
unbroken, to the present time, although the BLM lease did expire in
April 2002. The concession and location are commonly know as ``Walter's
Camp,'' which consists of a recreational vehicle park, a small marina,
and a store, and the BLM estimates that Walter's Camp receives 11,000
visitors per year.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended, (Act) requires that all uses of refuge lands be compatible
with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 4(a) of
the Act and section 204(j) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act both prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revoking
withdrawals of land within NWRs. For this reason, Congressional action
is required to remove these lands from the Refuge System.
Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order was
certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of the concession, we
believe the most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the
refuge. There are no listed species inhabiting the 140 acres and the
area in question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the
140 acres of land from the refuge would free-up the area necessary for
the continuation of the recreational concession, while still affording
more than adequate protection for the nearest significant wildlife
habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.
We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all parties
involved--the concessionaire, the Service, the BLM and, ultimately, the
public. For this reason, we support the bill and urge prompt action on
enactment of H.R. 417.
H.R. 273--Nutria Eradication
The Service commends the Chairman and the Committee for recognizing
the significant threat posed by nutria to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem
and to the economy and culture of the Bay area communities. The Service
has a long history of commitment to protecting and enhancing the fish
and wildlife resources of the Bay area through our cooperative efforts
with the States, private landowners, and through the habitat management
work conducted on NWRs such as Blackwater NWR. We recognize that
Federal land management agencies like the Service play a key role in
managing invasive species, particularly at the local level, where
communities are struggling to find support for protection of the
environment, sustainable agriculture, and economic stability.
Nutria are an exotic invasive rodent, native to South America, that
have been introduced in 22 states nationwide, and affect over 1 million
acres of the NWRS. Nutria have become one of the most destructive
invasive mammals infesting every refuge along the Gulf of Mexico,
including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas, as well
as the refuges in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia. Nutria
destroy important freshwater marsh habitats and contribute
significantly to erosion and the deterioration of water control levees
and other structures. The effective control of this animal is critical
for refuges to meet their wetland wildlife habitat management
objectives.
The lower Eastern shore of Maryland, including Blackwater NWR, is
one of the areas with high nutria populations. Blackwater NWR has lost
over 7,000 acres of marsh since 1933, and the rate of marsh loss has
accelerated in recent years to approximately 200 acres per year.
Although there are many contributing factors (e.g., sea level rise,
land subsidence), nutria are a catalyst of marsh loss because they
forage on the below-ground portions of marsh plants. This activity
compromises the integrity of the marsh root mat, facilitating erosion
and leading to permanent marsh loss.
Nutria are one of thousands of invasive species impacting the NWRS,
as well as other Federal, State, and private lands. The degradation of
native fish and wildlife habitats and the functional disruption of
entire ecosystems due to invasive species is overwhelming.
In an effort to make the best use of our abilities and resources,
the Service cooperates with numerous partners, including the U.S.
Geological Survey, within the Department, and the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife Services, to identify priorities for
nutria prevention and control work. The Service fully realizes the
threat posed by nutria to the integrity and function of the Chesapeake
Bay and other ecosystems, and we remain fully committed to cooperative
nutria eradication on refuges and adjacent non-federal lands.
In light of the significant ecological degradation caused by
nutria, the Service joined forces with partners in Federal and State
government and the private sector in 1997 to identify appropriate
methods for controlling nutria and restoring degraded marsh habitat in
the Chesapeake Bay. The partnership prepared a 3-year pilot program
proposal, which was subsequently approved by Congress, including
authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to spend up to $2.9
million over 3 years beginning in Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105-
322). The partnership successfully leveraged commitments of over $1.5
million in non-Federal funds and services for the initiative.
In Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, $500,000 of Service funds were
earmarked for initiation and implementation of the pilot study in and
around Blackwater NWR as authorized by P.L. 105-322. The Service
identified approximately $199,000 from the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program and approximately $299,000 from Refuge Operations
funding to meet our study obligations. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Service
received an earmark for an additional $550,000 for the nutria project
through an addition to the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program
budget that increased the available funds from that program for the
nutria project to $749,000. This, plus the Refuge Operation funding,
provided a total of $1.048 million for 2002. The Service received
$991,000--$694,000 from the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and
$297,000 from Refuge Operations funding--to meet our project
obligations for 2003, $493,000 above the Service's request.
The President's 2004 budget request includes $699,000 from the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and $799,000 from Refuge
Operations funding to meet our nutria control project obligations for
Fiscal Year 2004, an increase of $1.0 million above the 2003 request.
The $1.0 million increase for Partners and refuges will treat
approximately 50,000 infested acres. The Refuge Operations request
would split the funding between the Chesapeake Bay and Louisiana
ecosystems. Of the funds requested for nutria control on refuges,
$300,000 would provide for nutria control operations, research
strategies, and marsh habitat restoration at Blackwater NWR in Maryland
and Eastern Neck NWR in Virginia. The remaining funds, $200,000, would
support efforts within the Southeastern Louisiana NWR Complex, Delta
NWR and Sabine NWR in Louisiana.
During the past year the nutria program completed the testing of
various trapping strategies in the original study site locations on
approximately 3,600 acres. All animals trapped in this area were
removed. Based on this success, the program will move ahead and include
the entire acreage of Blackwater NWR, Fishing Bay Wildlife Management
Area and Tudor Farms in Dorchester County in 40 acre plots. Trapping
strategies on these plots are being further refined and these
eradication strategies are being applied to the population of nutria
throughout the study sites using a team of 12 trappers through USDA's
Wildlife Services.
We are encouraged by H.R. 273, and other bills introduced in
Congress, which address invasive species problems. While there are
aspects of the bill that cause concern, including the need for a new
grant program to specifically address nutria, and a provision to
significantly limit application of the funding to real administrative
costs, the Service appreciates the Committee's efforts at controlling
and eradicating invasive species, particularly nutria, and we stand
ready to work with the Committee toward that end.
We recognize the need to continue cooperative efforts to eradicate
nutria in the Chesapeake Bay region and will continue its commitment as
a key Federal member of the nutria eradication partnership and we plan
to continue nutria project funding amounts within the priorities
identified in the President's budget.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan. The
testimony was concise, informative, well delivered and very
helpful.
Mr. Hogan. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Very well appreciated.
Can you tell me how many acres are affected in H.R. 289?
Mr. Hogan. The expansion, as we read the bill, would
include about 40,000 acres. And as I noted, we have an
expansion boundary of about 5,000 acres right now in that same
area.
Mr. Gilchrest. 40,000 acres would be difficult, as opposed
to the 5,000 acres because it is more land area to manage?
Mr. Hogan. Well, sir, what we are really concerned with, in
addition to the acquisition cost, which is not the major cost,
the major cost is manning the operations and maintenance
associated with adding additional acres to the refuge system.
We are really trying to take a strategic approach to adding
acres to our refuge system to make sure that once we acquire
them, we can actually operate and manage them effectively and
strategically.
Mr. Gilchrest. And you see that this area has the potential
to be protected without being drawn into the refuge system?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. We believe there are a number of
programs--the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Service, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act program, and others that
could be used to protect the important lands in that area.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has there been a consortium created to look
into that which includes Fish and Wildlife?
Mr. Hogan. I believe there have been discussions with the
folks in the region. I know through the development of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan they typically look at the host
of issues that, in addition to refuge expansion and
acquisition, that can be used.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to focus now on--and I think
what we will do, we will probably have a series of questions, I
guess, so I will go for about 5 minutes and then I will yield
to my colleagues for five, and then we can rotate like that.
Do you have any idea what some of the costs involved in
nutria eradication between Maryland and Louisiana are in this
eradication project?
Mr. Hogan. I am not completely clear on the question. Do
you mean the costs in the budget or what the total costs of
eradication would be?
Mr. Gilchrest. The amount that is in the budget for
Maryland and Louisiana for this project and any estimate for
the total cost of eradication. And then is it possible--I guess
the likelihood of eradicating nutria in Maryland is in the
realm of possibility, total eradication, and I am wondering if
it is in the realm of reality in Louisiana.
Mr. Hogan. Well, I cannot speak to whether the total
eradication is within the realm of possibility. I believe you
are right that in the state of Maryland and Louisiana, I am not
as clear.
I do know that of the money proposed in the President's
budget, the base budget for refuge operations was $299,000.
That will all be dedicated to the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge. The additional $500,000 that has been added to the
President's budget this year, of that, $300,000 will go to
refuges in the Maryland area, as well as other refuges in
addition to Blackwater that have nutria problems. The remaining
$200,000 will be dedicated to Louisiana refuges and nutria
eradication.
Mr. Gilchrest. What other refuges in the vicinity of
Maryland have a nutria problem?
Mr. Hogan. I am not sure of the specific refuges but I do
know they exist on other refuges in the Delmarva peninsula. So
certainly Blackwater is our main focus area but we want to make
sure that we do not ignore other places where they could be
causing damage.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will this potential colder winter have an
effect on the population?
Mr. Hogan. That is a good question, sir, and I do not know.
I would be glad to find out and get back to you with that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you also in this nutria eradication, does
Fish and Wildlife interact with USDA?
Mr. Hogan. We do. Wildlife Services is an important part of
the trapping program on the refuge to control and eventually
hopefully eradicate nutria and we work very closely with them,
as well as a host of other agencies. I think there are about 27
private-governmental partnerships working together over in
Maryland, ranging from private farms, private landowners, the
State of Maryland, and local entities. I believe the college on
the Eastern Shore is also involved, as well as the refuge and
the state wildlife management agency.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, the Corps of Engineers is heavily
involved in the project.
Mr. Hogan. They are involved and they are involved
especially in some of the restoration work that I know you are
well aware of on the Blackwater Refuge.
Mr. Gilchrest. So I guess with that restoration work being
done to restore wetlands that have been destroyed by the
nutria, is there specific interaction with the Corps on the
nutria with the restoration of those wetlands?
Mr. Hogan. I believe there is, sir, and I would be glad to
find out for certain and get back to you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Hogan. As you know, they are doing some restoration
right along the wildlife loop there and one of the purposes, in
addition to doing the restoration, of course, is to really
educate the public about the need to do this restoration and
some of the impacts that nutria are having.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a rough estimate as to when the
nutria might be under control or eradicated in Blackwater?
Mr. Hogan. I know they are finishing a protocol in December
of this year that looked at a number of different solutions and
options for control and eradication and I will be glad to give
you an exact update on where they are and what their proposals
are from there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone?
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.
Hogan some questions about H.R. 289, which, as you know, Ms.
Kaptur and Mr. Dingell were here earlier testifying to.
I guess my concern, Mr. Hogan, is I know you oppose the
bill; you stated that you do and I do not really quite
understand why. You state that H.R. 289 would commit the
service to a massive expansion of the refuge system and further
note the geographic scope of the proposal includes over 80
miles of coastline covering 40,000 acres or more.
But, as you know, you heard Ms. Kaptur's testimony and she
said that she had significantly streamlined the initial
proposal to a much smaller scale and that the scale now is
roughly compatible to the area investigated by the service for
potential expansion of the existing Ottawa Complex.
In your own written statement you say that the area
outlined for acquisition in the bill is the same general
geographic area as the Ohio portion of the proposed expansion
of the Ottawa NWR, which was recommended in the service's own
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
So I guess my initial question is if it is basically the
same amount and it is within the boundaries, why do you have a
problem with it? I mean she changed it but it is not
significantly different in terms of the size, so why is there a
problem?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. I apologize; it is a little bit
confusing. Back in the 1990's, 1994, we used to do something
called focus areas and what that would do is basically draw a
line on a map and say within this area we will look to acquire
a certain number of acres. We have since moved away from that
process, so the focus area of the Ottawa Refuge is equal or
close to the size of the expansion proposed in the bill.
However, the refuge said they would only acquire within that
focus area 5,000 acres, so not the total area but just within
that larger area they would eventually acquire 5,000 acres.
Back in 1996 the Congress passed the Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act, which mandated that each wildlife refuge go
through the CCP or Comprehensive Conservation Process--
Mr. Pallone. If the language is amended to specify that the
lands targeted were acquisition were those 5,000 acres
identified under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, would the
Administration then support the bill?
Mr. Hogan. Well, we do not have a specific 5,000 acres
within that area that we have targeted, but we would certainly
work with Congresswoman Kaptur on that issue. Certainly our
goal is to acquire up to 5,000 acres in that area and we would
be glad to talk to her about that and to the Committee.
Mr. Pallone. Why can that not just be accomplished under
the boundaries that Ms. Kaptur has proposed?
Mr. Hogan. Well, we are currently doing that. We are
currently out there actively trying to achieve up to 5,000
acres in that larger focus area. We are doing that now and we
are actively pursuing it. We have acquired about 500 acres so
far and we currently have another 600-acre acquisition in
process, so we are almost about 20 percent of the way there on
acquiring 5,000 acres in that area.
Mr. Pallone. I understand your position but I still do not
understand what the big deal is, frankly, Mr. Chairman.
You say that you cannot support the passage of the bill
because the proposed acquisition area would run a linear length
of 80 miles and would encompass 40,000 acres but you have
numerous existing refuges and refuge complexes that are spread
over comparable or longer distances and include larger or more
fragmented areas. Just as examples are the Upper Mississippi
River Refuge, the Northern Tall Grass Prairie Refuge, Don
Edwards San Francisco Bay Refuge, and there are a lot of other
examples that can be found.
In fact, this Subcommittee passed bills in the 106th
Congress establishing two new riparian refuges in Alabama and
Louisiana, the Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge and, the Red
River National Wildlife Refuge, which were similar in that they
are both linear, include fragmented boundaries, and have
potential high price tags for acquisition, but the service
supported these bills.
So again what distinguishes the proposed expansion of
Ottawa from the other refuges, especially those examples in
Alabama or Louisiana?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. Our main opposition is the size, not
the fact that it is spread out as a linear refuge. When we went
through the CCP process we identified an expansion of 5,000
acres that was approved both at the regional level and
ultimately approved by the director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
We believe very strongly in that process of going through
this Comprehensive Conservation Plan, as the Congress mandated
that we do. We think it is a good system and we think that
sticking to that system and sticking within the acquisition
boundaries proposed within those CCPs is the best way to
strategically grow the refuge system.
Mr. Pallone. But how is this acquisition strategy that is
outlined in her bill dissimilar from what was used for the
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, which was
supported by the Administration? In fact, I would think and I
would like to know if the service agrees that the expansion of
Ottawa would be complementary to Detroit River. How is it
different and why would they not be complementary?
Mr. Hogan. Well, it is not that it would not necessarily be
complementary, sir. It is just that as we look at total
acquisitions for the refuge system around the whole country and
then trying to determine not just the acquisition costs but
more importantly, the operations and management costs, that we
really target areas that we think we can manage fiscally.
We realize and certainly support the fact that there is not
unlimited money to manage the refuge system, so we are really
trying to be strategic about acquiring the most important lands
that we can, but then certainly not turning our backs on
communities that want to protect lands in those areas. We
certainly would look forward to and continue to work with the
communities up there to find other ways to make sure that the
land is protected, but not necessarily within the refuge
system.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Getting back to the East Coast, Mr. Hogan, it is my
understanding that there has been a $4-a-tail bounty on nutria
in Louisiana. Is there a similar bounty in Maryland, and how is
that going in Louisiana?
Mr. Hogan. You know, sir, I do not know. I assume in
Louisiana that was a state-passed law and I do not believe that
Maryland has a similar law. I am not exactly certain but again
I would be glad to find that out and get back to you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. That would be helpful. And I have
some further questions on nutria that I would like to continue
to correspond with you and stay in touch with you and the
refuge manager on the progress of this whole process just to
see if the possibility of eradication is real, at least up here
in Maryland, considering we are on a peninsula and it is much
less confined in what they have in the Gulf Coast states,
especially Louisiana.
I wanted to talk a little bit about Garrett Island. In your
report that you gave to us, which I think was very
comprehensive and very well done. And from the perspective of
the Federal Government, Garrett Island certainly is worthy of
protection in the light of, as we all know, increasing loss of
habitat throughout the region through a full range of species,
whether they are threatened, endangered, or not, the potential
for them to become so, especially the neotropical birds, some
of the raptors and so on. Because of increasing development,
any land that has the potential to be preserved for habitat I
think deserves worthy consideration. Your understanding is that
it does deserve protection and that the private sector and the
state and local governments, you are willing to work with in
order to see that happen.
Have you had any, yourself, Fish and Wildlife, interaction
with the Cecil Land Trust on this issue?
Mr. Hogan. Other than I know they participated in the site
visit that was done last August that ultimately led to the
report. I do not know for certain if we have had any
discussions further with them.
Just to clarify our testimony, we certainly believe that
habitat protection is obviously important and that is our main
mission. Garrett Island, while it does provide some wildlife
habitat, it, as you mentioned, does not provide important
habitat that we could find out from our report, either for our
trust species, migratory birds or threatened and endangered
species, but it does seem to have significant archeological
value and we believe that looking at an agency, whether state
or Federal, that is more focused on archeological value of land
rather than necessarily wildlife habitat would be a better fit
in this case.
Mr. Gilchrest. You did make some good recommendations in
your report, National Park Service in particular.
So your discussions with the state--and I realize that a
few years ago we were trying to get some money from the state
to pay back the money that the Cecil Land Trust had put up for
a limited duration and quite frankly, one of the reasons we
came to this venue was because we were not successful with the
state.
So I understand the Federal perspective that this could be
a state-protected entity; it could a county-protected entity,
but since we came to this venue, we began looking at the fact
that I think it is the 500th anniversary here pretty soon or
some anniversary of John Smith and a whole range of things are
happening to celebrate that particular anniversary date.
And it has been mentioned numerous times about an island
corridor in the Chesapeake Bay, not only to celebrate John
Smith and John Smith apparently, just like George Washington, I
guess, stops everywhere, goes to a tavern--John Smith stopped
on Garrett Island and had lunch--but we were looking at the
long-range proposal for habitat protection in to Chesapeake
Bay, certainly on the uplands with the Delmarva Conservation
Corridor idea, but an island corridor running throughout the
Chesapeake Bay and Garrett Island, being right at the top of
the bay, being a part of that island corridor and the larger
land mass that would be managing this island corridor would be
Blackwater Refuge.
You mentioned in your testimony numerous times raptors,
migrating waterfowl, neotropical birds, shorebirds and those
kinds of things, and if you look at Garrett Island in
isolation, Garrett Island is relatively small, 180 acres or so,
and in that context it is minimal habitat but in the context of
a string of islands to be protected and in the context of we
are fighting this with a different idea about a conservation
corridor, but with the inevitable increasing loss of habitat
because of development and in the context of this island and
this region being surrounded by Philadelphia, Wilmington,
Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk, and so on, this
region in itself is a last island of refuge in a sea of
expanding urban areas.
So we would look forward to working with you. We want to
make sure that the island is protected. We went to Fish and
Wildlife as part of a process to do that and we will continue
to pursue this legislation but also, as a parallel to that, we
would like to sit down and talk to you, the National Park
Service, and any other entity in the state and Federal
Government to look at a broader perspective, not just Garrett
Island but in the context of an island corridor. We will be in
touch and in contact with you on that particular issue.
I respect your position and I understand it but we are
trying to create a regional approach. This is one small piece
of that puzzle but a very important piece of that puzzle.
Mr. Pallone, any further questions?
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask some
questions about the nutria bill.
Mr. Hogan, what is the cost to restore one acre of wetlands
destroyed by nutria? And are there any ways to protect restored
marsh habitat from subsequent nutria damage? And what is the
estimated time for recovery of those marshlands if the nutria
population could be controlled?
Mr. Hogan. I cannot give you exact figures right now but I
will be glad to get back to you with that.
Mr. Pallone. With the indulgence of the Chair, if he could
get back to us in writing?
Mr. Gilchrest. Absolutely. If the gentleman will yield just
for a second?
Mr. Pallone. Sure.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Corps of Engineers has hired two
biologists. Now I cannot remember their last names but they are
both Steve--Steve and Steve. One is a Polish name and one is an
Irish name, I believe. But anyway, Steve and Steve from the
Corps of Engineers out of the Baltimore District are at this
very minute undergoing an interesting experimental restoration
process for those wetlands that have been lost to nutria and it
is beginning to work. I am not exactly sure of the cost or the
timeframe because it has never been done before in this manner,
but it is an exciting possibility.
Mr. Hogan. There is no question that invasives in general
are a terrible problem on our refuges and nutria certainly is
right there at the top of the list. It is one of the big ones
and with your leadership, sir, we are certainly doing our best
to do what we can to control them over on the Eastern Shore and
we thank you for your leadership in that area.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Hogan, let me just run through a couple of
these things. If you feel that you have to answer them in
writing later, that is fine. The second question is where did
the $30 million amount come from in this bill? From the figures
that I have seen, once salary for 12 trappers and a supervisor
is covered, there is almost $28 million remaining for the
eradication and control program. And how would those funds be
used?
Mr. Hogan. We do have a very detailed plan on how the funds
will be used and I will be happy to supply that to you and for
the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And then to follow up on that point, how
would marsh restoration efforts under H.R. 273 differ from
similar efforts under other wetlands restoration programs under
Wallop-Breaux or the Estuary Restoration Act?
Mr. Hogan. Well, the restoration itself would not
necessarily differ but the issue here is, as you pointed out
earlier, not just restoring them but then making sure that we
do not backtrack on the restoration, making sure that what goes
hand in glove with the restoration is controlling the nutria.
Otherwise the very acres that we have restored could ultimately
be degraded again if we do not control the nutria population.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And then with regard to control measures,
it is my understanding that the preferred control method for
nutria is trapping but it is also my understanding that this
method has met limited success. You can comment on that but the
question is has any effort been made to investigate the
practicality of a biological control method, such as the
introduction of predatory species? And has such an approach
been tried on the Delmarva Peninsula or in Louisiana?
Mr. Hogan. I do know that they have tried a host of
eradication efforts, I think even as far as--Mr. Gilchrest will
know--trying to improve the potential desire for nutria as a
food source. I do not think that, unfortunately, has caught on
too well in certain parts of the country, but there is a lot of
creativity going into trying to figure out ways to control
nutria and I will certainly be glad to supply that to you, all
the different ways that we are looking at to make sure that we
can control them.
Mr. Pallone. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
I think they have alligators in Louisiana.
Mr. Hogan. That is true.
Mr. Gilchrest. And I think they actually eat them in
Louisiana. We have not gotten to that point yet because if you
want to know what a nutria tastes like, try to imagine what the
hair of a rat tastes like. I should not say that too often
because maybe somebody in Maryland is going to open up a
restaurant.
Mr. Pallone. Actually, they look kind of attractive.
Mr. Gilchrest. The other thing, I guess we could import
those alligators on a seasonal basis and ship them back down in
the winter.
Mr. Hogan. The trick would be catching them again and
trying to send them back south.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right. Well, I hope this winter has had an
effect on that population.
Just one other quick follow-up question, Mr. Hogan. The
current BLM permit for Walter's Camp, does that expire in 6
months?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, it does and I know they are interested in
expediting that so the BLM can go ahead and issue it. It is
interesting that there has been some confusion as to who has
actually owned the land. At one point they actually thought
that it was transferred back to BLM and then it turned out that
it was not, in fact, the case. So we are certainly interested
in expediting it but, as you know, it has to be done
legislatively. We cannot do it administratively, so we have
turned to the Congress.
Mr. Gilchrest. I wonder if the nutria would have any
positive effect on the Meadowlands in New Jersey. Is that what
you call it, the Meadowlands?
Mr. Pallone. I was wondering; do they still use them for
coats? I mean at one point is that not why they were
introduced?
Mr. Hogan. They were actually introduced as a potential fur
source but it never really seemed to catch on.
Mr. Pallone. It never caught on, OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will have to try that in San Francisco
first.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan. We look forward to working
with you on all these issues.
Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]