[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1497, A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE TITLE I OF THE SIKES ACT
=======================================================================
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, April 10, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-15
__________
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
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
86-410 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 April 10, 2003................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate to Congress from Guam 5
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Baughman, John G., Executive Vice President, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Deal, Lt. Col. A. Lewis, USMC (Retired), Director of Outdoor
Sports Development, Paralyzed Veterans of America.......... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of
Defense.................................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Martin, Chester O., President, National Military Fish and
Wildlife Association....................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Meyer, Dan, General Counsel, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility............................... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Rurka, Gene, Chairman, Humanitarian Services Committee,
Safari Club International.................................. 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Tuggle, Dr. Benjamin N., Chief, Division of Federal Program
Activities, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Additional materials supplied:
Camacho, Hon. Felix P., Governor, Territory of Guam,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 59
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1497, A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE TITLE I OF THE
SIKES ACT
----------
Thursday, April 10, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Saxton, Pallone and
Bordallo.
Also Present: Representative Cunningham.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to
order.
Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 1497, a measure
introduced by Chairman Richard Pombo to extend the
authorization for Title I of the Sikes Act.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. I ask unanimous consent that our friend and
Colleague, Mr. Duke Cunningham, sit on the dais this morning
for the hearing.
Without objection, it is OK, Duke. You are welcome.
The law, which was first enacted in 1960, is responsible
for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and their habitat at
some 25 million acres of military land. The Department of
Defense has some 400 military installations throughout the
United States that contain wildlife resources. In fact, nearly
300 Federally listed, threatened and endangered species reside
on those lands under the jurisdiction of DOD. In many ways,
those DOD lands are a unique ecosystem.
In 1997 this law was reauthorized and a number of
significant changes were made to the underlying statute. The
most significant modification was a requirement that the
Department of Defense prepare a comprehensive integrated
natural resource management plan for each of its installations
that have plant and animal species. These plans would include
an inventory of fish and wildlife resources, efforts to protect
wetlands, how natural resource laws will be enforced, whether
wildlife-oriented recreation will be permitted, and how our
vital fish and wildlife populations will be managed in the
future.
In addition, the law now requires that the Department
submit these plans for public review, and that they may be
written in full consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the affected States.
Finally, Public Law 105-85 stipulated that the Department
must maintain a significant number of professionally trained
natural resource management personnel to prepare and implement
the integrated natural resource management plans.
During the course of this hearing I hope to learn from our
witnesses how many integrated natural resource management plans
have been implemented, whether the consultation process is
working, if a sufficient number of professionally trained
personnel have been retained as employees and not contractors
for the Department of Defense as the law requires, and whether
the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act has been a success.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning
on both panels.
[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 hear testimony on H.R.
1497, a measure introduced by Chairman Richard Pombo to extend the
authorization for Title I of the Sikes Act.
This law, which was first enacted in 1960, is responsible for the
conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitat at some 25 million
acres of military land. The Department of Defense has some 400 military
installations throughout the United States that contain wildlife
resources. In fact, nearly 300 Federally listed threatened and
endangered species reside on those lands under the jurisdiction of DOD.
In many ways, these DOD lands are a unique ecosystem.
In 1997, this law was reauthorized and a number of significant
changes were made to the underlying statute. The most significant
modification was the requirement that the Department of Defense prepare
a comprehensive integrated natural resource management plan for each of
its installations that have plant and animal species. These plans would
include an inventory of fish and wildlife resources, efforts to protect
wetlands, how natural resource laws will be enforced, whether wildlife-
oriented recreation will be permitted and how our vital fish and
wildlife populations will be managed in the future.
In addition, the law now requires that the Department submit these
plans for public review and that they be written in full consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the affected states. Finally,
P.L. 105-85 stipulated that the Department must maintain ``a
significant number of professionally trained natural resource
management personnel'' to prepare and implement integrated natural
resource management plans.
During the course of this hearing, I hope to learn from our
witnesses how many integrated natural resource management plans have
been implemented; whether the consultation process is working; if a
sufficient number of professionally trained personnel have been
retained as employees and not contractors for the Department of Defense
as the law requires and whether the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act has
been a success.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I am
pleased to recognize the Ranking Democratic Member, the Honorable Frank
Pallone.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I will yield now to the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is especially
appropriate for the Subcommittee to examine the Sikes Act at a
time when our military preparedness is being put to the test,
and when the Department of Defense is pursuing efforts to
procure exemptions from some environmental laws, and today we
will examine the requirements of the Sikes Act with regard to
the management of natural resources in military installations,
as well as whether the DOD has successfully implemented those
requirements.
Few people realize that the Pentagon is the third largest
Federal land manager in the U.S. Even fewer people would
dispute that the multipurpose management of 25 million acres of
military land is a huge responsibility and a tremendous
challenge when considering the limited funding and often
conflicting missions.
In light of these multiple responsibilities the Sikes Act
was intended to clarify the military's natural resource
obligations, and today I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses on whether the policies of the Sikes Act are clear,
effective and well implemented by DOD. I believe thorough
implementation of the Act's requirements is critical to
conservation and the maintenance of environmental quality on
these important Federal lands, and it is the responsibility of
this Subcommittee to address any shortcomings in the
implementation of this law should we find any.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly interested in the
development and implementation of the required integrated
natural resource management plans or INRMPs. Thoughtful
consultation between the military, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
State wildlife agencies is vital to ensure that INRMPs are
effective at protecting natural resources and flexible enough
to accommodate military operations. However, the DOD has
recently claimed that environmental laws, especially the
Endangered Species Act, have encroached on and diminished
military readiness and training activities. In the request for
legislative relief, the Department has sought to substitute
INRMPs for critical habitat designations made under the ESA.
I cannot help but wonder do we have enough information at
this time about the effectiveness of INRMPs in order to render
an intelligent judgment on such a proposal? I remind my
colleagues that the track record for INRMPs is woefully short
and incomplete as many INRMPs have been completed only in the
past 18 months. Furthermore, numerous critics contend the
Department has purposely outsourced civilian environmental
specialists responsible for implementing INRMPs in an effort to
weaken or compromise its internal ability to implement the Act.
I would like to understand why the DOD is outsourcing these
positions when the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of
'98 and the A-76 regulations require the preferential use of
qualified Federal employees for such positions. These concerns
are not trivial. Before making a decision on whether INRMPs
would be an appropriate alternative to critical habitat
designations, we first need to evaluate objectively and fairly
the effectiveness and value of the INRMPs, and any action prior
to a thorough analysis would be premature and could undermine
the large share of the Nation's natural resources that are now
managed by the Department of Defense.
I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses so we can begin an unbiased
analysis of these issues and ultimately make an informed
recommendation to the Congress. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It is especially
appropriate for the Subcommittee to examine the Sikes Act at a time
when our military's preparedness is being put to the test, and when the
Department of Defense is pursuing efforts to procure exemptions from
some environmental laws. Today we will examine the requirements of the
Sikes Act with regard to the management of natural resources in
military installations, as well as whether the Department of Defense
has successfully implemented those requirements.
Few people realize that the Pentagon is the third largest Federal
land manager in the United States. Even fewer people would dispute that
the multi-purpose management of 25 million acres of military land is a
huge responsibility and a tremendous challenge, when considering the
limited funding and often-conflicting missions.
In light of these multiple responsibilities, the Sikes Act was
intended to clarify the military's natural resource obligations. Today
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on whether the policies of
the Sikes Act are clear, effective, and well-implemented by the
Department of Defense. I believe thorough implementation of the Act's
requirements is critical to conservation and the maintenance of
environmental quality on these important Federal lands--and it is the
responsibility of this Subcommittee to address any shortcomings in the
implementation of this law, should we find any.
I am particularly interested in the development and implementation
of the required Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, or INRMPs
(``inramps''). Thoughtful consultation between the military, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and State wildlife agencies is vital to
ensure that INRMPs are effective at protecting natural resources and
flexible enough to accommodate military operations.
However, the Department of Defense has recently claimed that
environmental laws, specifically the Endangered Species Act, have
encroached on and diminished military readiness and training
activities. In their requests for legislative relief, the Department
has sought to substitute INRMPs for critical habitat designations made
under the ESA.
I cannot help but wonder; do we have enough information at this
time about the effectiveness of INRMPs in order to render an
intelligent judgment on such a proposal? I remind my colleagues that
the track record for INRMPs is woefully short and incomplete, as many
INRMPs have been completed only in the past 18 months. Furthermore,
numerous critics contend that the Department has purposefully ``out-
sourced'' civilian environmental specialists responsible for
implementing INRMPS, in an effort to weaken or compromise its internal
ability to implement the Act. I would like to understand why the
Department is outsourcing these positions when the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act of 1998 and the A-76 regulations require the
preferential use of qualified Federal employees for such positions.
These concerns are not trivial. Before making a decision on whether
INRMPs would be an appropriate alternative to critical habitat
designations, we first need to evaluate objectively and fairly the
effectiveness and value of the INRMPs. Any action prior to a thorough
analysis would be premature and could undermine the large share of the
Nation's natural resources managed by the Department of Defense.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, so that we can
begin an unbiased analysis of these issues and ultimately make an
informed recommendation to Congress.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Opening statement, Mr. Saxton?
Mr. Saxton. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentlelady from Guam?
STATEMENT OF MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM
GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, and welcome to all of our
witnesses, and thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member
Pallone. I would like to also welcome our colleague, Duke
Cunningham, from the State of California.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on
reauthorization of the Sikes Act. The Sikes Act, Mr. Chairman,
is particularly important to Guam, an island of only 212 square
miles, as nearly one-third of our land is owned and managed by
the Department of Defense. Furthermore, we have a particular
challenge before us with the recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service proposal to designate new critical habitat on roughly
30,000 acres of land in Guam. This is land outside the current
Guam wildlife refuge overlay. This proposal includes Navy land
that does not currently contain endangered species, and which
has been heavily utilized for critical special forces jungle
training.
This critical habitat proposal has been the source of much
consternation in Guam within both the military and the civilian
communities given Guam's past experiences with military land
condemnations, critical habitat designation in the north at
Ritidian in 1993. The jeopardy this new proposal poses for
military readiness and the fact that it is not the actions of
the Department of Defense or the people of Guam that threaten
the restoration of endangered species such as the Marianas
fruit bat, the Marianas crow and Guam Micronesian kingfisher,
but rather the predatory behavior of the invasive brown tree
snake, which arrived in Guam in 1950 by military cargo.
This is why the DOD request to allow INRMPs under the Sikes
Act to serve as adequate substitutes to critical habitat
designation under ESA is an important matter for the people of
Guam. Guam remains ready and willing to work with the military
to strengthen INRMPs, and I support a strong and up to date
Sikes Act, that reflects both the growth of DOD's conservation
programs and the ability to manage natural resources in an
integrated approach with public involvement in the process and
in support of the military mission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
I will yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cunningham.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Saxton?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take
a moment to welcome the witnesses, Mr. DuBois, with whom we
have worked over the past couple of years. I would also like to
welcome my fellow New Jerseyan, Gene Rurka from I think it
might be Mr. Pallone's district, I am not sure. And Gene is a
great outdoorsman and sportsman, and member of the Safari Club,
where he heads up the Humanitarian Service Committee, and the
Committee under his leadership has made great strides in making
it possible for people with disabilities to take part in
outdoor sports, hunting, photography, fishing, and so it is
with great pleasure, Gene, that we welcome you here today.
Thank you for your participation.
My unfortunate early departure--I was looking forward to
hearing your testimony, but I have a 10:30 that I can't miss,
so I am going to have to leave. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Cunningham, you want to speak?
Mr. Cunningham. It is good to see Gene again. I attended
Safari Club with Gene up in New Jersey. I had never been in New
Jersey before that.
Mr. Saxton. Hasn't been back since either. He wore out his
welcome.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cunningham. But I am here. One of the reasons I
attended is I served on this Committee as a freshman when the
Committee was a little different.
Mr. Gilchrest. Merchant Marine Committee.
Mr. Cunningham. Merchant Marine Committee. Sat right here
at this desk, and we did a bill for disabled sportsmen, and Lew
Deal, Colonel Deal was here, and that is the reason I mainly
came is to just give my best wishes to Colonel Deal and the
program that he is doing for disabled sportsmen. You can
imagine somebody in a wheelchair, pulling up to a dock and
wanting to go fishing where there is no rail for safety. It is
very dangerous for them. Or establish outdoor recreation for
disabled sportsmen, both in the military and civilian, and I
just wanted to compliment him and his program, and it is going
great guns. So that is the main reason I came, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
Our three witnesses on the first panel this morning are Mr.
Raymond DuBois, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment; Mr. Benjamin Tuggle, Chief,
Division of Federal Program Activities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; and Mr. John Baughman, Executive Vice President,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this morning. We
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. DuBois, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Mr. DuBois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of this Committee. On behalf of Secretary Rumsfeld, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the
Sikes Act and its importance to the military.
As has been mentioned, DOD has control or ownership of
roughly 25 million acres of land. Many of these acres of land
are extraordinarily rich in biological resources, and the Sikes
Act has been the--underline ``the''--major contributor to DOD's
success in managing these resources. For more than 40 years the
Sikes Act has proven instrumental in helping our installations,
in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
State fish and game agencies, to develop many cooperative plans
and projects that have benefited fish and game and other
natural resources on DOD lands.
Even more important today, the Sikes Act is needed to help
ensure our ability to provide for the increasing complexity of
the military mission and the concentration of training and
readiness activities on remaining DOD installations.
Now, under the 1997 amended Sikes Act, each integrated
natural resource management plan is designed and implemented to
ensure no net loss in the capability of the installation to
support the military mission. We believe these plans provide
the best possible management for our lands and our resources.
Management under the Sikes Act allows us more flexibility to
use our training lands as we need them, while still protecting
over 300 threatened and endangered species and other natural
resources. We believe that a well-designed and implemented
INRMP makes critical habitat designation on military
installations in most cases unnecessary. DOD expended over $91
million in fiscal 2002, as I reported to Congress, to prepare
and implement the INRMPs.
I would like to turn to four specific areas quickly on
which the Subcommittee specifically requested my comment.
No. 1: the preparation process for the first round of
INRMPs. DOD, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
State fish and game agencies faced a rather big challenge when
Congress passed the Sikes Act in November 1997. Those daunting
challenges to prepare and coordinate nearly 373 new INRMPs
caused, needless to say, somewhat of a bottleneck in the
Department, and although we did not fully achieve this goal,
most of our installations had INRMPs approved by the 2001
November deadline.
The implementation of INRMPs. We intend, the Department
intends that its new INRMPs be dynamic and fully functional
planning tools for natural resource management. This desire for
enhanced long-term performance was a driving force behind the
establishment of detailed installation by installation metrics.
In October of 2002 I specifically sent instructions to the
service secretaries in this regard. This new guidance requires
each installation to track its INRMP implementation.
Now, Section 103 of the Sikes Act specifically authorizes
the Department to provide persons with disabilities access to
the same outdoor recreation as the general public. We have
worked closely with the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other
organizations to accept portable elevating hunting blinds and
other specialized equipment for use by disabled sportsmen.
DOD also conducted a one-time survey of natural resource
functions in 2001, and that survey identified 868 in house
positions that perform natural resource management functions
and associated services. This gets to your question, Mr.
Chairman, about the so-called outsourcing issue.
Now, these natural resource management professionals--and
let me be very clear about this--are essential in our view to
the long-term oversight and management of the valuable natural
resources entrusted to our care. Public and regulator
confidence in DOD's commitment to conserving natural resources
entrusted to us depends both upon our retaining this cadre of
natural resource professionals, and on our using most
efficiently all the tools available to us. In some cases
competition is the proven method to determine the best source
whether Government or private sector. In no case, however, will
we make any decision that would threaten our ability to
preserve these important natural treasures.
This Subcommittee is keenly aware of our ability to ensure
access to its lands for military preparedness purposes, and we
know and you know that it sometimes is becoming difficult to do
so.
In response to these concerns, the Administration submitted
to Congress the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, your interests with respect to the Sikes Act has
a direct bearing on one RRPI provision, a provision that would
permit approved INRMPs in appropriate circumstances to
substitute for critical habitat designation. I look forward to
responding to your, and especially Mr. Pallone's questions
pursuant to his opening remarks in this regard.
We believe that designated critical habitat on military
installations under the Endangered Species Act is for the most
part duplicative because our Sikes Act mandated INRMPs already
provide the, quote, ``special management or protection needed
to ensure the survival and eventual recovery of listed,
threatened and endangered species.'' Critical habitat
designation overlaid on top of existing and approved INRMPs, in
our view, unnecessarily limits commanders on the ground and
their abilities to manage an installation appropriately to
accommodate and balance both the military mission and the
protection of natural resources.
I want to just add briefly here at the end, Mr. Chairman,
if I might, as luck will have it, last night I sat next to a
former staffer for Congressman Bob Sikes, now departed, of
Florida. I said, ``I am testifying tomorrow before Congressman
Gilchrest and the Subcommittee on Fisheries on the Sikes Act
reauthorization. Tell me a little bit about the man who saw the
light and saw the future in terms of his legislation back in
1960.''
And this fellow, who is a little bit older than I am said,
``You have got to remember, Ray, that Bob Sikes was first and
foremost an outdoorsman, a man who loved sports fishing and
loved the idea that sportsmen would have access to some of
these magnificent undeveloped properties within the military
inventory. He also, as you know, had Eglund Air Force Base,
Tindall Air Force Base, Pensacola, some crown jewels in our
military inventory in his district, and he saw that a balance
could be achieved when he introduced that legislation now over
40 years ago.''
So just as a personal aside, I was very touched to hear the
story about how Congressman Sikes back in those days saw it,
and here we are today discussing it and trying to improve upon
it, and the Department of Defense wants to do everything it can
to honor his memory and honor his legislation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DuBois follows:]
Statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment), U.S. Department of Defense
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the Sikes Act and its
importance to the military.
BACKGROUND
The Sikes Act has been the major contributor to the success of the
DoD's conservation program. For more than 40 years, it has proven
instrumental in helping our installations, in coordination with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and State fish and game agencies,
to develop many cooperative plans and projects that have benefitted
fish and game resources and other natural resources on DoD lands. Even
more important today, the Sikes Act is also needed to help ensure the
Services' ability to provide for the increasing complexity of the
military mission and the concentration of training and readiness
activities on the remaining Defense installations.
In The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,
Congress amended the Sikes Act to require installation commanders to
prepare and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
(INRMPs) by November 2001. The Department of Defense (DoD) strongly
supported these amendments to the Sikes Act and worked closely with
both the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to recommend
changes to Congress. DoD and the Military Services greatly appreciate
the efforts of this Committee, as well as the efforts of the Department
of the Interior and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, in the development of these amendments to strengthen and
improve the original Sikes Act.
IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT SIKES ACT AMENDMENTS
Under the 1997 amended Sikes Act, each integrated natural resources
management plan is designed and implemented to ensure ``no net loss''
in the capability of the installation to support the military mission.
These plans consequently provide the installation commander with an
effective management tool for integrating operational requirements with
natural resource management goals and projects. Land management
decisions reflect and support operational requirements, and focus on
maintaining the viability and sustainability of the land to support the
training and readiness activities.
The principal changes reflected in the re-authorized Sikes Act:
Lprovide for more comprehensive and up-to-date INRMPs that
embody emerging principles related to biodiversity protection and
adaptive management;
Lenhance the ability of installation commanders to manage
natural resources and ensure that mission requirements can be met; and
Lallow DoD to take full advantage of the expertise of the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the State resource agencies in
preparing integrated natural resource management plans for military
lands, while neither jeopardizing the installation commander's
discretion to ensure the preparedness of the armed forces nor the
ability of the FWS and the States to exercise the legal authority they
each possess apart from the Sikes Act.
A Sikes Act amendment passed in Fiscal Year 1999, to provide
hunting and fishing access to military lands for disabled sportsmen.
We know that the future will pose new challenges to the Department
in its continuing effort to integrate the military mission of ensuring
troop readiness while meeting the obligations of responsible natural
resources stewardship. Installation-level natural resource
professionals within the Components must continue to demonstrate that
these two goals are compatible and that with up-front planning,
adequate biological inventories, good communication, and the use of
``lessons learned,'' conflicts can be avoided. Conflicts range from
keeping tanks 50 feet from the habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat to scheduling deer hunting and training for the same areas on
an installation.
To meet these goals, the Sikes Act now requires the military to
employ the principles of ecosystem management at nearly 373
installations ``using INRMPs to provide the blueprint for such
management. Every one of our installations with natural resource
requirements are required to have one of these plans in place. Further,
the plans must reflect the mutual agreement of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and appropriate State fish and wildlife agency
concerning the conservation, protection, and management of fish and
wildlife resources..
In October 2002, we released new guidance for these INRMPS that
will improve coordination with stakeholders and provide performance
metrics to ensure the long-term viability of these plans. This updated
guidance is based on the lessons learned from preparing and
implementing these plans over the past several years. These plans,
designed to embrace emerging scientific principles related to ecosystem
management and biodiversity protection, provide a broad focus on the
maintenance of healthy and fully functional ecosystems.
We believe that these plans provide the best possible management
for our lands. We also believe that they provide excellent management
for imperiled plant and animal species. Management under the Sikes Act
allows us more flexibility to use our training lands, as we need them,
while still protecting the over 300 threatened and endangered species
that are now part of the management requirement for the lands under the
administrative control of the Components. We believe that a well-
designed and implemented, INRMP, makes critical habitat designation on
military installations in many cases unnecessary.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SIKES ACT AMENDMENTS
I would now like to turn to the four specific areas on which the
Subcommittee requested comments:
LHow the INRMP preparation process worked for the first
round of INRMPs.
LHow DoD intends to implement the new INRMPs and adapt to
new information.
LHow DoD has implemented the provisions of the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act.
LWhere DoD stands on outsourcing natural resources-related
positions.
The Preparation Process for the First Round of INRMPs
The Department of Defense, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State fish and game agencies, faced a daunting challenge when
Congress passed the Sikes amendments in November 1997--to prepare and
coordinate nearly 373 new INRMPs. Although we did not fully achieve
this goal, most of our installations had INRMPs approved by the
November 2001 deadline.
We and our partners learned a great deal over the past five years
that led to a steady improvement in how INRMPs are prepared and
coordinated. I would like to share a few of the most important lessons
we learned:
LHeadquarters-level oversight is essential. We formed a
Sikes Coordination Group in January 2001 including representatives from
the DoD Components, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to oversee plan
preparation and review, and to mediate any unresolved issues. This
group continues to meet to track INRMP revisions and implementation.
LStaggered preparation and coordination of INRMPs would
eliminate review bottlenecks. Many INRMPs reached review offices during
the first six months of 2001. This caused a significant resource strain
on these offices. We issued new policy guidance in October 2002, that
will eliminate this bottleneck.
LOther stakeholders need an effective voice in updating
INRMPs. Although our initial implementing guidance specified that
military installations should coordinate their INRMPs with military
trainers and the public, as well as with Fish and Wildlife Service and
State fish and game agencies, the Sikes Coordination Group determined
that we could improve our outreach to these groups. Our new October
2002 policy includes specific metrics for ensuring this coordination
occurs and asks each installation to report on the disposition of
comments received from each group of stakeholders.
Implementing INRMPs and Adapting to New Information
The Department intends that its new INRMPs be dynamic and fully
functional planning tools for natural resources management. This desire
for enhanced long-term performance was a driving force behind the
establishment of detailed installation-by-installation metrics in
October 2002. This new guidance requires that each installation report
a series of metrics intended to track its effectiveness in INRMP
implementation. Specifically, each installation must report annually:
LWhether the INRMP contains a list of projects necessary
to meet plan goals and objectives, as well as timeframes for
implementation.
LFunding requirements to implement the INRMP, including
dollars required for and funded for both ``must fund'' (Class 0 and 1)
and ``nice to have'' (Class 2 and 3) projects.
LA list of all unfunded Class 0 and 1 project requirements
in excess of $50,000.
In addition, we plan to initiate a study on INRMP implementation at
selected military installations by the end of the fiscal year. This
Legacy-funded project will identify both successes and opportunities
for improvements in how to implement our INRMPs best.
The Department expects that INRMPs will be modified as needed to
address changing natural resource priorities and mission requirements.
Each INRMP must be reviewed annually and updated as appropriate every
five years or sooner if conditions warrant. DoD's conservation policy
requires that projects be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.
Implementing the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act
Section 103 of the Sikes Act authorizes the Department to provide
persons with disabilities access to the same outdoor recreation
opportunities (including fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing,
boating, and camping) as the general public. This legislation also
permits DoD to accept the volunteer services of individuals and
organizations, as well as donations of property to facilitate these
provisions. The Department reaffirmed its support for disabilities
access in an August 2002 policy memo to the Military Departments that
encourages our installations to implement these provisions.
The Components have worked closely with the Paralyzed Veterans of
America (PVA) and other organizations to accept portable elevating
hunting blinds and other specialized equipment for use by disabled
sportsmen. PVA donated various items of equipment to Camp Lejeune,
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, Little Rock Air Force Base, and Naval
Air Station Meridian in 2002, and plans to donate additional equipment
at Fort Chaffee, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, and MacDill Air Force Base
this year.
Competition of Natural Resources-Related Positions
DoD conducted a one-time survey of natural resource functions in
2001. That survey identified 868 in-house positions that perform
natural resource management functions and associated services,
including 259 devoted to the inherently governmental work of
enforcement and policy-related natural resource management activities.
These natural resource management professionals are essential to
the long-term oversight and management of the valuable natural
resources entrusted to our care. These trained professionals implement
a wide variety of valuable functions for our military installations,
including:
LCoordinating with military operators to ensure the
fullest possible use of our lands and waters for training and testing.
LWorking with environmental regulators to minimize the
restrictions on the use of our lands, while ensuing that we conserve
our natural resources for future use.
LIdentifying and implementing across-the-fence-line
partnerships with stakeholders in surrounding communities, including
noxious weed control, fish and game management, and natural resources
law enforcement.
LImproving mission safety and realism by improving
vegetation cover, reducing fire threat and bird and wildlife aircraft
strike hazard potential.
LIn 2001, we concluded that more than 500 of our in-house
positions do not require the discretionary exercise of government
authority; as a consequence, these positions were determined to be
``subject to review for competition.'' Nevertheless, public and
regulator confidence in DoD's commitment to conserving the natural
resources entrusted to us depends both on our retaining an adequate
cadre of natural resources professionals and on our using most
efficiently all the tools available to us to do the job well. In some
cases, the private sector may have expertise unavailable to us in-house
or be able to accomplish certain field work more efficiently than can
we; it these cases, competition is the proven method to determine the
best source, whether government or private sector. In no case, however,
will we make any decision that would threaten our ability to preserve
these important natural treasures.
EMERGING CHALLENGES
As this Committee knows, DoD's roughly 25 million acres of land are
extraordinarily rich in biological resources. This biodiversity may be
attributed to:
LActive stewardship by DoD's extensive professional
natural resources staff;
LRequirements that military lands remain undeveloped in
order to serve as maneuver areas, impact areas, or buffer zones;
LDoD installations occurring in virtually every ecosystem
in the nation; DoD lands are the only Federal holdings in some
ecosystems; and,
LSurrounding property being developed so quickly that DoD
lands have become comparatively richer in many plants and animals that
have been extirpated elsewhere.
However, this Committee is also keenly aware that DoD's ability to
ensure access to its lands for military preparedness purposes is
becoming increasingly difficult because:
LAt the same time, new weapons with greater stand-off
distances and changes in war-fighting tactics require DoD to provide
realistic training over much larger areas; and,
LDevelopment outside our installation borders often
triggers the imposition of more pervasive restrictions on DoD lands,
which have become the ``last refuge'' for many threatened and
endangered plants and animals.
Installations and ranges are often forced to implement ``work-
arounds'' to meet new natural resource restrictions and still ensure
that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are adequately trained.
In response to these concerns, the Administration submitted to
Congress last year an eight-provision legislative package, the
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI). Congress enacted
three of those provisions as part of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003. We are grateful to Congress for these
provisions.
Last year, Congress also began consideration of the other five
elements of our Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative. These five
proposals remain essential to range sustainment and are as important
this year as they were last year--maybe more so. The five provisions
submitted this year reaffirm the principle that military lands, marine
areas, and airspace exist to ensure military preparedness, while
ensuring that the Department of Defense remains fully committed to its
stewardship responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, your interests with respect to the reauthorization of
the Sikes Act and the importance of the Sikes Act to the military
mission have a direct bearing on one of the five remaining RRPI
provisions, a provision that would permit approved Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans in appropriate circumstances to substitute
for critical habitat designation.
Mr Chairman, I would briefly like to describe how the work by your
Committee to reauthorize and strengthen the Sikes Act makes this
proposal not only possible, but makes it a sensible approach for both
military responsibilities--readiness and environmental stewardship.
Designation of Critical Habitat
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Secretary of the
Interior is required to designate ``critical habitat'' at the time a
species is listed as threatened or endangered.
While critical habitat designation can provide some benefit to
species that are already listed, the Fish and Wildlife Service believes
that such additional benefits are less than those a species receives
from the initial act of adding it to the list of threatened and
endangered species. For example, under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal
agencies are already prohibited from taking actions that may jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed species.
Despite its view that critical habitat designation typically
duplicates the protections already provided by the jeopardy standard
for most species, the FWS has been inundated with citizen lawsuits
challenging its failure to designate critical habitat.
DoD believes designating critical habitat on military installations
is duplicative, for the most part, because our Sikes Act-mandated
integrated natural management plans already provide the ``special
management considerations or protection'' needed to ensure the survival
and contribute toward the eventual recovery of listed Threatened &
Endangered (T&E) species.
Critical habitat designation overlaid on top of existing and
approved INRMPs unnecessarily limits a commander's ability to manage an
installation appropriately to accommodate both the military mission and
protection of the natural resources.
DoD would like to be given express credit for approved INRMPs, as
we have requested as part of our Readiness and Range Preservation
legislative proposal. We believe the rationale for this proposal is
compelling:
LINRMPs already provide adequately for the conservation
and rehabilitation of natural resources on military bases, including
the habitats necessary to support T&E recovery.
LINRMPs must be prepared ``in cooperation with'' the FWS
and must reflect the ``mutual agreement'' of the parties (i.e., DoD,
FWS, and the State) concerning the conservation, protection, and
management of fish and wildlife resources.
LThe public must be afforded the opportunity to comment on
proposed INRMPs (in accordance with our October 2002 policy on INRMPs,
the Military Services are following the NEPA process to promulgate
their INRMPs).
LMost INRMPs for bases where listed T&E species are
present either will be the subject of a section 7 consultation or will
incorporate pre-existing plans that were themselves the product of an
ESA consultation.
When the Sikes Act was last amended, it had two very innovative
provisions:
LRecognition that certain public land has been dedicated
by Congress to a military purpose--that is, its use as a location for
training military personnel and testing military equipment was
recognized as both necessary and desirable ; and,
LRecognition that a partnership to manage these military
lands involving the Department of Defense, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, appropriate State agencies, and other stakeholders can create
a synergism that is good for all concerned.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, DoD lands are intended to provide and must remain
available to support critical military training, testing, and
operations. This can be accomplished consistent with the maintenance of
biodiversity on these lands, as DoD consistently has shown to be true.
It is in DoD's own interest to ensure that the lands entrusted to
it remain in good health in order to provide for realistic training,
now and in the future.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the Sikes Act and its importance to the
military. We appreciate your strong support of our military, and I look
forward to working with you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Thanks for those
touching words about the original author of the legislation.
Dr. Benjamin Tuggle.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN N. TUGGLE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF FEDERAL
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Tuggle. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony regarding the reauthorization of the Sikes Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the
Subcommittee's interest in conserving fish and wildlife
resources on military installations, and we strongly support
your efforts to reauthorize the Sikes Act.
The biggest land management challenge for the Department of
Defense may be its need to use air, land and water resources
for military training and testing, while conserving natural
resources for future generations. The Sikes Act has provided
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the affected States the
opportunity to help DOD meet this challenge, and we are pleased
to say that we believe DOD has embraced its stewardship
responsibilities for its land management.
We have long recognized the value of conserving fish and
wildlife resources on 25 million acres of DOD managed lands.
Many military installations have been sheltered from adverse
impacts and contain rare and unique plant and animal species
and native habitats. These lands and the species they support
are essential components of the Nation's biodiversity.
The last reauthorization of the Sikes Act in 1997 required
the development and implementation of integrated natural
resource management plans, which I will fondly refer to in the
future as INRMPs, by November 18th, 2001. The law emphasized
that INRMPs should be prepared by installations in cooperation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States. It
anticipated a fully collaborative process to create plans that
effectively conserved, protected, and managed fish and wildlife
resource without compromising military mission.
Our work on INRMPs is conducted primarily by our staff in
our field and regional offices. These employees have large
workloads and numerous responsibilities beyond the Sikes Act.
Despite these challenges, our staffs exerted tremendous effort
to assist DOD in meeting that November 2001 deadline, and we
complete the majority of these INRMPs. We are proud of this
effort and we continue to work extensively with DOD to complete
INRMPs and revise these plans.
My written testimony provides some of the many examples of
successful partnerships that have been forged with DOD through
the Sikes Act, and as a result we have gotten meaningful
conservation benefits. We offer the following thoughts as we
look forward to reauthorization.
The key to successful INRMPs is early involvement of
resource agencies in the development and revision of these
plans. Resource agencies also need to be involved in the
implementation and evaluation of INRMPs. We are working
collaboratively with DOD to help achieve these goals by
developing complementary guidance in terms of how we implement
the Sikes Act.
We also want to maximize our efficiency in reviewing and
approving INRMPs. Approval of INRMPs is important because it
provides DOD with a heightened level of certainty that they are
meeting their environmental responsibilities while continuing
to provide military readiness training. TO aid in the timely
completion and approval of these management plans and to
improve the value of those plans to fish and wildlife
conservation, the Fish and Wildlife Service and DOD have
developed ways to facilitate funding transfers on a
reimbursable basis to hire staff whose only duties are related
to Sikes Act and other environmental coordination issues with
DOD. We would like to continue and expand this partnership to
ensure that our role in developing and implementing INRMPs is a
meaningful and efficient process.
In conclusion, the Fish and Wildlife Service is looking
forward to continuing our cooperation with DOD and the States.
The conservation management expertise of the fish and wildlife
service in the States, combined with the rich natural resources
of DOD installations and DOD's knowledge of training
requirements provides an unprecedented opportunity for
cooperation, management and utilization of these natural
resources. We want to continue our collaboration to development
effective INRMPs that are designed to conserve natural
resources and promote public access and recreation, while
ensuring that military readiness is accomplished.
Mr. Chairman, once again we appreciate your efforts to
authorize the Sikes Act. We are looking forward to working with
you and members of the Subcommittee and our other partners
during the legislative process to identify and enact any
amendment that would approve this most important conservation
law.
This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tuggle follows:]
Statement of Dr. Benjamin N. Tuggle, Chief, Division of Federal Program
Activities, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on the Sikes Act Reauthorization Act
of 2003. The Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates your interest in
conserving fish and wildlife resources on military installations, and
the Subcommittee's leadership efforts to reauthorize the Sikes Act.
The biggest land management challenge for the Department of Defense
(DOD) may be the need to use its air, land, and water resources for
military training and testing while conserving natural resources for
future generations. The Sikes Act has provided the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the affected States the opportunity to help DOD meet this
challenge, and we are pleased to say that we believe DOD has embraced
its stewardship responsibilities for the lands it manages. The Fish and
Wildlife Service, working with the State fish and wildlife agencies,
has established numerous effective partnerships with the military
through the Sikes Act, resulting in collaborative natural resource
management on installations while the military continues to
successfully carry out its missions. We strongly support the
reauthorization of the Sikes Act during this Congress to continue and
expand these cooperative efforts with military installations.
History of the Sikes Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service, the States, and DOD have long
recognized the importance and value of conserving fish and wildlife
resources on military lands. Prior to the enactment of the Sikes Act in
1960, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked with DOD on fisheries
management programs to develop recreational fishing opportunities on
DOD installations. Passage of the Sikes Act formalized these
cooperative efforts and, most importantly, gave Congressional
recognition to the significant potential for fish and wildlife
management and recreation on DOD lands.
Over the decades, the Sikes Act has played an important role to
ensure that fish, wildlife, and other natural resources on military
installations are conserved in ways that are compatible with the
missions of these installations. Subsequent amendments have expanded
the authority of the Act to include improving fish and wildlife
habitats, protecting threatened and endangered species, and developing
multi-use natural resource management plans.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 broadened the scope of DOD
natural resources programs, integrated natural resources programs with
operations and training, embraced the tenets of conservation biology,
invited public review, and strengthened funding for conservation
activities on military lands. Underlying this commitment to conserve
natural resources is the concurrent commitment that the military
mission cannot be compromised. The Act required the development and
implementation of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs)
for relevant installations by November 18, 2001. The Act emphasizes
that the plans are to be prepared in cooperation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies and
anticipated a truly collaborative process with full involvement of
natural resource agencies. INRMPs also provide for public access to
installations for enjoyment of natural resources, when practicable, and
DOD seeks public comments on the plans.
The Sikes Act states that INRMPs shall reflect mutual agreement of
the installation commanders, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
State fish and wildlife agencies. Ideally, all parties reach agreement
on entire plans, but there is a minimum requirement that INRMPs reflect
agreement on elements of plans for conservation, protection, and
management of fish and wildlife resources. The Act neither enlarges nor
diminishes each party's legal authorities. And it is important to note
that INRMPs cannot, and do not, compromise the capability of
installation lands to support the military mission.
Fish and Wildlife Service's roles and responsibilities under the Sikes
Act
When implementing its responsibilities under the Sikes Act, the
Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on: (1) evaluating the impacts of
installation mission and activities on fish and wildlife; (2) ensuring
that habitat important to fish and wildlife is taken into consideration
in the development of INRMPs; and (3) identifying opportunities to
enhance fish and wildlife resources for public benefits while
accomplishing the missions of military installations. Several statutes
guide our involvement in conservation planning, including the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's work on INRMPs is conducted
primarily at the Field and Regional Office levels. The Fish and
Wildlife Service staff that do this work have large workloads and
numerous responsibilities. Despite this, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with State fish and wildlife agencies and DOD, has had
significant accomplishments related to the Sikes Act. In Fiscal Year
2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service expended in excess of $920,000 of
appropriated funds and staff hours equal to over 34 full-time employees
for work done pursuant to the Sikes Act. In Fiscal Year 2002, the Fish
and Wildlife Service expended over $897,000 of appropriated funds and
staff hours equal to approximately 30 full-time employees for this
work. The Fish and Wildlife Service's expenditures involved the
following activities:
Lreviewing and processing INRMPs;
LEndangered Species Act consultation;
Lconducting site reviews and interagency meetings;
Lproviding technical assistance in planning and developing
INRMPs;
Lproviding field technical assistance, such as fish and
wildlife surveys and habitat assessments and restoration; and
Lconducting INRMP implementation actions, such as
population assessment and evaluation, fish stocking, exotic species
control, and hunting, fishing, and environmental education programs.
Most often, the Fish and Wildlife Service becomes involved in the
INRMP process when a draft INRMP is sent to a field office by a
military installation for review and comment. When a Fish and Wildlife
Service field office receives an INRMP, it conducts a complete
programmatic review of the plan within the Fish and Wildlife Service,
including review by the Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife
Management Assistance, National Wildlife Refuges, and Migratory Birds
programs. This ensures that the breadth of expertise in various
programs is brought to bear on these plans and ensures compliance with
the environmental laws administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
After comments are exchanged, revisions made, and agreement reached
(specifically in regards to the conservation, protection, and
management of fish and wildlife resources) between a Fish and Wildlife
Service field office and a military installation, the military
installation sends a final draft INRMP to the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Regional Office. The Regional Sikes Act Coordinator is
responsible for ensuring timely review, coordination, and processing of
the final draft INRMP and facilitating Regional Director approval of
the plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service's agreement to an INRMP is
signified by the approval of the Regional Director.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and State cooperation and
coordination on INRMPs are a continuing process beyond the agency
approval of a plan. INRMPs are reviewed by military installations on a
yearly basis and our feedback is requested during the review concerning
the implementation and effectiveness of the plans. Every 5 years INRMPs
go through a formal review and approval process that involves a public
comment period and coordination again with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and State fish and wildlife agencies.
The benefits of INRMPs to fish and wildlife resources
The Department of Defense manages approximately 25 million acres of
land on its major military installations in the United States, of which
19 million acres are dedicated to Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
Limits on access due to security and safety concerns have sheltered
many of these lands from development and other adverse impacts.
Military lands contain rare and unique plant and animal species and
native habitats such as old-growth forests, tall-grass prairies, and
vernal pool wetlands. Over 300 threatened and endangered species live
on DOD-managed lands. These lands and the species they support are an
essential component of our Nation's biodiversity. Recognizing this, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has worked extensively with the State fish
and wildlife agencies and military installations to develop plans that
will effectively conserve fish and wildlife resources and promote
compatible outdoor recreation, while enhancing military preparedness
through improved stewardship of the land.
The technical expertise of Fish and Wildlife Service employees
combined with State fish and wildlife agencies' expertise and
responsibilities for resident species and DOD's knowledge of training
requirements and their installation's natural resources, allows for an
unprecedented opportunity for cooperative management of substantial
natural resources. Some examples of how we have seized upon this
opportunity follow below:
In August of 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service, three naval
installations (Naval Air Station, Kingsville, Naval Station Ingleside,
and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department signed a charter for the ``South Texas Natural Resources
Partnering Team.'' The vision of this partnering team is to work
cooperatively to achieve environmental compliance and maximize natural
resources stewardship in South Texas, while meeting national defense
requirements. The team has many goals including fostering open
communication, promoting habitat stewardship, coordinating natural
resource protection into active programs, and integrating natural
resource protection in other programs.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has enjoyed a long, productive
relationship with Fort Carson, Colorado. Over approximately 50 years,
Fort Carson and the Fish and Wildlife Service have partnered to provide
sport fishing opportunities, native plant and wildlife research, and
native species restoration programs. We have formed a spirit of
cooperation and friendship that has assisted both parties in overcoming
management barriers. By addressing the entire scope of problems faced
by native species, the Fort Carson environmental program is a model for
progressive natural resource planning. As part of their habitat
conservation efforts, Fort Carson provides full funding for 10 Fish and
Wildlife Service field staff positions. This partnership between Fort
Carson and the Fish and Wildlife Service provides professional habitat
monitoring, INRMP development and implementation, and National
Environmental Policy Act review. By funding Fish and Wildlife Service
positions dedicated to working on Ft. Carson's environmental management
issues, the base has significantly reduced regulatory conflicts and
increased the value of its natural resources, while ensuring its
mission is not compromised.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and DOD working relationships
Coordination on implementing the Sikes Act has led to productive
relationships between the Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and
wildlife agencies and DOD. Following the enactment of the 1997
amendments, the Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife
agencies exerted tremendous effort to help the DOD meet the November
2001 statutory deadline for the completion of INRMPs for all relevant
military installations (approximately 380 installations across the
Nation). A majority of these INRMPs were completed and approved by the
deadline.
As part of the process of attempting to meet the statutory
deadline, in 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with DOD for the ``Ecosystem-Based Management of Fish,
Wildlife and Plant Resources on Military Lands.'' It established a
policy of cooperation and coordination between the DOD and the Fish and
Wildlife Service for the effective and efficient management of fish,
wildlife, and plant resources on military lands. The MOU defined what
INRMPs must address, identified areas in which the Fish and Wildlife
Service has expertise and may be of assistance, and identified the
respective responsibilities of DOD and Fish and Wildlife Service.
In Fiscal Year 2001, 32 military installations provided over $4
million to the Fish and Wildlife Service and $402,000 to the State fish
and wildlife agencies to support natural resource conservation work on
military installations. In Fiscal Year 2002, 21 military installations
provided $2.2 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service and $143,000 to
the State fish and wildlife agencies. Of the funds provided to the Fish
and Wildlife Service in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002, over 60% was
provided to support 12-14 full time Fish and Wildlife Service field
employees working exclusively on Fort Carson and Pueblo Depot
installations in Colorado.
The Fish and Wildlife Service continues to be actively engaged in
coordination with the military and State fish and wildlife agencies
through the Sikes Act Core Group. The Core Group includes
representatives from the DOD and each of the military services, the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service's National Sikes Act Coordinator. The interagency
Core Group is continuing work on a number of efforts to improve
coordination and cooperation among our agencies. For example, in Fiscal
Year 2002, the Core Group assisted the DOD in developing revised Sikes
Act guidance for the military services. The Fish and Wildlife Service
is in the process of finalizing similar national guidance to provide
consistency between agencies in interpretation, and direction for
implementation, of Sikes Act requirements. Our revised guidance will
emphasize the importance of internal and external coordination,
conducted in an expeditious manner, to effectively conserve, protect,
and manage fish and wildlife resources on military lands.
Additional Opportunities under the Sikes Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service believes that the Sikes Act has
provided an important process for affording meaningful conservation
benefits to fish and wildlife on military lands. We offer the following
thoughts as we look forward to reauthorization.
The Fish and Wildlife Service would like to be more involved in the
development and revision of INRMPs, and in the evaluation of the
effectiveness and implementation of INRMPs. We are working
collaboratively with DOD to help address this. Revised DOD Sikes Act
guidance to the military services, issued October 2002, states that
military installations will inform the Fish and Wildlife Service and
State fish and wildlife agencies of their intent to prepare or revise
an INRMP 30 days in advance, and will request our participation. The
Fish and Wildlife Service field offices will participate in the
development of INRMPs as much as feasible. The Fish and Wildlife
Service wants to work more closely with the State fish and wildlife
agencies and to facilitate three-way dialog between military
installations, State fish and wildlife agencies, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
We would also like to perform more thorough reviews of INRMPs,
leading to plans that are more robust in terms of providing benefits to
fish and wildlife resources, while not compromising the military
mission.
Approval of INRMPs is important because it provides DOD with a
heightened level of certainty that they are meeting their environmental
responsibilities while continuing to provide military readiness
training. To aid in the efficient and timely completion and approval of
management plans, and to improve the value of those plans to fish and
wildlife conservation within constrained resources, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and DOD have developed ways to facilitate funding
transfers on a reimbursable basis to hire staff whose only duties are
related to Sikes Act and other coordination issues with DOD. We would
like to ensure that our role in developing and reviewing INRMPs is
meaningful and efficient.
Finally, we note that the Administration's National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 includes DOD's Readiness and
Range Preservation Initiative (Section 316). This initiative includes a
provision which states that INRMPs developed pursuant to the Sikes Act
and that address threatened and endangered species on a military
installation, will provide the special management considerations or
protection required under the Endangered Species Act and will obviate
need for designation of critical habitat on military lands for which
such plans have been completed. The Fish and Wildlife Service notes
that INRMPs may serve as an effective vehicle through which the
military services can comprehensively and pro-actively plan for the
conservation of fish and wildlife species and their habitats.
Conclusion
The Fish and Wildlife Service looks forward to continued
participation and cooperation with the DOD and State fish and wildlife
agencies in maximizing fish and wildlife management potential on
military lands, and integrating this potential into broader resource
protection, restoration, and management efforts. We will continue our
efforts with the military to develop effective Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans that are designed to conserve natural
resources and promote public access and recreation, while enhancing
military preparedness through improved stewardship and sustainability
of DOD lands.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to share with the
Subcommittee this information on the significant opportunities provided
under the authority of the Sikes Act. Again, we appreciate and support
your efforts to reauthorize the Sikes Act, and look forward to working
with you and our partners to identify and enact any amendments that
would improve this important law. I will be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Tuggle.
Mr. John Baughman, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN G. BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Mr. Baughman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, I am John Baughman, Executive Vice President of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As you
know, all 50 of your State agencies are members of our
association, along with Guam.
I am here today to share with you the strong support of our
association for H.R. 1496, Reauthorization of the Sikes Act, as
it applies to military installations.
The 1997 amendments to the Sikes Act, which provide for
enhanced management of fish, wildlife and recreational
resources on military installations remain of great
significance to the State fish and wildlife agencies. Although
the opportunity for management of fish and wildlife resources
on military installations has always existed, the 1997 Sikes
Act Improvement Act amendments mandate that these resources be
managed for the benefit of the public, the natural resources of
the installation, and in cooperation with those responsible for
management of surrounding land areas.
The principal means of doing this is by the development and
implementation of integrated natural resource management plans
through cooperation of the Department of Defense installation,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the respective State
fish and wildlife agency.
The many exemplary installations on which integrated
management plans embody the congressional intent and direction
in the Sikes Act are most often the result of early and
excellent cooperation between the three statutory parties,
adequate funding to the respective agencies, and the
availability of professional staff in all of the agencies with
the time and dedication to devote to fulfilling the integrated
management plan's objectives.
I can firmly assure you of the commitment of the State fish
and wildlife agencies in cooperating with the Department of
Defense and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to advance fish
and wildlife and habitat conservation on military
installations.
There are three areas where we suggest improvements can be
applied to the Sikes Act on the ground, none of which require
statutory amendments in our opinion. First, the cooperation and
consultation among the three statutory partners needs to begin
at the earliest stages of conception and design of the
integrated management plan for the individual installations as
Congress originally intended. Second, the Department of Defense
needs to request and Congress needs to appropriate the
necessary funds to successfully implement management plans. And
third, the Department of Defense needs to ensure that they
retain the professional civilian staff necessary to
successfully design, develop and implement the management
plans.
It seems apparent to us that where mutual agreement on
integrated management plans has not been achieved, it is most
often because the management plan has been more or less
unilaterally prepared by the installation or a contractor, then
presented to the Fish and Wildlife Service and State fish and
wildlife agencies for concurrence. The two principal statutory
tenets of the integrated management plans require that they be
prepared, ``in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior
acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and with the head of the State fish and wildlife agency for the
State in which the military installation is located.''
The law further provides that the resulting management
plans, ``shall reflect the mutual agreement of the parties
concerning conservation, protection and management of fish and
wildlife resources.''
Obviously, cooperation of the statutory parties at the
earliest stages of conception and development of the management
plans is the contemplation of the statute. The Association
strongly encourages the Department of Defense to continue to
remind the Armed Services of the need for and value of early
consultation and cooperation by all three parties. We
appreciate the revised Sikes Act implementation guidance
published by Department of Defense last October which makes it
clear that early consultation is instrumental in achieving
meaningful and successful integrated management plans.
The second recommendation of the association is to
encourage the Department of Defense to request and Congress to
appropriate additional funds for Sikes Act management plan
development and implementation. The Association further
suggests that some of these funds be used by the Department of
Defense to contract with the State fish and wildlife agency to
develop the integrated management plan for the installation in
cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the base.
Third, there are continuing concerns regarding the loss of
civilian professional natural resource positions in favor of
contracting or outsourcing these functions. We strongly
encourage the Department of Defense to reexamine the basis for
outsourcing as opposed to retaining civilian staff in these
capacities. We believe the functions performed by the
Department of Defense professional biologists on military
installations are appropriate Government functions. These are
long-term programs on public lands, and the fish and wildlife
resources found on these lands are held in trust by the State
and Federal Governments for the benefits of the citizens.
While some labor-type conservation positions can certainly
be contracted out, we strongly support the retention of
professionally trained civilian biologists to oversee fish and
wildlife and natural resource conservation programs on
installations.
In summary, the Association strongly supports H.R. 1497 and
reiterates our commitment to working closely with both the
Department of Defense and the Service in successful development
and implementation of meaningful integrated management plans on
installations. The security of our Nation and its fish and
wildlife resources both are well served by the application of
the Sikes Act to military lands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the
association's perspective, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]
Statement of John Baughman, Executive Vice Preisdent,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am John Baughman, Executive Vice-
President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and I'm here today to share with you the strong support of
the Association for H.R. 1497, reauthorization of the Sikes Act as it
applies to military installations. The Association applauds the
significant progress for fish and wildlife conservation that has been
made through the cooperation of the Department of Defense (DoD)
installations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and State fish
and wildlife agencies since the passage of the Sikes Act Improvement
Act in 1997. While improvements can and should be made, and we will
suggest some areas for attention, I believe we can all be proud of the
conservation benefits achieved from this often unknown and unheralded
success story of public lands management on approximately 25 Million
acres. Our successes have certainly substantiated that not only is
achievement of the military preparedness mission and sound stewardship
of the land and its fish and wildlife resources not mutually exclusive,
they are indeed mutually necessary and beneficial.
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was
founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies
charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and
wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include the
fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal
Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members.
The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource
management and strengthening Federal, state, and private cooperation in
protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the
public interest.
The 1997 amendments to the Sikes Act, which provide for enhanced
management of fish, wildlife and recreational resources on military
installations, remain of great importance to state fish and wildlife
agencies. States, as you know, have primary management responsibility
and authority for fish and wildlife resources found within state
borders, including on most public lands.
Although the opportunity for management of fish and wildlife
resources on military installations has always existed, the 1997 Sikes
Act Improvement Act amendments mandate that these resources be managed
for the benefit of the public, the natural resources of the
installation, and in cooperation with those responsible for management
of the surrounding land areas. The principal means of doing this is
through the development and implementation of the Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) through the cooperation of the DoD
installation, USFWS and respective State fish and wildlife agency. With
respect to the fish and wildlife conservation provisions of INRMPs, the
Act compels mutual agreement of the 3 statutory partners. The Sikes Act
was intended to assure continued and active participation and
cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies for all phases of
fish and wildlife management on military installations, from planning
and design to implementation and monitoring of the plans.
The many exemplary installations on which INRMPs embody the
Congressional intent and direction in the SAIA of 1997 are most often
the result of early and excellent cooperation between the 3 statutory
parties, adequate funding to the respective agencies, and the
availability of professional staff in the 3 agencies with the time and
dedication to devote to fulfilling the INRMP objectives. While all of
the 3 statutory partners will acknowledge that some problems and issues
remain unresolved at some individual installations, I believe that all
of the partners are committed to finding solutions to those problems. I
can firmly assure you of the commitment of the State fish and wildlife
agencies to cooperating with DoD and the USFWS to advance fish,
wildlife and habitat conservation on military installations.
There are 3 areas where we suggest improvements can be applied to
the application of the Sikes Act on the ground, none of which require
statutory amendments in our opinion. First, the cooperation and
consultation among the 3 statutory partners needs to began at the
earliest stages of conception and design of the INRMP for the
individual installation, as Congress originally intended in the SAIA
amendments mandating the preparation and implementation of INRMPs.
Second, DoD needs to request and Congress needs to appropriate the
necessary funds to successfully implement INRMPs. And third, DoD needs
to ensure that they retain the professional civilian staff necessary to
successfully design, develop and implement INRMPs in cooperation with
the USFWS and State fish and wildlife agencies.
First, let me compliment and thank DoD for the revisions to their
Sikes Act Implementation Guidance which was published in October of
last year. The revisions to this guidance make it clear that early
consultation between the 3 parties is instrumental in achieving
meaningful and successful INRMPs.
Without belaboring the point, it seems apparent to us that where
mutual agreement on INRMPs has not been achieved, it is most often
because the INRMP had been prepared essentially by the installation or
its contractor, and then presented to the USFWS and State fish and
wildlife agency for concurrence. The 2 principal statutory tenets of
INRMPs require that they be prepared ``in cooperation'' with the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the USFWS,
and with the head of each appropriate State fish and wildlife agency
for the state in which the military installation is located. The law
further provides that the resulting INRMP ``shall reflect the mutual
agreement of the parties concerning conservation, protection and
management of fish and wildlife resources''. Obviously, cooperation of
the statutory parties, begun at the earliest stages of conception and
development of the INRMP, is the contemplation of the statute. Such
cooperation should go far to reconcile potential differences, and
consensus building and problem solving throughout the process will most
likely facilitate the ``mutual agreement'' required by the statute. The
Association strongly encourages DoD to continue to remind the Armed
Services of the need for and value of early consultation and
cooperation by all 3 parties.
I will acknowledge that some of our State fish and wildlife
agencies have not had the staff or budget to participate as fully in
the development of INRMPs as the law contemplates. This leads me to the
second recommendation of the Association which is to encourage DoD to
request, and Congress to appropriate, additional funds for Sikes Act
INRMP development and implementation. And, the Association would
further suggest that some of the these funds should be used by DoD to
contract with the State fish and wildlife agency to develop the INRMP
for the installation in cooperation with USFWS and the base. Mutual
agreement would still be required, of course, and the State fish and
wildlife agency would have to review the plan through its appropriate
chain of command, but especially in circumstances where State fish and
wildlife agency budgets are a limiting factor, this contracting by DoD
to the state would greatly facilitate arriving at an INRMP that will
engender mutual agreement.
Finally, we are aware of continuing concerns regarding the loss of
civilian professional natural resource positions in favor of
contracting or out-souring these functions. We strongly encourage DoD
to re-examine the basis for doing this as opposed to retaining civilian
staff in these capacities. We believe that the functions performed by
DoD professional biologists on military installation are appropriate
governmental functions. These are public lands, and the fish and
wildlife resources found on them are held in trust by the state and
Federal Governments for the benefit of all citizens. While some
``laborer'' type skills in carrying out conservation programs can
certainly be contracted out, we strongly support the retention of
professionally trained civilian biologists in permanent career
positions to oversee the fish and wildlife and natural resource
conservation programs on installations. We see no difference between
the need to retain these functions under permanent professional staff
on a DoD installation and retaining these functions under similar type
staff on a National Wildlife Refuge.
In summary, the Association strongly supports H.R. 1497 and
reiterates our commitment to working closely with both DoD and USFWS in
successful development and implementation of meaningful INRMPs on
installations. The security of our Nation and its fish and wildlife
resources both are well-served by the application of the Sikes Act to
military installations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the
Association perspectives with you, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Baughman.
What I would like to do is try to clear up some ambiguity
that I have regarding the integrated natural resource
management plans and a number of other statutes that are
probably much older. For example, you have the Marine Mammal
Protection Act which impacts a number of military
installations, and you have the Endangered Species Act which
impacts those installations as well, and you have this
integrated natural resource management plan which is to create
a management plan for the natural resources and fish and
wildlife and also for endangered species.
I think it is a job for us to try to understand which is
the best route to take in order to protect wildlife, natural
resource areas, and endangered species. One of the best ways,
in my mind, to protect endangered species is to create habitat
for those species, but habitat in a way that is somewhat
different from the statute I guess because a statute deals with
an individual species and an individual critical habitat for
those species. I think if we get away from the idea of
individual species and individual habitat for that species, and
just look at a broad range of areas, we would be doing fish and
wildlife a favor.
So I guess the question is, when you develop these
integrated natural resource management plans, and I cannot get
the acronym, INRMP, I guess that is what it is, INRMP? It
sounds like Enron. INRMPs or something, I'll say integrated
natural resource management plan.
When you are developing these management plans with DOD,
with State fish and game, with Interior, how well does ESA and
MMPA complement or complicate these management plans?
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Chairman, let me go first on that if I
might. You have accurately outlined some of the relationships
between, and specifically between the Endangered Species Act
and the Sikes Act, and it is important I think to understand
why we, in the Department of Defense, believe, and I believe
the Department of Interior concurs, why we believe that the
integrated natural resource management plans, as mandated by
Congress on the Department for the purposes of managing habitat
on our installations, why is it better?
Yesterday I was discussing this with Jim Connaughton, the
Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, and we were
looking at it not just as the Sikes Act, per se, but in a more
general way, how best to manage habitat and manage wildlife
resources. Jim was very good, I think, in saying that it is
critical--and this is where the key differences occur between
Endangered Species Act and the Sikes Act--it is critical to
deal with these issues in an integrated, in a multi-species
approach. The Endangered Species Act looks at species, by
species, by species. Critical habitat for that particular
species, critical habitat for that particular species. On the
other hand, the Sikes Act--and I would submit is a better way
to manage--it looks at ecosystems. It looks at this issue
holistically, and it looks at both ecosystems and land
planning.
Now, we could take the Sikes Act, take it out of the
context of the military, and one could conclude that is a
fairly intelligent way to do it whether it was a military
installation or a wildlife refuge, but I would submit that the
long-term planning, as I think has been outlined here by Dr.
Tuggle, the proactive aspect of Sikes vice the reactive aspect
of the Endangered Species Act, points out a very useful
difference, if you will, useful to us, useful to the Fish and
Wildlife Service, useful for the State and local regulators
with whom, as has been testified, we must coordinate. Mr.
Baughman's comment that in the past some installations did not
do the coordination that they should. I appreciate the fact
that Mr. Baughman did refer to my October 2002 memo, where I
made it absolutely clear or as clear as I could possibly make
it, to the service secretaries that an approach which included
the coordination with other stakeholders was the only way to
go.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. DuBois.
Dr. Tuggle, could you comment on how the integrated natural
resource plans, these managements complement or complicate ESA
or Marine Mammal Protection Act?
Mr. Tuggle. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the
stewardship responsibilities that the Department of Defense
have often times run afoul or run in conflict to some of the
other land management activities that we would like to put in
place in terms of trying to preserve our natural resources.
I think to echo some of the things that Mr. DuBois has
said, we have approached these plans from the standpoint of
looking at it as an opportunity to look at the ecosystem and
try to manage the ecosystem from the standpoint of what the
species actually require. The species by species management of
these kinds of properties is extremely difficult because in
some instances you may be in a situation where you are managing
against one at the expense of the other.
The integrated natural resource management plans provide a
fair amount of certainty to the DOD installations primarily
because they have the opportunity to examine what their
military preparedness needs are, and at the same time look long
term in terms of what they may be trying to manage for
particular ecosystem management principles.
We support these plans, I think, primarily because it gives
the service an opportunity to look at these habitats from an
oversight standpoint and a consultation standpoint with DOD,
and help them make sure that the management principles that
they are applying on their installations don't compromise the
main mission for the military, but at the same time, provide
the augmentation that ensure that these resources will have
habitats into the coming generations.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baughman, would you care to comment?
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us
would be derelict if we didn't look for some opportunities
between the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammals Act, and
the Sikes Act, to come up with some efficiencies and better
ways of doing business, and certainly the concept in the Sikes
Act offers that avenue to look at the habitats and the species
as a community. Those are things we should seize upon, look at
ways to be more efficient to streamline the Act.
As important as looking at the relationship to the
Endangered Species Act, which may actually require some
additional policy work to get things working smoothly, even
more important I think are some of those species at risk that
are not on that list yet that could be, and to come up with
ways that the Department of Defense and the bases receive
credit and recognition and some assurances that what they are
doing will keep them out of that Endangered Species arena, and
we have worked with the States and with the service on some
methods for developing what we are calling State Conversation
Agreements, and I think the technical part of preparing these
plans fits very nicely with what we anticipated in other areas
and States to protect some of these key habitats and the
assemblages of species in there. So I think we have a
tremendous opportunity, and actually some of the work done on
these bases can be a model for some of the things we can do
with endangered species, and preventing endangered species
elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Baughman. Maybe we
can replicate that in other areas, and hopefully not get to the
point where the sole open space in any community happens to be
the military facility. So these integrated management plans
might be replicated in other places, so there is more than just
the military base for critical habitat that is left.
I will yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are to Mr. DuBois, and I have a few of them,
so if you could try to answer quickly. I know I shouldn't say
that, but I am going to because the time is limited.
As you know, a DOD memorandum was leaked in the beginning
of the year that laid out a long-term strategy of which the
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative is an integral
part. This year exemptions for the military to five
environmental laws including RCRA, CERCLA, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, ESA and the Clean Water Act have been
requested, and one of these exemptions alluded to for the
future would be a national security exemption for the Sikes
Act.
My first question is, is the effort by the DOD to
substitute INRMPs for critical habitat designation simply the
precursor to then seeking exemption from the Sikes Act all
together?
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Pallone, I just wanted to clarify. We are
not seeking any exemptions under the Clean Water Act. We are
seeking a clarification to the Clear Air Act with respect to
the time necessary to achieve air quality within certain areas.
Mr. Pallone. OK, but what about Sikes?
Mr. DuBois. We are not addressing the Sikes Act in our
Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative. We did not request
a national security exemption under the Sikes. We did, in
response to last year's questions to me from the Congress with
respect to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is one of
the statutes that does not currently have a national security
exemption or waiver. We have in this year's submission to
Congress included language which would afford a national
security exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, in
response to questions--
Mr. Pallone. So it is definitely not Sikes, even though
that has been alluded to?
Mr. DuBois. Correct. It is not Sikes.
Mr. Pallone. We can rest assured.
Mr. DuBois. Yes. And point of fact, as I indicated, we
would like to see the Sikes Act be the operative act, as
Congress mandated originally, with respect to habitat
designation and land use management on installations and not
the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Pallone. Let me ask you in that regard. I understand
what you are saying, but I guess I have two questions. One is,
what is the legal basis at this point for using INRMPs instead
of critical habitat or ESA designation? And then I guess
secondarily, why not do both?
Mr. DuBois. Well, we asked a similar question because when
we were honoring our obligation under the Sikes Act, the
mandate of Congress to execute those integrated natural
resource management plans on installations in coordination with
the Fish and Wildlife Service, we were under the impression by
virtue of the legislative history here, that the INRMPs under
the Sikes Act would suffice with respect to habitat
designation. Now, according--
Mr. Pallone. Wasn't there a court opinion recently that
said the opposite?
Mr. DuBois. The court case quite correctly--actually, I
think it pertained to the Forest Service, but we see it as
applicable to our situation also--where a Federal judge held
that no matter how good an integrated natural resource
management plan, no matter how well received, designed,
approved by Fish and Wildlife, concurred with the State
regulators, no INRMPs could ever substitute for critical
habitat designation.
Mr. Pallone. So that is the law. Are you still--you are
obviously--
Mr. DuBois. That is why we have asked Congress to clarify.
Mr. Pallone. In other words, you want us to change the law,
I understand.
Mr. DuBois. That is correct.
Mr. Pallone. But right now you do both essentially. In
other words, right now you feel that you are doing the INRMPs
because you want to but you still--
Mr. DuBois. Well, Congress mandated that we do the INRMPs.
Mr. Pallone. But in other words, right now you are doing
both essentially?
Mr. DuBois. We are doing the INRMPs, as mandated by
Congress to the military, and there are situations where we
could get sued or--excuse me--the Fish and Wildlife Service
gets sued for having approved or concurred in our INRMPs, and
they are then stopped or enjoined from, as we both are, from
moving forward with the implementation of that INRMPs because
the Endangered Species, they say, the third party--
Mr. Pallone. I don't mean to keep interrupting. I am just
running out of time.
So what you are saying, if I understand it, is where the
ESA is applicable and the critical habitat designations are
being made, then you don't do the INRMPs; where that is not the
case, you do the INRMPs?
Mr. DuBois. We do the INRMPs, and we were suggesting that
the INRMPs are a better way to designate habitat and manage it,
not the ESA.
Mr. Pallone. What you would like to do is get rid of the
critical habitat designation and just do the INRMPs.
Mr. DuBois. We would like Congress to clarify that INRMPs
are the best way for the military to pursue habitat management
and designation, not ESA.
Mr. Pallone. And you would not advocate continuing with the
status quo where you have to do the critical habitat where
applicable and you do the INRMPs where it isn't?
Mr. DuBois. Our view would be that the INRMPs is better to
manage and designate.
Mr. Pallone. For all situations, for all those situations?
Mr. DuBois. For the situations--remembering too that--
Mr. Pallone. Just tell me why again. What is the problem in
doing both? What is the problem of the status quo in the sense
that you would have to do the critical habitat where it is
applicable and doing the INRMPs where it isn't? Why do you see
that as a problem?
Mr. DuBois. Well, as a practical matter, if we have
designated habitat under the Sikes Act and are accomplishing an
objective that the ESA would like us to accomplish, but doing
it better, as we discussed, multi-species not individual
species, and--I will be very blunt about this--Congress needs
to clarify the law by virtue of the fact that we are now being
restrained by certain court actions brought by third parties
with respect to the utilization of lands designated by Congress
for military training, such as the Camp Pendleton situation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Marines had agreed upon
an INRMPs at Pendleton. They were sued. Fish and Wildlife
Service was sued. That was insufficient. The Endangered Species
Act, where it to be allowed--and I will defer to Dr. Tuggle
here--but 57 percent of Camp Pendleton could arguably, under
the Endangered Species Act, be totally restricted from
training. The integrated natural resource management plan would
say that there can be a balance with respect to the management
and use of that land, not totally restricted as would be the
case under Endangered Species. But I want to defer to Dr.
Tuggle in this regard.
Mr. Tuggle. I am not sure that I want to be referred to. I
think our position primarily is one that we look for the
conservation benefits. The integrated natural resource
management plans give us a lot more flexibility in terms of how
we deal with these species on an ecosystem basis. The plans
that we have that are in place that truly do address our
special management considerations and protections, we feel very
strongly would substitute for critical habitat designation.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. And we can have a
second round of questions if there are any more that you might
have.
Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Chairman, I am a guest, and I wouldn't
take my position before the gentlelady from Guam, and I would
yield to her. And then as a guest, I would like to ask some
questions, but I would yield to the gentlelady if that is all
right with the Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentlelady from Guam is recognized.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I have a couple of questions for Mr. DuBois. Is that the
way to pronounce your name?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. In follow up to Mr. Pallone's questions, in
light of perhaps DOD's pursuit in the future to provide for a
national security exemption in the Sikes Act. If the Department
is concerned with critical habitat designation, why hasn't the
Department utilized the national security exemptions already
provided for in the ESA and the Sikes Act?
Mr. DuBois. This is a question, of course, that we have
been asked many times. One must remember that the Presidential
waiver or a secretarial national security waiver is to be used
in extremis. In other words, when the paramount interests of
the United States, as the lawyers will tell you, is at stake,
and one must remember that we cannot come to the President or
the Secretary of Defense on a daily basis asking for and
exemption for a training exercise at Camp Swampy tomorrow
afternoon.
One of the other problems that we face--and I don't mean to
be flippant about this--one of the other problems that we face
is that asking for an exemption is asking for relief almost
after the fact. If we are sending, as we are today, our sons
and daughters into harm's way in Iraq, I would submit that
asking for an exemption for training them, it is a bit late.
They are already on their way. We need to be able to train them
every day, nearly 365 days out of the year, in anticipation
that some day, unfortunately, the President will have to commit
troops into combat. Again, you have on either end of the
spectrum--on the one end you could say, well, use your national
security exemptions for all your training exercise. Well, that
would mean every day going into the Secretary and into the Oval
Office, where it is a Presidential exemption requirement,
asking for a training exemption or waiver.
On the other hand, if we were to ask for a very broad
waiver, all training exercises at Fort Irwin or Anderson Air
Force Base in Guam for an entire year, the breadth of that kind
of request would inevitably foster lawsuits trying to enjoin us
from doing so. So it is a useful tool but in a very narrow
sense, and we do not believe its utility works in the situation
that we are facing today.
Ms. Bordallo. Perhaps there wouldn't be any need for this
particular exemption.
Mr. DuBois. The only national security exemption that we
are asking for this year, and it was quite frankly in response
to a request from I believe the Senate Armed Services
Committee, was to include it where it didn't exist in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. So at their request, we included
it, but as I indicated, I don't think that it has a high degree
of utility with respect to the issues that we are faced with
every day.
Ms. Bordallo. The second question I have, Mr. Chairman, is
also for Mr. DuBois.
You mentioned in your opening statement the RRPI request of
the Department of Defense to amend the ESA to, quote, as you
said, ``prevent duplicating conservation management work,'' and
you further stated that INRMPs would serve as adequate
substitutes for ESA critical habitat designation under
appropriate circumstances.
Where and when might there be inappropriate circumstances?
Mr. DuBois. Not being clairvoyant I don't know that there
are--most of the circumstances that I can think of that I have
been exposed to--and I have been exposed to and I visited 92 or
93 military installations and training ranges in this
responsibility that I now have. I believe that INRMPs are going
to be applicable in almost all circumstances. I would submit,
however--and this may be in partial answer to Mr. Pallone's
question--there may be situations where the Endangered Species
Act is more appropriate, but we think the primary
responsibility for critical habitat designation and management
ought to be mandated to the Department from the Sikes Act and
not the ESA. I suspect however that in the consultation, which
is required under Sikes, with Fish and Wildlife Service, with
State regulators, there might be circumstances where they say
aspects of the Endangered Species Act need to be incorporated
in the INRMPs program that we would be designing, and that I
would not reject.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
The gentleman from California?
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
Committee for allowing me to even be here.
Years ago we established a program with Lew Deal. It was
based on Lew Deal's entire program. I didn't invent it. I
wasn't the originator of it. It was Colonel Deal's. But what it
did, it enabled disabled sportsmen to participate in
recreational activities on military bases. I think it has been
marvelous. I have witnessed individuals with disabilities and
seen firsthand the things that they can do, like I mentioned
going down on a dock with a wheelchair and having a rail there
so you could fish and not be afraid that you were going to fall
in.
But one of the concerns is that many of the base commanders
aren't aware of the program, and I would say, Mr. DuBois, that
if you could, in a directive or something, push this for our
disabled sportsmen, both military and civilian, I think it
would help the issue. Would you be willing to do that?
Mr. DuBois. Of course, Mr. Cunningham. In fact, last
summer, in August of 2002, in response in no small measure to
letters that I had received from paralyzed veterans and others
who wanted to use, where appropriate, our lands and piers and
so forth, I issued a policy memo to the service secretaries, to
the military departments, and I didn't want to tell them, as
they say in the old country, how to suck eggs, but I said to
them, ``Look, you have the encouragement of the Secretary of
Defense to implement the provisions of the Sikes Act,'' and I
enumerated them Section 103, ``that is to say, provide persons
with disabilities access to the same outdoor recreation
opportunities, including fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife
viewing, boating and camping, as it is afforded to the general
public.''
Now, we have worked closely with these organizations, the
PVA and others, as I indicated, to accept donations of various
items of equipment the would enable disabled folks to use these
installations, and just as an example, Camp Lejeune, Naval
Weapon Station Yorktown, Little Rock Air Force Base Arkansas,
Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi, all have accepted
donations. There are plans at Fort Chaffee, Fort Benning, Fort
Bragg, MacDill. This is a program that is not only
enthusiastically, as you have indicated, sir, enthusiastically
received by sportsmen, but there are also various Members of
Congress, in particular yourself, who have reminded us and help
us in this regard, and I do thank you.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I would say I
went through flight training at Meridian. The only thing open
on Friday night is Sears.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cunningham. So you have to find something to do there.
My next heartburn I think is I also sit on the Defense
Appropriations Committee and every single one of the four stars
have testified that training has been inhibited on their bases,
both in the air, the land and the sea, to extreme measures in
some case. Pendleton was, for example, mentioned. Right now if
you want to use a sea invasion, and coming ashore, they
actually have to climb out of their landing craft, after they
hit the beach, they have to walk through a very narrow path to
go over onto the other side where they can train. They can't
even dig foxholes. You see on TV these kids--I mean there is an
art to it, especially in different kinds of terrain. They can't
even dig foxholes, and in some areas the troops are literally
carrying cardboard boxes to simulate tanks. And this type of
training is why I am alive today. I flew in two war zones, and
I am alive today, even coming down in a parachute, the training
of how to land in the water, and they didn't want us to use
dye. I wanted to use shark repellant myself coming down. Those
kind of things keep our kids alive, and I think there is a
strange dichotomy in Members of the Congress, and quite often
you will find members, because of their districts or whatever
it is, have a very low rating on supportive defense, but a very
high rating on environmental issues which often are in
conflict.
I love to hunt and fish, and most of the game wardens I
grew up with in Missouri were outdoorsmen and fishermen, but it
seems to me that many of them have been replaced with young
kids that come out of our colleges and universities who have
more of an environmental non-use, anti-hunting, than people
like Mr. Sikes, that love the outdoors, and I think there is a
conflict there, and that is why I support having a waiver for
military training because I believe it keeps our kids alive.
The Endangered Species Act in California has stopped us
from doing a lot of things. In some areas that is good, but I
can name for you 100 different things that have hurt people
that manage the land better than anybody else, and they are our
ranchers, our farmers and our military. They can't, in
Pendleton, the only are we really have desert tortoise is where
we have been training for the last 80 years, in Pendleton, and
the tortoise love it there. They survive there. They have been
there in all of this training, with tanks and things running
around, for 80 years, but yet they want to stop the training in
a lot of these areas, and it is a strange dichotomy as far as
wanting to train our kids.
I would read to you here. It said, ``INRMPs must be
prepared in cooperation with FWS,'' and then up here it says in
the testimony, ``Critical habitat designation typically
duplicates the protections already provided in jeopardy, and
FWS has been inundated with citizen lawsuits challenging its
failure to designate critical habitat.'' That is what I am
talking about. Even though we meet the requirements, the
extreme environmental groups still come in with lawsuits which
inhibits our training.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, Mr. Cunningham. And this refers I think in
some measure to Chairman Gilchrest's comment about, are we in
conflict or not? There is a conflict. Now, no one in the
Defense Department, certainly not myself nor Secretary
Rumsfeld, has suggested that we are trying to exempt ourselves
from the activities that normally take place with respect to
the environmental statutes of this country. We are carefully,
narrowly crafting clarifications that we hope Congress will
adopt that pertain solely to operational ranges and training
and readiness activities.
Now, you and Chairman Gilchrest and I share something. We
were all soldiers once and young, and we all trained with live-
fire ammunition, we all trained before we went into combat, all
three of us in Vietnam, and I suspect that in some way, as you
have indicated, the three of us are sitting here today because
of that effective live-fire training. No greater obligation
does the Secretary of Defense have than to provide that to the
young people in uniform today.
Camp Pendleton, as you pointed out, 17 mile beach, less
than 1,500 meters today are unrestricted for training. The
artificiality that now takes place at places like Camp
Pendleton, coming ashore as a combat unit to effectively storm
an area inland, they have to stop, either walk down a path with
like police ribbons on either side of it, then start their
combat training again, stop, get in a truck, go on a road, get
out. This kind of artificiality is clearly not good. What is
the level of not good, I can't tell you.
Let us be perfectly clear. Our troops in Iraq have
demonstrated absolute superb performance. The question is not
whether those units have a high level of readiness by virtue of
the training they received here in the United States, but
whether or not the training lands that have been set aside by
Congress for this purpose can continue to provide a high degree
of fidelity where we can continue to use live ammunition. This
is what we are really faced with today.
Mr. Tuggle. Mr. Cunningham, may I add something to this?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Mr. Tuggle. I think that we continue to talk about
Pendleton as if it is the epitome of this operation not
functioning properly, and I--
Mr. Cunningham. I can talk to you about Mirimar also.
Mr. Tuggle. And I would not disagree that we have our
issues out there, and most of them are in California. But I
would also offer that we have been working diligently to try to
work out these problems with the military. The opportunity to
talk to them early in the process, to be sensitized to what
their military needs are, help us to stay out of these
quagmires in terms of what the military needs to have their
operations being run at a timely fashion, to train our young
men and women for combat.
I don't want to be in a situation where we are simply
saying that integrated natural resource management plans are
not effective, because they are. They provide a mechanism for
us to plan. They provide a mechanism for us to conserve, but
they also provide an opportunity for us to identify problems,
particularly as it relates to endangered species, early in the
process so that we can develop methods by which we can employ
these operations and still preserve these habitats, and I agree
with you--
Mr. Cunningham. If the gentleman would yield, I support the
integrated natural resource management plans. My problem is
where they go awry and we allow the extreme issues to take
over, override the training. That is my only heartburn issue.
Mr. Tuggle. And I would agree with you, and I would submit
that when we have the opportunity to sit down early in the
process and consult with these military installations, the
opportunity to work out those differences are a lot greater.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
I have just one other question. I would like to make a
comment. If you are 85, then, Ray, we are still relatively
young. So probably living quite a distinct different lifestyle
now than we did 40 years ago. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton
and Camp Lejeune and all these other places, and we drove
tanks, and we used live fire, and we dug fox holes, and we did
all this including in places like Vieques and numerous other
facilities.
But we didn't have a concept or an understanding of an
ecosystem back then, and it was also a lot more habitat back
then for species 40 years ago. So it is the loss of habitat
across the civilian areas of this country that makes it more
critical and a sense of urgency to save species wherever we
can, and fortunately or unfortunately, many of our open spaces
that are near built-up areas are military facilities. So what
we will try to do as we go through a consideration for amending
the Sikes Act is to understand the absolute urgency for
training, which is critical, also understanding that an
informed recognition of habitat for a species is an important
arena for us to stay involved in, and so we will. We will try
to make that critical balance between habitat and training on
military installations, and in a broader sense, work even more
diligently and harder to use those kind of ecosystem concepts
that you are implementing on the military facilities for lands
around the country. We had a concept of no net loss of wetlands
about 10 years ago. I think that the concept of increasing
wetland acreage and increasing habitat is an important issue
that we need to deal with. But we will work with all of you to
try to balance what is clearly an important issue here.
If you could all just briefly comment on outsourcing, which
is another critical issue that we have, from your individual
perspective, outsourcing of contracts for professional
biologists, is it a good thing? Can it be done? Some people are
asking for an amendment to establish a moratorium on
contracting out and outsourcing authority. So just a quick
comment on the idea of outsourcing.
We can start with Mr. Baughman.
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The thing that
concerns us with outsourcing is that part of it is a lack of
dedication, a lack of continuous dedication that you might get
with a turnover of biologists overseeing these programs. Most
companies just make a profit. When you have people on staff,
you ensure the continuity of the program, and we feel that
there is more of a dedication to that resource. Like it or not,
I think a lot of these people, they develop a personal
ownership for those resources, and we think it works better.
Mr. DuBois mentioned the fact that certainly we wouldn't
want to not look at competition in some cases, and that
competition which would involve the government as well as
private contractors. I think there certainly is room for that
competition in most cases. I think the Government can do that
job very well and compete, but I think that dedication and
continuity are our big concerns.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Tuggle.
Mr. Tuggle. I would echo my colleague from International's
statements earlier, and I would defer to either of them. But I
would also share with you that we have at least anecdotal
evidence that when we receive integrated natural resource
management plans in a draft condition for our initial review,
generally they are better when they are prepared by these
professionals that are at the installations for the very same
reasons that we are talking about. They are the ones that are
on the ground. They have the long-term memory. They are in a
place where they understand what those management implications
are in terms of not only what takes place on the installation,
but also the surrounding environment outside of the fences of
the installation.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Tuggle.
Mr. DuBois?
Mr. DuBois. I think that, as I indicated, in those cases
where the natural resources management decisions to be made
reflect issues of enforcement or reflect issues of value
judgments at the managerial or policy level, policymaking
levels, the Department will ensure that these decisions are
made and continue to be made by Government employees.
But where the work to be done is more in the nature of a
service, the performance of field surveys, the implementation
of agreed-upon habitat improvement projects, routine timber
stand thinning, for instance, I think it is appropriate to
decide on a case-by-case basis whether the work ought to be
performed best and most efficiently by civil servants or by
Federal and State agencies, by NGO's or by the private sector.
But in no case, however, will we compromise our capability
to ensure the protection of the resources entrusted to us.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. DuBois.
I will yield now to my good friend from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.
DuBois a couple of questions, and then I wanted to go to Mr.
Tuggle.
Mr. DuBois, does the DOD have data showing the difference
in either military readiness or achievement of conservation
goals when a critical habitat designation is in place as
opposed to an INRMP? Do you have data that shows that
difference?
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Pallone, as you know, you have asked I
guess two important questions. One is data pertaining to
military readiness. Pursuant to the GAO's request and
Congress's request of me last year, I put into place an effort
to try to quantify, as I indicated, there is military unit
training readiness reporting, which we do have. But what we
don't have--and GAO pointed this out--we don't have readiness
reporting for the facility, the training range itself. The
Marines and the Army, in separate efforts, have tried to
quantify this and put into place ways to be able to effectively
report to the Secretary and ultimately to the Congress. So that
is one area that we are trying to do better.
Mr. Pallone. Well, let me ask you this. You mention this
GAO report. This is the one in March of this year?
Mr. DuBois. This was a GAO report from 2 years ago.
Mr. Pallone. But the GAO report from 2 years ago said that
the readiness reports didn't indicate the extent to which
environmental regulations restrict combat training, right? But
then there was another one in this March that said that a new
comprehensive reporting system to improve the accuracy or
readiness assessment is still years away. 2007, I guess. How
are we going to evaluate to the extent to which these critical
habitat designations have restricted training? I mean, we won't
be able to--
Mr. DuBois. We have extensive evidence, and I believe the
GAO report indicated there is a serious impact on the ability
of these training ranges to provide--I think it is even on page
9, if I remember correctly, because I had to quote it when I
was testifying in front of the Senate--there have been and
continue to be impacts, negative impacts on training and
readiness.
The extent to which--and I think it is important to clarify
a mistake made by the Washington Post recently, where--
Mr. Pallone. You can talk about the Washington Post, but
you know what I am trying to get at. I understand there may be
some impacts, but you are saying, ``We would rather do the
INRMPs than the critical habitat. We want legislation to
clarify that.'' But how can I evaluate that as a Member of
Congress unless we have something that says how one system
versus the other impacts readiness? I am not going to get that.
How do I move forward with any kind of legislative remedy until
I have something to compare. That is what I am asking.
Mr. DuBois. It is a valid question, and we have evidence
today, and we will have better evidence by the end of this
year, on the impacts, the negative impacts on our ability to
train, on our ability to use these training ranges effectively
with a high degree of fidelity, negative impacts on the basis
of the third party lawsuits that have been brought against us,
whether it is under endangered species or CERCLA and RCRA, as
was the case in Fort Richardson in Alaska, as was the case in
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that Congress did act on last
year.
Mr. Pallone. Are you going to put in place--again, I am not
trying to be difficult, but are you going to try to put in
place some kind of reporting system or some way for me to make
this evaluation?
Mr. DuBois. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. When do you think we will get that?
Mr. DuBois. I do not believe I will have that information
even in its most preliminary form, until sometime in late
summer or early fall.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. DuBois. And I am answering you honestly.
Mr. Pallone. No, that is fine.
Mr. DuBois. The issue is joined. I think Congressman
Cunningham made the comment about years ago--excuse me--
Chairman Gilchrest, we didn't know what an ecosystem was. 25
years Secretary Rumsfeld and I were in the Pentagon.
Encroachment wasn't a term in our military--
Mr. Pallone. I understand. I am not being critical. I am
just saying, if you think that sometime later this year you
will be able to put some system in place to make that
evaluation, the end of this summer or--
Mr. DuBois. Yes. As I indicated, the Marines already have a
system. We are trying to figure out is it applicable to the
Army and the Air Force and the Navy. For those of you who know,
each culture is slightly different, and they don't necessarily
embrace one--
Mr. Pallone. I know. I am preparing for my own
purpleization at home with BRAC, so I know what you are talking
about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
The gentlelady from Guam?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of questions again for Mr. DuBois.
This is on contracting work. When contracting out work,
have you used Circular A-76, and if so, in roughly how many
instances have public employees won in those public/private
competitions?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. Under the Sikes Act my recollection
is that we are proscribed from using A-76. Therefore, to the
best of my knowledge, no A-76 action has been taken with
respect to natural resources services or environmental services
functions. Having said that, A-76 is not the only way that one
can outsource or compete functions in the Department. Now, I
understand, according to my notes here, during the past 5
years, there were 292 positions competed which fell under the
category, quote, ``Environmental and Natural Resources
Services,'' end quote, function. 59 of those ended up being won
by the private sector. Now, given that this function code is
much broader than simply an INRMP position, I cannot answer you
with details, but I would suspect that there are obviously
fewer than 59 positions have gone to the private sector.
Ms. Bordallo. Out of the 259?
Mr. DuBois. Out of the 292, fewer than 59--59 were
positions that had gone to the private sector, but again,
because it is a large general category, there would arguably be
less than 59.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will the gentlelady yield just for a quick
question?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, of course.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are there any private contractors doing any
INRMPs right now?
Mr. DuBois. I don't know the answer to that. I take it for
the record, Mr. Chairman, and will find out. I do not believe
so, but if my colleagues have evidence to the contrary, I will
take it under advisement.
Mr. Gilchrest. I yield back.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman..
Do you believe, sir, that work that involves natural
resource related activities is inherently governmental or that
there is commercial for profit vested interest in conservation
work?
Mr. DuBois. As I indicated, any time there is a managerial
decision to be made, a policy decision to be made, an
enforcement decision to be made, they are inherently
governmental and will not be competed. But issues like timber
land thinning, as I indicated, field surveys--
Ms. Bordallo. Technical work.
Mr. DuBois. What I referred to as services that are not--
excuse me, I don't mean to be tautological about this--but
inherently governmental, I think we should have an opportunity
to compete. Remember, in local areas, as in many cases in the
country, there are environmental organizations that are every
bit if not better qualified on a technical and scientific basis
that give us advice and counsel and consult to us. Therefore, I
see benefits by contracting out some of those functions.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. We have some other questions. We
are running out of time. We have another panel. So what we
would like to do, gentlemen, is to follow up over the next day
or two, and send those questions to you, myself and Mr. Pallone
and any other member on the panel, in the hopes of getting a
timely response. And there are some other critical issues that
we would like to continue to pursue via the mail or telephone
conversations, so we can pursue all of these issues.
Thank you very much for testifying this morning. We
appreciate your comments, and they have all been very, very
helpful.
[Pause.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The next panel is Mr. Chester O. Martin,
president, National Military Fish and Wildlife Association; Mr.
Gene Rurka, Chairman, Humanitarian Services Committee, Safari
Club International; Lieutenant Colonel A. Lewis Deal, USMC
[Retired], director of Outdoor Sports Development, Paralyzed
Veterans of America; Mr. Dan Meyer, general counsel, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to your testimony. We
appreciate your attendance here this morning, and we will take
all of your comments into consideration as we go through this
next round of reauthorization for the Sikes Act.
Mr. Martin, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHESTER O. MARTIN, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL MILITARY FISH AND WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Martin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members. As president of the National Military Fish and
Wildlife Association, I thank the members and staff of this
Committee and Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
regarding the Sikes Act and its impact to National Resources
Management on military lands of the United States. I
specifically thank Congressman Gilchrest for the invitation to
speak at this hearing.
The National Military Fish and Wildlife Association is an
organization whose mission is to support professional
management of all natural resources on military lands and
waters of the United States. Our membership represents the
biologists, foresters, agronomists and other natural resource
specialists who are responsible for professional management of
fish and wildlife, forests and timber products, soils and
ground cover, habitat restoration, rangeland stabilization,
outdoor recreation and all other programs that relate to the
conservation of natural resources on Defense lands.
As previously stated, the Department of Defense manages
approximately 25 million acres of land in support of the
military mission. These are lands dedicated to the purpose of
national security and providing a training and testing platform
for our Nation's soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who
depend upon these lands to ensure their combat readiness.
As a Vietnam War veteran, I am well aware of the need for
training on a natural landscape. If we are to sustain quality
training and testing on the lands and waters that we currently
possess, we must ensure that the military landscape is
maintained in a condition where realistic training and testing
can continue without interruption.
The centerpiece of natural resources management on military
lands is the Integrated natural Resources Management Plan or
INRMP, as I will refer to it in my testimony. The INRMP is a
written document, developed in cooperation with the State
wildlife agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service that
establishes management priorities for natural resources and
ensures compatibility with the defense mission of the
installation.
The intent of Congress was absolutely clear in the 1997
Sikes Act amendments. INRMPs must be implemented.
Implementation of INRMPs is critical not only for appropriate
conservation of natural resources, but also for protection of
the military mission. The requirement for ``no net loss'' of
military training and testing capability of the land ensures
that our Defense needs will be sustained.
Unfortunately, while DOD has generally recognized the
requirement to fund and implement INRMPs, the reality of the
situation is that the services have failed to fully fund
implementation of INRMPs. ``Must Fund'' designation means very
little if DOD fails to fund the projects. We are, in fact,
aware of cases where the services have provided funding for as
little as 20 percent of the annual ``Must Fund'' INRMP
requirements.
Failure to fund and implement the plans remains a threat,
since the Sikes Act contains no compliance provisions. When
compliance provisions were suggested during negotiations for
the 1997 amendment, DOD made commitments to this Committee to
fully fund and implement INRMPs, but the past 5 years has
demonstrated that the services did not live up to the DOD's
promise. Our association feels that it may be necessary to
include some sort of compliance provisions in the Act should
DOD fail to fully fund and implement INRMPs in the future.
Another issue of critical importance to us is the current
Sikes Act requirement that DOD use ``sufficient numbers of
professionally trained Natural Resources management personnel
and Natural Resources law enforcement personnel'' to carry out
the preparation and implementation of INRMPs. This is tied to
the language in Section 1 of the Sikes Act, where the clear,
concise language precludes the use of OMB Circular A-76 and any
successor process to ``contract out'' services necessary for
implementation and enforcement.
Some military branch leaders have implied that the Fair Act
overrides the Sikes Act and that there is no requirement that
onsite Government Natural Resources professionals implement the
plans. The National Military Fish and Wildlife Association
emphatically disagrees. We recommend that these two sections of
the Act be brought together and that they further define onsite
management and enforcement of natural resources as inherently
governmental. We further recommend that Congress consider
including language to establish a moratorium on further
outsourcing of Natural Resources management positions at
installations.
The Association also continues to support access to
military lands for all appropriate public uses, such as
hunting, trapping and fishing. We continue to support the
requirements of the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act of 1998. To
the extent that public access is allowed, disabled sportsmen's
access should remain a priority.
We also support the concept that the Sikes Act should
continue to include an authorization for the Department of
Interior and State agencies that assist DOD in preparation,
review and implementation of INRMPs on military lands.
One final thing. The current Sikes Act has been amended
many times over the last 40 years, but we consider the 1986 and
1997 amendments to be the most significant. Both amendments
were championed by Congressman Don Young of Alaska, and we
would consider it entirely appropriate, should the name of the
Act be changed to reflect Congressman Young's contribution.
Whether the Act becomes known as the Sikes-Young or Young-
Sikes, we believe it is an honor that is richly deserved.
In conclusion, next to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines, our military lands, airspace and off-shore areas are
our most valuable assets. The Sikes Act is critical to their
protection.
The remainder of my testimony may be found in my written
report. Thank you again for the privilege of speaking at this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Statement of Chester O. Martin, President,
National Military Fish and Wildlife Association
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Committee members. As President of the
National Military Fish and Wildlife Association, I thank the members
and staff of this Committee and Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify regarding the Sikes Act and its impact to natural resources
management on military lands of the United States. I specifically thank
Congressman Gilchrest for the invitation to speak at this hearing.
The National Military Fish and Wildlife Association is an
organization whose mission is to support professional management of all
natural resources on military lands and waters of the United States.
Our membership represents the biologists, foresters, agronomists, and
other natural resource specialists who are responsible for professional
management of fish and wildlife, forests and timber products, soils and
ground cover, habitat restoration, rangeland stabilization, outdoor
recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, camping, wildlife viewing) and all
other programs that relate to the conservation of natural resources on
Defense lands.
The Department of Defense manages approximately 25 million acres of
lands in support of the military mission. Although often overlooked,
the Department of Defense is the third largest landholder and natural
resource management agency in the Federal Government 1.
These are lands dedicated to the purpose of national security and
providing a training and testing platform for our nation's soldiers,
sailors, marines, and airmen who depend upon these lands to ensure
their combat readiness as the world's premier fighting force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture are both
considerably larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Vietnam War Veteran, I am well aware of the need for training
on a natural landscape. If we are to sustain quality training and
testing on the lands and waters that we currently possess, must ensure
that the military landscape is maintained in a condition where
realistic training and testing can continue, without interruption.
The centerpiece of natural resource management on military lands is
the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, or ``INRMP'' as I
will refer to it in my testimony. The INRMP is a written document,
developed in cooperation with State wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife that establishes management priorities for natural
resources and ensures compatibility with the defense mission of the
installation. INRMP preparation requires extensive public involvement
and review. These plans are reviewed annually and face a major revision
not more than every five years. Most INRMPs include specific project
lists, which provide the means to determine if implementation has
occurred.
The intent of Congress was absolutely clear in the 1997 Sikes Act
Amendments. INRMPs must be implemented. Implementation of INRMPs is
critical, not only for appropriate conservation of natural resources
but also for protection of the military mission. The requirement for
``no net loss'' of military training and testing capability of the land
ensures that our Defense needs will be sustained.
Unfortunately, while Department of Defense has generally recognized
the requirement to fund and implement INRMPs, the reality of the
situation is that DoD and the services have failed to fully fund
implementation of INRMPs. ``MUST FUND'' designation means very little,
if DoD fails to fund the projects. We are aware of some installations,
where the services have provided funding for as little as 20% of annual
``must fund'' INRMP requirements 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For Example: At White Sands Missile Range, NM, the total
recognized requirement for Conservation Program funding for fiscal year
03 is $5.9M, of which $4.7M is ``MUST FUND''. Of that total, only $749K
was funded. This reflects only 16% of MUST FUND Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to fund and implement the plans remains a threat, since the
Sikes Act contains no compliance provisions. When compliance provisions
were suggested during negotiations for the 1997 amendment, DoD made
commitments to this Committee to fully fund and implement INRMPs
3, but the past five years have demonstrated that the
services were unwilling to live up to DoD's promise. Our association
feels that it may be necessary to include some sort of compliance
provisions in the Act, should DoD fail to fully fund and implement
INRMPs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of Ms. Sherri W. Goodman Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environmental Security) Before the House Subcommittee on
Military Installations and Facilities, House Armed Services Committee
``Natural Resource Management on Military Lands''--June 29, 1994 (page
4 of testimony) and Statement of Sherri W. Goodman Before the House
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans in Connection
with H.R. 1141, Sikes Act Amendments--16 March 1995 (pages 1 & 2 of
testimony).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another issue of critical importance to us is the current Sikes Act
requirement that DoD use ``sufficient numbers of professionally trained
natural resources management personnel and natural resources law
enforcement personnel'' to carry out the preparation and implementation
of INRMPs 4. This is then tied to the language in Section 1
of the Sikes Act where the clear, concise language precludes use of OMB
Circular A-76 and any successor process to ``contract out'' services
necessary for implementation and enforcement. Military service branch
leaders have implied that the Fair Act overrides the Sikes Act and that
there is no requirement that on-site, government natural resources
professionals implement the plans. The National Military Fish and
Wildlife Association disagrees. We recommend that these two sections of
the Act be brought together and that they further define on-site
management and enforcement of natural resources as inherently
governmental. We further recommend that Congress consider including
language to establish a moratorium on further outsourcing of natural
resources management positions at installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 107 of the Sikes Act. (16USC670e-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that implementation of all projects should be
conducted with only government personnel. In fact, other existing
provisions of the Act have been extremely useful in allowing us to
outsource or contract specific, labor intensive projects and programs,
where that is the most efficient mechanism. We wish to retain this
ability as well. But the oversight and management of INRMP
implementation should remain in the hands of professionally trained,
on-site, government personnel.
The Association also continues to support access to military lands
for all appropriate public uses, such as hunting, trapping, and
fishing. We continue to support the requirements of the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act of 1998. To the extent any public access is
allowed, disabled sportsmen's access should remain a priority.
The National Military Fish and Wildlife Association supports
continued authorizations in the amount of $1,500,000 for each of the
next five years for the Department of Defense. We also support the
concept that the Sikes Act should continue to include an authorization
for the Department of Interior and State agencies that assist DoD in
preparation, review, and implementation of INRMPS on military lands.
The pass-through to the States should be part of the DOI authorization.
This will partially reimburse the States for their work in development
and implementation of INRMPs at the installation level. The
authorization should be at not less than the current $3,000,000 per
year, divided evenly between the States and the DOI.
One final thing--The current Sikes Act has been amended many times
over the last 40 years, but we consider the 1986 and 1997 amendments to
be the most significant. Both amendments were championed by Congressman
Don Young of Alaska. We would consider it entirely appropriate, should
the name of the Act be changed to reflect Congressman Young's
contributions. Whether the Act becomes known as Sikes-Young or as
Young-Sikes, we believe it is an honor that is richly deserved.
In conclusion, next to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines,
our military lands, airspace, and off-shore areas are our most valuable
assets. The Sikes Act is critical to their protection.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. I am sure
Don will be happy to hear your comments. I will pass them along
to him today.
Mr. Rurka?
STATEMENT OF GENE RURKA, CHAIRMAN, HUMANITARIAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Rurka. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to
you today.
I am here in support of the Sikes Act. I speak to you today
not as a person with a disability, but rather as one who has
been actively involved with physically handicapped and
challenged individuals for numerous years.
During my high school and college years, I lived with and
cared for an amputee. I have seen and been actively involved in
the unique needs and challenges of a wheelchair-bound,
physically handicapped person.
As Chairman of the Humanitarian Services for Safari Club
International, Safari Club International Foundation, I have had
the responsibility for all of our humanitarian programs for
physically challenged individuals and have been extremely
active in all of them. One of these programs, the Special
Hunter Program, sparked the development of the Pathfinder
Award. This award honors those handicapped and disabled
individuals who have demonstrated the ability to overcome
challenges and obstacles that so often prevent them from
enjoying life's opportunities.
As an addition to my written report, let me comment that we
present to these award winners what we consider to be a very
important part of their unique needs. Normally, the family
members have gone through economic sacrifices.
We present them with a chance to participate in a sport
they have enjoyed by sending them someplace in the world with a
family member or support staff so they can enjoy the
photography, the hunting, the fishing that no one else would
provide for them. So the private sector is coming to their, I
don't want to say rescue, but to their help to allow them to
make that decision to take a week or two or three. You would be
surprised how beneficial that is not only for the State, but
for the world to see these people out there doing the things
they love to do.
Also, to help us along with these awards, General Norman
Schwarzkopf, Chuck Yeager, and people of those caliber are on
stage with us helping presenting them with the fishing rods,
the rifles, the boat, et cetera, that make this thing a great,
great program, and we are very, very proud of this.
I have had extensive involvement in the development of
photography, and shooting and fishing apparatus for
quadriplegics and paraplegics. I would like to, at this time,
submit some evidence to you. This is, by no means, a full
document of what we have, but if you have a chance to look at
this, not only the brochure, but some of the equipment, this
was developed for the paraplegic group.
Mr. Rurka. We can put cameras, again, you see a still
camera on one still frame. We have a similar attachment for a
video camera. We have a cross-bow attachment, we have fishing
attachments, and I will add that this entire unit will be
available in catalogues, such as Cabela's, Bass Pro, Orvis very
soon, so that your fishing and hunting buddy can go with you.
By just making a call on a credit card and bring this home, it
is installed on a wheelchair in 10 minutes.
The only addition I would add, which I don't have pictures
here, is for the quadriplegic individual--man or woman or
child--we have added 12-volt micro motors which are run by sip-
and-puff switches and chin switches based on the disability. I
don't have those here, but they are almost identical. But they
use sip and puff to move, elevation, left and right, and then
the chin switch for release. That can also be used for cameras.
I do a lot of work with National Geographic, and we were
talking about this just recently in Manhattan, and we feel that
these individuals may be our next major documentary winners,
maybe even of an Academy Award. They have the abilities. They
have, obviously, the composure, the demeanor to sit there and
look at nature as we might not see it.
With this equipment, they can get out there, with a limited
amount of help, and produce some fabulous, fabulous things for
us. So that is an addition.
I have also been fortunate to have initiated numerous
opportunities for our disabled sports people to enjoy the
outdoors with the use of private facilities provided by
numerous men and women of our hunting community. I know we can
make a major difference.
We now need the access and property to provide our
physically handicapped veterans and individuals with the chance
to enjoy recreational opportunities of the great outdoors. It
is with this in mind that I endorse the efforts of this
Committee to permit access for our handicapped and disabled
veterans and individuals to utilize military facilities for
sporting opportunities.
This legislation fulfills many needs.
One, it promotes the opportunity for Government, through
the Department of Defense, to partner with private
organizations to construct facilities and operate programs for
sports people with disabilities at no cost to the Federal
Government.
No. 2, the legislation allows the Department of Defense to
accept donations of materials and volunteers for construction
of facilities accessible to sportsmen and women with
disabilities. This partnership between the Department of
Defense and the private sector has been a great success in the
past and can be seen in operation at the Quantico Marine base
in Virginia.
Disabled Sportsmen Access will provide increased
opportunities for many disabled American sportsmen and women to
overcome obstacles of their handicap. By giving them access to
this unique part of our country, they can now enjoy and fulfill
the adventures of the outdoors, which you and I may sometimes
take for granted.
The United States Federal lands are a part of America's
heritage and part of its living legacy to all citizens,
including disabled sportsmen and women.
I hope you will vote in favor of this legislation, and I
thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee, and I
offer you the opportunity to have me answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rurka follows:]
Statement of Gene Rurka, Chairman, Humanitarian Services Committee,
Safari Club International
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee. Thank you
for granting me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I am here to speak in support of the Sikes Act, particularly as it
relates to the disabled sportsmen.
I speak to you today not as a person with a disability, but rather
as one who has been actively involved with the physically handicapped
and challenged individuals for numerous years.
During my high school and college years, I lived with and cared for
an amputee. I have seen and been actively involved in the unique needs
and the challenges of a wheelchair bound, physically handicapped
person.
As chairman of the Humanitarian Services Committee for Safari Club
International/Safari Club International Foundation, I have the
responsibility for all of our humanitarian programs for physically
challenged individuals, and have been extremely active in all of them.
One of these programs, the Special Hunter Program, sparked the
development of the Pathfinder Award. This award honors those
handicapped and disabled individuals who have demonstrated the ability
to overcome challenges and obstacles that so often prevent them from
enjoying life's opportunities.
Not only have I had extensive involvement in the development of
photography, shooting and fishing apparatus for quadriplegics and
paraplegics, I have also been fortunate to have initiated numerous
opportunities for our disabled sportspeople to enjoy the outdoors
through the use of private facilities provided by the numerous men and
women of our sport hunting community. We can make a difference.
We now need the access and the property to provide our physically
handicapped veterans and individuals with a chance to enjoy the
recreational opportunities of the great outdoors. It is with this in
mind that I endorse the efforts of this Committee to permit access for
our handicapped and disabled veterans and individuals to utilize
military facilities for sporting opportunities.
This legislation fulfills many needs.
1) LIt promotes the opportunity for the government, through the
Department of Defense, to partner with private organizations to
construct facilities and operate programs for sportspeople with
disabilities at NO COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
2) LThis legislation allows the Department of Defense to accept
donations of materials and volunteers for the construction of
facilities accessible to sportsmen and women with disabilities.
LThis partnership between the Department of Defense and the
private sector has been a great success in the past and can be seen in
operation at the Quantico Marine base in Virginia.
3) LThe Disabled Sportsmen Access Act will provide increased
opportunities for many disabled American sportsmen and women to
overcome the obstacles of their handicap. By giving them access to this
unique part of our country they can now enjoy and fulfill the
adventures of the outdoors, which you and I sometimes take for granted.
The United States Federal lands are a part of America's heritage
and part of its living legacy to all its citizens, including disabled
sportsmen and women.
I hope you will vote in favor of this legislation and I thank you
for the opportunity to address this Committee.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Rurka, and thank you for your
dedication and your wonderful work.
Colonel Deal, good morning.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL A. LEWIS DEAL, USMC [RETIRED],
DIRECTOR OF OUTDOOR SPORTS DEVELOPMENT, PARALYZED VETERANS OF
AMERICA
Colonel Deal. Good morning, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of
the Subcommittee, I will keep my remarks brief. I would like to
submit an attachment to my prepared statement. It is an article
that appeared in PVA's magazine. It outlines our initial
efforts to provide accessible equipment to the military
installations.
Mr. Gilchrest. All material that is submitted this morning
will be a part of the record.
Colonel Deal. Thank you, sir.
[NOTE: The PVA article submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Colonel Deal. First, thank you for allowing the Paralyzed
Veterans of America to be here today.
The journey that has brought us here to discuss the
Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act started exactly 10 years ago.
It started with the simple goal to allow disabled veterans the
opportunity to hunt at Quantico. We have come a long way, and
because of the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act, the quality of
life for our disabled veterans and military dependents with
disabilities has vastly improved.
It is amazing the impact of having accessing to the great
outdoors can have on someone with a physical disability. It is
more than recreation. It is therapy. As we all know, there are
thousands of our brave men and women in uniform going in harm's
way to defend our great way of life. For those who will pay a
heavy price for our freedom and come home to live with that
sacrifice every day, the Disabled Sportsman's Access Act and
the opportunities it provides should continue to be there for
them.
PVA has been diligently working to make this historic law a
reality. As you can see from my submitted statement, one of
PVA's major national programs is donating adaptive outdoor
equipment to military installations. The equipment list ranges
from elevating stands to pontoon boats. Why? PVA views adaptive
equipment as a critical bridge between accessibility and
participation in traditional outdoor sports for the physically
challenged. It is also an example of how we in the military are
taking care of our own.
Additionally, we at PVA, from the national office to our 36
chapters across the country, are here to help any military
installation with the procedures of how to expand their
traditional outdoor sports programs to include disabled vets.
We will also gladly assist with barrier-free designs. For
example, PVA worked from Day One with Quantico on the design of
the fully accessible Sergeant Joe Fox Fishing Facility. Joe Fox
is the president of PVA and was a Marine in Vietnam and was
wounded.
The Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act is, without a doubt, a
success. I know because I have been on many military bases and
have seen firsthand the results. As I stated earlier, we have
come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. There are
still thousands of disabled veterans waiting for their chance
to do a little hunting and fishing aboard a nearby military
base, and we at PVA want you to know that the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act will remain one of our top priorities
and that you can count on us to continue to support it.
Thank you, sir. Are there any questions?
[The prepared statement of Lt. Colonel Deal follows:]
Statement of Lt. Col. Lew Deal, USMC, Ret., Director of Outdoor Sports
Development, Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 1497, the Sikes
Act Reauthorization Act of 2003. I will focus my testimony today on the
importance, success and future of the Disabled Sportsman's Access Act.
I am Lt. Col. Lew Deal, Director of Outdoor Sports Development for
PVA and it is an honor and privilege to be invited to speak before the
Subcommittee. PVA is a veterans service organization chartered by the
United States Congress with members in all fifty states and Puerto
Rico. All of PVA's members are veterans of the armed services and have
experienced either spinal cord injury or dysfunction.
Let me begin with a brief overview of the history and background of
the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act. As I stated in my testimony of 14
May 1998, the genesis and foundation of the Disabled Sportsmen's Access
Act (DSAA) began when I read an article in the March 1993 Outdoor Life
magazine on sportsmen with disabilities. It occurred to me civilians
could hunt at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico but my disabled veteran
friends could not. I approached the base commanding general with a plan
to rectify this situation. His response was ``Make it happen.''
The very first organization I contacted was the Paralyzed Veterans
of America. Together MCB Quantico and PVA initiated the now highly
successful hunting and fishing program for disabled veterans. From this
experience I put together a proposal to open all military bases for
disabled veterans. As an active duty officer I could not approach
Members of Congress with the idea. In 1998 after several years of
frustration, I approached Tom Saddler of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation (CSF) with my concept. After reading the proposal he
immediately took it to Rep. Duke Cunningham. In October I was invited
by CSF to give a presentation on the Quantico program and the national
program concept. That month legislation was introduced by Rep.
Cunningham and Sen. Conrad Burns (H.R. 2760 and S. 1351, respectively).
With a long list of co-sponsors and PVA providing key leadership with
recruiting other organizations, support for the legislation quickly
grew. In 1998 the Disabled Sportsmen's Access became law.
After retiring from the Marine Corps in 1999 I joined the PVA
national staff. Immediately we launched a program to provide military
bases with adaptive outdoor sports equipment. PVA views adaptive
equipment as the critical bridge between accessibility and
participation in traditional outdoor sports for people with
disabilities. With generous annual funding support from Anheuser-Busch
the list of military installations receiving adaptive equipment
continues to steadily grow. To date PVA has donated various types of
adaptive equipment outdoor sports equipment (pontoon boats, popup
ground blinds, and elevating stands) to the following bases: Fort Hood,
TX; Camp Lejeune, NC; Eglin AFB, FL; Fort A.P. Hill, VA; Fort Leonard
Wood, MO; Fort Sill, OK; Little Rock AFB, AR; NAS Meridian, MS; NWS
Yorktown, VA; Redstone Arsenal, AL; and MCB Quantico, VA.
In 2003 PVA has plans for additional equipment donations to Fort
Bragg, NC; Fort Benning, GA; and MacDill AFB, FL. PVA also worked with
MCB Quantico, VA in the construction of a fully accessible fishing
facility. This site was named the ``Sgt. Joe Fox Fishing Facility'' in
honor of PVA's current National President. As directed by the DSAA this
equipment is available for use in the following order: disabled
veterans, military dependents with disabilities, and all other people
with disabilities. The DSAA, coupled with the adaptive equipment
donations, is having a significant, positive effect on the ``quality of
life'' for thousands of disabled citizens across the country. Last fall
at the NWS Yorktown PVA equipment donation ceremony, Rep. Jo Ann Davis
stated: ``I can't imagine not being able to enjoy the outdoors. I think
this Huntmaster is a step toward changing that for disabled veterans.
With the help of this stand, they will be able to break down one more
barrier''.
PVA will gladly and enthusiastically continue to support the DSAA
and provide adaptive outdoor equipment as needed. However, PVA has one
request. We would like to work with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Environment and Installations on streamlining the
procedures for adaptive equipment donations to military installations.
A uniformed set of approved procedures accepted by each service branch
would be extremely helpful. It is essential that the Disabled
Sportsman's Access Act be reauthorized as you consider the broader
reauthorization of the Sikes Act.
In closing, PVA would like to thank those in Congress who have
support this historic law. As we all know, thousands of our military
men and women are around the world going ``in harm's way'' defending
our way of life. For those who will pay a heavy price for our freedom
and come home to live with that sacrifice everyday, the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act and the opportunities it provides should be
there for them. Representative Duke Cunningham said it best with his
comment on the DSAA: ``This is just one small thing we can give back to
those who gave so much for their country.''
This concludes my statement, on behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, I again thank you for this opportunity to testify about the
success and promise of the Disabled Sportsman's Access Act. I will
please to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Colonel Deal.
Mr. Meyer?
STATEMENT OF DAN MEYER, GENERAL COUNSEL,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dan Meyer, the
general counsel at Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the
Committee this morning.
My position offers me a unique opportunity, a unique
perspective on the matter before you, as far as the Sikes Act
is concerned. I am a veteran, and a labor and environmental
attorney, so all of these issues mix on my desk on a daily
basis. I am a former Naval officer, I was in Desert Storm, and
I am wearing my Southwest Asia service pin today as a
celebration of the work we completed or are about to complete
in Baghdad right now.
PEER is a not-for-profit, based here in Washington, that
provides services to Federal employees, State employees, and
municipal employees who do environmental work. One of our
subchapters, Military PEER, assists those stewards of the DOD
lands when they are confronted with ethical challenges on the
job.
One of my lead concerns, as mentioned in my written
testimony, is that in addition to all of the work I do in other
Federal agencies, the Department of Defense is the largest
single block of time commitment in my docket. Of the roughly 33
cases I am handling, 11 handle DOD personnel with outstanding
whistleblower or grievance matters related to their management
of environmental natural resources issues on the DOD lands. So
that is 11 cases with DOD. That compares with three I have
right now with the Park Service, three with individual States,
one with USAID, and only one with EPA, which has an agency with
a wholly environmental mission.
I think, and my written testimony is pretty clear on this,
the time has come to address the issue of the false dichotomy
between readiness and environmental compliance. I think it is a
part of the debate that we need to move beyond. I think, as
both then-Secretary Cheney mentioned in the late 1980's/early
1990's, and as former Secretary of Defense Perry has also been
on record discussing, the environment is a security issue in
and of itself.
The INRMP process in the Sikes Act, as it is set up, is an
excellent template to teach our Defense Department leadership
how to incorporate the environment into their daily
decisionmaking routine. It goes beyond preserving fish and
wildlife and protecting our natural resources because it
teaches a respect for environmental components as they affect
national security.
Moving into the INRMP process, I think what we need to
understand is that, as it is set up right now, obligations
under the ESA, the MMPA, and other environmental statutes that
are hooked budgetwise to individual components in the INRMPs,
give the Sikes Act life.
So, without independent funding for the Sikes Act, the
folks on the ground have been able to find obligations under
the current environmental statutes, the ones they want to
exempt themselves from, and they have tied those to the INRMPs
to get funding for the INRMP process. The most successful
INRMPs to do this were at Yakima Training Center in Washington
State. The Fort Stewart and the Fort Bragg INRMPs accomplished
this, to some extent, as well.
To see how the environment can work in tandem with
excellent military performance, look at the U.S. Forces Command
under General Ellis. These were the kids who went out and took
the bridgehead at An Nasiryah last month, and one of the most
progressive INRMPs right now in the Army is coming out of U.S.
Forces Command. So the two can run in tandem quite well.
I would list three failures within the current statutory
regime.
First, there is no mechanism to compel compliance. Second,
there is a lack of protection for military stewards if they run
into an ethical problem on the job about whether there is a
violation of an environmental statute. Third, right now there
is no playing field to understand the issue of outsourcing and
how it is going to affect these jobs.
I am submitting for the record our survey from 2001 of
Natural Resources personnel and the Department of Defense.
[NOTE: The 2001 survey submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Meyer. One-third of those individuals surveyed
indicated that at some point in their professional career, they
have been asked to overlook actual violations of the
environmental statutes, and that is a very important number to
keep in mind. If you add a contractor to that equation, a
contractor who wants that contract renewed on an annual basis,
I think you are going to set up an equation where violations
will be overlooked on a regular basis.
The solutions: I would like the Subcommittee to look at
providing an enforcement clause to the act, providing a
whistleblower protection clause to the Act to help those
employees who find themselves in an ethical challenge, and to
also understand that the Sikes Act is now set up as an
excellent platform to instill an environmental ethic in our
war-fighters.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]
Statement of Dan Meyer, General Counsel,
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (``PEER'')
H.R. 1497, a bill to reauthorize Title I of the Sikes Act. Under P.
L. 105-85, the Department of Defense is required to complete a
comprehensive Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for
each of its installations. Enacted in 1960, this law has been extended
a number of times with the current authorization of appropriations
expiring on September 30, 2003.
On March 27, 2003, Chairman Richard Pombo introduced the Sikes Act
Reauthorization Act of 2003. This measure will extend until September
30, 2008, the authorization of appropriations for Title I of the Sikes
Act that involves all of the components of wildlife conservation on
military lands. The authorization is extended at its current level that
provides up to $1.5 million each year to the Department of Defense and
$3 million to the Department of the Interior.
PEER thanks the Chair and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify at this important juncture in Federal
environmental and merit system law.
Twin Components of the Common Defense: National and Environmental
Security
Good morning. I am Dan Meyer, General Counsel at Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility (``PEER''). I am wearing my Southwest
Asia Service lapel pin today in support of our forces: the soldiers,
sailors, aircrews and marines that will return from the current war--we
hope--to a clean and safe environment in which they can raise their
families and heal their wounds, physical and psychological.
Introduction. Twelve (12) years ago I was honorably discharged from
the United States Navy as an unrestricted Officer of the Line
(Lieutenant, U.S.N.) following Desert Storm and four (4) of the most
rewarding years of my professional career. While onboard the battleship
IOWA (BB-61), I served as the Turret One Officer and took that Division
to a world record in naval gunnery at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico
(1989). Three (3) months later I was required to lead that same crew
through the worst peacetime accident in the history of the fleet, an
equipment failure that took the lives of forty-seven (47) sailors, and
our comrades, in an adjacent gun turret.
My next duty assignment was to the flagship of the Commander,
Middle East Force, forward deployed in the Emirate of Bahrain. My year
onboard the USS LASALLE (AGF-03) was even more challenging and
character building, in the best tradition of serving one's nation. The
``Sparks'' in my ``Radio Shack'' broke all fleet records for handling
message traffic, and did so for two (2) flag staffs as well as our own
ship. We were first in the fight during the incident at Nakihlu Island,
and we relieved the USS TRIPOLI (LPH-10) when it hit an Iraqi mine off
Kuwait. LASALLE later liberated the port of Mina Ah'Shubayh, clearing
free Kuwait's first safe access to the sea.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Serving
the nation under arms gives one a unique perspective on the interchange
between environmental and national security, a balance best measured by
the Sikes Act of 1960, as amended. The Sikes Act legislation is the
cornerstone of my clients' daily work.
PEER is a not-for-profit incorporated in Washington, D.C. PEER
assists state, Federal and municipal employees with the legal
challenges arising on the job, notably when they are asked to take an
action in violation of rule, law or regulation; an action of gross
waste and mismanagement; or an action constituting abuse of authority.
PEER operates a network of ten (10) field offices around the country.
In addition, PEER works extensively on behalf of civilian natural
and cultural resource specialists employed by Department of Defense
agencies. Most of PEER's members in need of legal services work in
areas where the nation's environmental resources are most endangered,
including the ``Defense lands'' subject to the provisions of the Sikes
Act. We also serve members in agencies that consult with the Defense
Department to ensure its own environmental compliance, most notably the
excellent professionals at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The standards you write into the environmental statutes are the
stars my clients steer by.
Working through PEER with Federal employees serving in all
communities of the U.S. Armed Services, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Management Service, I have
noted the following regarding the Sikes Act.
Readiness and Environmental Compliance, Paired. There is a false
dichotomy or distinction being made by the Pentagon between
``Readiness'' and ``Environmental Compliance''. My former service in
the Navy and my current legal practice allows me to witness the
incredible professionalism of the Department of Defense's environmental
managers and their staff. It is a professionalism that mirrors the same
standards of performance exhibited by our fighting men and women: they
are one seamless whole, from the point of the sword to its pommel. As
such, the remarks you are hearing from others today underscore a false
dichotomy or division between readiness and environmental compliance.
The two (2) actually go hand-in-hand. Our common defense has two (2)
components: national security and environmental security. To sacrifice
one is to diminish the other.
In pursuit of national security, the Sikes Act and other
environmental statutes inculcate an understanding of the environment in
our war fighters, so that they understand the impact of war fighting on
the environment that sustains their men. In addition, the same statutes
serve as benchmarks to define, in part, what we are defending. In
pursuit of such ``environmental security'', we recognize that it does
no good to win against an adversary in the Near East if--in training to
do so--we are adversely wasting the health, safety and welfare of our
citizens at home. These citizens would include those living closest to
our Defense lands: the families of the soldiers, sailors, aircrews and
marines you have been watching on the television for the past few
weeks. Only a corrupted Republic would forego the draft, rely on
volunteers, and house those volunteers in a degraded environment
reminiscent of Love Canal when they return home from the front.
Problems with the Sikes Act
In its execution of the mandate you established through the Sikes
Act, the Department of Defense has faced a tremendous hurdle. As its
inventory of natural resource assets and needs grows, the individual
Services' capacity to protect wildlife is diminishing. We are facing a
statutory crisis. The law is clear but the will to enforce it within
the U.S. Government is fleeting. Before renewing or making substantive
changes to the Sikes Act, one must also understand the Act's role
through other environmental statutes--notably those from which the
Defense Department currently seeks to be exempted. It is also helpful
to understand the flow of Federal funds--or lack thereof--which
determines how successfully the Act is executed. The Department of
Defense formerly funded many of its Sikes Act requirements through the
proceeds of ``commercial activities'' on Defense lands, such as
timbering and farming. That is now a disfavored practice, and neither
the Congress nor the Department has thought through the transition of
that financial requirement to a new funding source.
Roughly ninety percent (90%) of the Department of Defense
facilities now have Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans
(INRMPs). The depth and quality of these plans varies greatly.
Ironically, the most highly regarded plans are those written for
facilities implemented, in part, by a Federal employee who was
retaliated against for--among other things--having implemented the very
INRMPs that are so successful. His case is now before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Federal judiciary is not
giving effect to the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 in a manner
that you, the Congress, intended.
Facilities with five (5) or more acres of Defense land, presence of
an endangered species, or a minimum of one hundred (100) acres of land
under commercial production generally require an INRMP. The general
perception is that the two (2) most effective INRMPs in the country are
those implementing the Sikes Act at the Yakima Training Center (YTC)
and at Forts Bragg and Stewart. Many of the professionals who
participate in these plans are veterans. They are former war fighters
who understand that we are protecting our way of life, and not just
playing games on the battlefield. The source of the Yakima, Bragg and
Stewart excellence in planning is the U.S. Army Forces Command
(FORSCOM) under the command of General Larry P. Ellis, U.S.A. General
Ellis' men of the First Battalion, Third Aviation Regiment recently
secured the Eurphrates bridgehead at An Nasiryah for the United States
Marine Corps in southern Iraq. Those are the same Marine Units for whom
the flagship LASALLE cleared mines off of Kuwait in 1991, allowing the
battleships WISCONSIN (BB-64) and MISSOURI (BB-63) to conduct Naval
Gunfire Support during the coastal run to Kuwait City.
The Yakima, Bragg and Stewart INRMPs are excellent models, and you
should have the Defense Department produce them for review by your
staffs. The Yakima INRMP was first drafted in 1996 and was revised in
2001. It was one of the first plans to integrate both Natural Resource
and Cultural Resource requirements. Congress played a prominent role in
the formation of the Yakima INRMP. The Yakima expansion of
environmental compliance to include the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA) is a credit to the U.S. Department of the Army. The
Bragg and Stewart INRMPs are products of excellence for another reason:
they reveal the necessary connection between the Sikes Act and other
environmental statutes from which other witnesses are asking you to
exempt the Defense Department.
The Congress has provided no funding mechanism within the Sikes
Act; it is a law with no means of execution without funding derived
from the other environmental statutes. To properly implement the law,
farsighted officials within the U.S. Department of the Army aligned the
Environmental Program Report (EPR)--which drives funding of
environmental compliance--with specific INRMP components in the Forts
Stewart and Bragg Plans. Each ``A106''--an individual budget entry--
approved to meet a requirement of the Endangered Species Act or other
environmental statute is matched in the EPR to a component in the
INRMP. Take away the Defense Department's requirement to abide by the
other environmental statutes, and the Sikes Act becomes all statement,
no force.
So the experiences at Yakima, Bragg and Stewart offer a point of
comparison from which to assess the weaknesses of the Sikes Act:
No Mechanism to Compel Compliance. Environmental management under
the Sikes Act is, essentially, a voluntary self-regulating system.
Lacking specific funding and a timely mechanism for feedback and
external review, INRMPs cannot substitute for other acts of assessment,
review and compliance under Federal law. Until remedied, INRMPs are not
appropriate replacements for civilian resource management laws.
No Protection for Military Stewards of Natural and Cultural
Resources. The second weakness vitiating the effectiveness of the Sikes
Act is the lack of protection for the professionals charged with its
implementation. The Department of Defense extols its stewardship, but
mistreats its stewards. This lack of protection falls into two distinct
but overlapping zones. First is the failure of the Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1989 to provide adequate coverage for the Department
of Defense staff managing the environment. Second is the looming threat
of job loss through replacement by private, paid consultants.
Professional Retaliation. Department of Defense natural and
cultural resource specialists provide the single biggest source of
whistleblower complaints in my non-profit practice portfolio. Fully one
third (1/3) of my docket of personnel cases at PEER consist of civilian
Department of Defense specialists. In other words, the Department of
Defense produces more environmental whistleblower challenges than any
other agency. That is more challenges than even agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, whose administrative mission is
dedicated solely to environmental issues.
These cases come to me when professionals face ethical crises on
the job. Problems often arise over how to implement the Sikes Act or
one of the environmental statutes. Recent decisions by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit strip legal protection
from employees who raise problems within the scope of their duties.
These decisions mean that Defense specialists can be targeted for
retaliation simply because they are doing their jobs--or doing their
jobs too well.
Outsourcing. The Department of Defense has stated that it intends
to outsource five hundred (500) of the roughly eight hundred (800)
environmental stewardship positions within the Department. Under Part
32, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 169, such an action by Deputy
Under Secretary Raymond Dubois would be a violation of law. See 32
C.F.R. Sec. 169 (``the management and conservation of natural resources
under DoD stewardship is an inherently governmental function''). This
Code provision is actionable in Federal court, and my hunch is that the
Defense Department will move to strike this provision of the Code now
that the courts have given life to the words. Unless the language is
transferred to the Sikes Act and made the voice of the Congress,
another set of environmental protections will have been removed by this
Administration.
The Bush Administration's drive to privatized Federal employment
presents a huge challenge to effectively implementing the Sikes Act and
the other environmental statutes. The perception in the field is that
the Pentagon regards every decision outside the walls of the Pentagon
as non-essential government functions, and therefore open to
privatization. The traditional view was that functions such as
surveying, monitoring and timber marking were open to privatization
because they were ministerial, and lack a great deal of discretion.
They were also acts that a Federal employee with discretion would
supervise. This Administration wants to privatize all decisions made
beyond the banks of the Potomac River, including the essential
government functions of environmental assessment, review and
compliance.
To understand the coming collision between privatization and the
Sikes Act requirements, one must understand the conflict within the
Defense establishment between the ``Navy Model'' and the ``Army Model''
of environmental assessment, review and compliance. The Army maintains
highly professional environmental field operations, situated in and
around the facilities under review. It is a decentralized model placing
the decision-making Federal employee close to the resource. While the
Navy has some exceptional environmental resource managers in the field,
it has never decentralized its decision-making using the same model as
the Army. For the most part, substantive decisions regarding the
Endangered Species Act are made between the military stewards and their
counterparts in the regional offices of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS). By contrast, the regional National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) offices are not consulted to the same professional level
on matters related to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Those matters
are largely decided by a cadre of Navy officials within the Pentagon.
The conflict between these two models--the ``Army'' model and the
``Navy'' model--must be understood before one can grasp the threat that
privatization poses to effective execution of the Sikes Act. The
Department of the Navy initiated the current statutory exemptions
debate and also has less experience with INRMPs. The Navy's centralized
decision-making process has allowed it to ``not see'' resources which
would require assessment, review and compliance decision-making. The
damage to Chinook Salmon habitat in Puget Sound and the bombing of a
North Atlantic Right Whale off New England--both actions lacking
environmental assessment--are the genres of failure the ``Navy Model''
produces. The ``Navy Model'' would change very little following
privatization because little is being done in the way of environmental
assessment, review and compliance in the field. However the ``Army
Model''--which may produce a greater level of environmental
compliance--would be destroyed by privatization. The people performing
those essential government functions are the folks employed at the
regional level. By privatizing those functions, a contractor will
complete a task that is then subjected to an inherent conflict of
interest: a private corporation must make a critical decision required
to maintain fidelity to the law, and they must do so while
contemplating whether its contract will be renewed next year by the
base commander. To properly implement the current Sikes Act, and
certainly to implement a stronger Sikes Act, Congress must block
attempts to outsource the entire environmental staffs of specific
Defense facilities.
Of particular concern are the following:
LContracted natural resource people will be less likely to
confront resource problems. If these positions are not governmental,
then it is much easier to disregard their findings or just ``hire
another contractor''. Merit System protections provide integrity and
credibility to the execution of the law.
LThe motives of contractors are profit and obtaining the
next contract. Natural resource management is a long-term commitment.
Contractors are conditioned by the market to focus on the short-term
result.
LIn cases that have been reported to PEER, the Department
of Defense's motivation for obtaining private contractors has been to
circumvent or obviate resource protection opinions from its own staff
that have been deemed inconvenient or troublesome.
PEER is currently litigating against the natural resource
contracting practices of the U.S. Department of the Air Force at
Edwards AFB, California. We argue that Edward's management practices
violate the prohibitions in the Sikes Act regarding contracting out
inherently governmental natural and cultural resource management
functions. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California has just ruled against motions by the Air Force to dismiss
the suit. In a ruling on March 31, 2003, Judge Margaret M. Morrow found
that the Sikes Act restrictions on contracting out resource management
is neither ``suggestive'' nor provides ``guidance''; rather, it is law
as it is decided in our courts. As a result of that ruling, our lawsuit
will proceed to trial this summer.
Command Hostility to Resource Protection. The commanders of
facilities with jurisdiction over Defense lands often lack training in
natural resource protection. There are no career incentives for
environmental compliance, and a diligent ``Green'' commander would not
be seen as a ``member of the club'' if he was especially rigorous in
the enforcement of our nation's environmental laws. That is not to say
they do not exist; I have received at least two (2) calls on behalf of
Flag Officers over the past twelve (12) months, thanking PEER for it
efforts. In the Fleet we called such compliments ``Bravo Zulus'' or
``BZs''. These officials concerns centered on the political influence
of regulated corporations in the environmental decision-making at their
installations under the supervision of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and the Environment. But such comments could
never be made publicly.
Two (2) examples of this stand out within the experience of the
United States Navy. Last year PEER highlighted two (2) practices--both
including the use of low-level munitions--that were impacting the
habitat of endangered species. In one case, Brunswick Naval Air Station
disregarded advisories about right whale migration and conducted aerial
bombardment practice directly in the path of migrating whales. The
right whale is one of the most endangered species on the planet, and
American taxpayers already spend millions of dollars to aid in that
species' recovery. Shortly after that exercise took place, the headless
carcass of a right whale calf was discovered.
The other incident involved the repeated detonation of munitions in
Puget Sound, the nation's second largest estuary, and a vital habitat
for an array of protected marine mammals and fish including Endangered
Species Act listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer run
chum and their prey, which rely on habitats within the training areas.
The marine waters of Puget Sound are designated as Essential Fish
Habitat under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. These activities had
been ongoing for many years, and no environmental assessment was
conducted. The culture had become so relaxed that the commanders in
question did not even think they were violating the law.
This lack of command training is exacerbated by the frequency of
command changes. With low environmental staffing levels, the prospect
of contracting out discouraging new recruits, and a new commanding
officer every couple of years, there is no consistency in facility
management.
Wisdom from the Field. In 2001, PEER conducted a survey of natural
resource managers serving on Defense lands. It was the first national
survey of civilian specialists working on military bases across the
United States.
LMore than four (4) out of five (5) civilian specialists
reported that the natural resource challenges on their bases, ranging
from invasion of exotic plants to development and recreation pressures,
are on the rise. Compounding this threat is the unwillingness of base
commanders to value the natural resources within their custody.
LNearly one third (1/3) of all respondents reported they
``have been directed to overlook resource violations or circumvent
resource laws and regulations'' while only one fourth (1/4) believe
that ``violations of resource regulations create negative career
consequences for responsible officers.''
LLess than half (< +) of specialists feel that resource
protection ``is a high priority with the current installation
command.''--and--
LOne half (+) of specialists cite frequent changes of
command as disrupting the base's resource protection efforts.
One civilian specialist described the prevailing attitude of the
officer corps as an ``apparent disrespect for DoD and other regulations
and laws related to habitat and wildlife protection...Keeping the
``grass well mowed'' is always more important than any consideration of
wildlife that may reside in the grass and depend upon it for
survival.'' Another respondent supplied an example: ``Another equally
challenging problem is our BASH [Bird Airstrike Hazards Around
Airfields] paranoia. If allowable, our command would eliminate all
birds from our state.'' According to the specialists who implement the
Sikes Act, military commanders too often regard laws protecting natural
resources as a nuisance.
Solutions
In the re-authorization of the Sikes Act, PEER would urge Congress
to also examine the following:
1. LMake the Sikes Act enforceable. Unless there is some mechanism
for external review of compliance, execution of the Sikes Act will
remain uneven. Moreover, without such a mechanism and a demonstrated
track record of its efficacy, any notion that the Sikes Act could serve
as a substitute for natural and cultural resource laws of general
application would be ill advised.
2. LProtect Professionals Implementing the Sikes Act. The
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 should be amended to undo the
mischief created by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in the Huffman case two years ago. Huffman v. Office of Personnel
Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Circ. 2001). All employee disclosures
to further the enforcement or administration of the Sikes Act should be
classified as ``protected disclosures'' for purposes of civil service
law. With respect to the threat posed by outsourcing, Congress could
reaffirm its no-contracting policy. Otherwise litigation, turning on a
question of Congressional intent, will be needed. This becomes doubly
important if the Department is successful in passing amendments to the
Code allowing them to outsource positions legally. The duties of some
of these personnel may be delegated to the States. When this is done,
the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the whistleblower
provisions of the environmental statutes cannot protect State employees
enforcing Federal laws. See Rhode Island v. United States, 304 F.3d 31
(1st Cir. 2003).
3. LInstill Environmental Responsibility Within the Officer Corps.
This last reform is central to my heart on this matter. Long before I
considered myself an environmentalist, I was a warrior--and my work
still exhibits the training I received in the Navy. In that same way,
we need to inculcate the environmental ethic within our warriors as a
component of readiness--not only because we value the resources the
Sikes Act protects, but also because we value our soldiers, sailors,
aircrews and marines.
When I see images of the chemical warfare equipment and protective
gear worn by our fighters in Iraq, I am saddened by our lack of
preparedness--or readiness--against environmental hazards during Desert
Storm. The Gulf War Syndrome was a product of the way in which warriors
think, or fail to think, about the world around us--what we inject into
it, and what we take out of it. On the battleship IOWA, we sent damage
control units into cyanide-saturated spaces without protective gear;
again a failure of environmental security. If you neglect the
environmental security advanced by the Sikes Act and other
environmental statutes, you will ultimately comprise the effectiveness
of the fighting force maintaining your national security.
Conclusion. It is time to end the false dichotomy or division
between ``readiness'' and ``environmental compliance''. As stated by
former Defense Secretary William Perry:
``Protecting our national security in the post-Cold War era
includes integrating the best environmental practices into all
Department of Defense activities.''
Environmental compliance is an indispensable element of readiness.
A base commander trained to think in terms of rigorous INRMPs and
skillfully prepared by his or her career Federal environmental staff
will begin to think about the world around him as he plans for war. The
INRMP encourages a process of thinking, a way of approaching the
question of how the fighting unit impacts the Earth, and ultimately,
the warrior who derives fighting sustenance from the Earth. A war
commander trained in such disciplines, for instance, will think twice
before ordering the haphazard destruction of a chemical weapons depot,
or how he exposes his fighters to depleted uranium munitions or burning
petroleum fumes.
The Sikes Act relates specifically to the management of natural
resources, but it is the template for how we manage war-making and its
environmental impact. Machines increasingly win our wars, placing the
responsibility for the common defense farther from the average citizen.
The soldiers, sailors, aircrews and marines who still fight our
battles, however, do so under the belief that the nation will address
the adverse effects of those wars on both themselves and their
families. Most of us are familiar with the idea of an adverse impact
beyond the familiar physical or psychological damage of warfare. The
effects of Agent Orange and the Defense Department's nuclear testing
have alerted us all to the fact that our neighbors and their sons may
be paying more for our defense than we initially understand a war to
cost. These adverse impacts need to be addressed not only because we
are a caring nation, but also because we rely on volunteers. Who will
volunteer for military service if the handling of the ``Agent Orange
phenomenon'' is the model currently used by the Pentagon?
A decade ago, our generals and admirals failed to understand the
environmental security impact of both the detonation of the Iraqi
chemical weapons depot at Khismayah (1991), and the impacts of Kuwait's
burning oil fields on our warriors. Three decades ago, the same mistake
was made with respect to defoliants in South East Asia. Five decades
ago, the same mistakes were made with radiation testing on our
servicemen and women. These types of failures undermine the integrity
of our fighting force, raising suspicions within the enlisted ranks
that the military leadership, defense contractors, and their
Congressional allies will avoid the costs of war by making our soldiers
and their families bear the same. Your integrity and the integrity of
the process by which Capitol Hill makes national and environmental
security decisions are as much at stake here as is the health of the
American environment.
Come back to the Sikes Act: a statutory regime that teaches our
warriors to think of the environment as part of both their war fighting
terrain and the resource they are defending, will change the way we
approach environmental challenges in the field. The path to prevent
future Desert Storm Syndromes travels by the nest of the Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker and its endangered peers.
Remember, also, that the Defense lands are not the property of any
one agency so much as they are assets entrusted by the people of the
United States with a particular public instrumentality. The air, soil
and water of those lands are no less part of our national heritage than
those of national parks and forests. It is an institutional failure as
well as a threat to public health and safety when groundwater is
contaminated by Defense-related activities, or when already threatened
wildlife is needlessly jeopardized. Ultimately, we ought to understand
that we are not engaged in this season of war for the sake of making
war, but rather to safeguard and protect a way of living in this
country, a way of living dependent on the Sikes Act and the resources
it protects.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. We should have had you
on the first panel. We will have to do that the next time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you comment, you have 11 cases with
DOD you mentioned. What are those 11 cases? Does it have to do
with enforcement or whistleblowers or what are those case?
Mr. Meyer. To the extent that I can give out details, some
of those are currently intakes which have not been moved into
the public record, I have to be careful about the details I
give out because they are my clients.
The two most important cases are right now in front of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One involves the
Army and the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker down in the Southeast part
of the country. The other involves PCBs in the soil at NTCS
Cutler in Maine.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying--I am not sure I
understand--these cases are as a result of a Federal employee
reporting that there are some environmental violations.
Mr. Meyer. In the case of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, my
client was involved with the burn ratio that was required at
Fort Stewart in order to accommodate the habitat of the Red-
Cockaded Woodpecker.
Mr. Gilchrest. And this has to do with the INRMP plans.
Mr. Meyer. And working from the INRMP, and working in
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, my client
made a determination that a certain amount of acreage under the
Fish and Wildlife Service's opinion, its biological opinion,
had to be burned at Fort Stewart, and it set up a challenge,
through the Army's inspection process, when they weren't
achieving that burn rate.
As he was helping the inspectors to go through the books,
there was a confrontation over whether the burn rate had been
achieved, how it had been achieved and how much of an issue it
was that they had not met the Fish and Wildlife Service's
obligations.
In that, he received a 2-day suspension, a small matter.
MSPB was not happy that I brought to them a 2-day suspension.
But for a Federal employee who is a retired lieutenant
commander and a formal Naval aviator, that was a huge offense
to him, and I said, ``You know Burt, you have a great case. We
will take it, and we will test the law on it.''
In the case of NTCS Cutler, there was a determination that
there was not a need for an environmental assessment. Then my
client figured out that there were PCBs in the paint, tried to
push the issue of an environmental assessment through the
command, and was retaliated against in that context. Then they
had to go back and pay off a contractor. There was about
$100,000 lost because they couldn't do that work. They had to
go back and reschedule the job and take care of the PCB problem
that had moved off the towers and was now in the soil itself.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you feel those 11 cases, in particular
those two that you just mentioned to us, would benefit from an
enforcement clause, a whistleblower protection and--go ahead.
Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir. I think there are three different
needs there. An enforcement clause is necessary. If you lose
the enforcement clauses in the environmental statutes, there
needs to be some provision within the Sikes Act to make up for
that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you think, looking at this from an
overall perspective and all military bases that are trying to
implement this new Integrated Plan System with the States, with
Fish and Wildlife and with DOD, would you say, overall, it is
working well or are there particular places and are those
particular places maybe personality problems with the
implementation of these good ecosystem plans?
Mr. Meyer. I think it is working well, but in working well,
it is putting an incredible amount of pressure on the Natural
Resources managers on the bases, who are now becoming the
negotiators on the INRMPs between the Federal agencies that are
consulting with the Defense Department.
Mr. Gilchrest. And you would have some concern about
outsourcing some of this work?
Mr. Meyer. A very large concern about outsourcing, given
the commercial incentives behind the contracting process.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyer, and
we will stay close to you, as we go through this
reauthorization process, for your input.
Colonel Deal and Mr. Rurka, Quantico seems to be the poster
child, the great example of your work, although I have to tell
you I was 10 months at Quantico, and I don't think I ever saw
any wildlife, other than the young ROTC people or I forget now
what we called them, the young lieutenants running toward us,
and we would either shoot blanks at them or, depending on the
weather, we would throw snowballs at them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. How many bases around the country have
something similar to what you have established at Quantico?
Colonel Deal. I couldn't answer that, and that is a
question I would like to ask. The law has been in establishment
since 1998. We, at PVA, know that they are extremely busy at
those bases, and when we show up, we are there to help solve
the equation. That is why the adaptive equipment is so
important.
They are trying. That is why I said in my statements
earlier we are here to help them establish those procedures. We
are a reservoir of how to do it right. Believe me, when we
started at Quantico, there were some rather humorous moments
when we were trying to get folks in wheelchairs out into the
rolling hills of Quantico to deer hunt, but we solved it, and
we did it safely.
Where the rubber meets the road, I just got back from NAS
Meridian. We found a spring turkey hunt with Congressman
Pickering and one of our disabled vets for a Mossy Oak Hunting
the Country--successful show. They are doing a great job down
there, but a lot of it is they say, ``Tell us how to do it,''
and that is what we are there for.
I also think that, at their level, they have worked very
hard on lots of issues, and they need all of the help they can
get to implement it.
All of the bases that we listed I think are the only bases
that we know of that have received adaptive equipment, and we
did that. We sure would welcome some support from Safari Club
International maybe down the road on that, and we have talked
about that.
A lot of them have programs, but it is not the quality
program that we would like to see. If you have a fishing
facility, are there rails? And we will supply the designs free
if you want it.
Taking someone deer hunting is not taking them out and
saying, ``OK, get out of your vehicle, sit here in your chair
looking at this field, while 45 people drive by going to the
deep woods.'' That is the kind of issues, but that is all they
can do. They don't have time to make it a--and that is what we
are here to do. It will take time. Just give us the
opportunity, and we will make it happen.
Mr. Gilchrest. Certainly. Thank you very much, and we
appreciate your dedication to this issue.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Meyer a question. You heard--I think
you were here earlier--did you hear the first panel?
Mr. Meyer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. And you heard the DOD representative say he is
seeking to prevent the services from designating critical
habitat on any land owned or controlled by DOD if the INRMP has
been developed.
And, of course, I expressed concerns about the adequacy of
the INRMP, for two reasons; first, because the Sikes Act simply
requires DOD to prepare INRMPs that protect wildlife to the
extent appropriate, not necessarily the extent necessary to
recover a threatened or endangered species and, second, because
according to the Office of the Inspector General, Federal and
State wildlife agencies have limited involvement in preparation
of INRMP.
So there may be cases where it is appropriate to exclude a
base from critical habitat requirements, but I guess I just
wanted to ask you if you believe that INRMP should be
substituted for critical habitat designations no all military
bases, which is I think what they are proposing.
Mr. Meyer. I don't agree with the Defense Department's
position on that. I think you actually have the great structure
already together for a statutory pattern, and that is that
Congress has identified specific environmental needs in those
statutes, whether it is the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act or all of the hazardous waste acts. The
INRMP should be looking at the requirements under those acts
and the components of the INRMP should be following from those.
So, in a way, it is almost like a pyramid effect, and what
you have is your individual blocks on the bottom which are
experiences over the last 40 or 50 years regarding the
environment and what we now know is the impact on the
environment. Then the INRMP can become the vehicle that the
Defense Department moves forward and meets its obligations
under those.
Now, where you get this duality between the critical
habitat designation and the INRMP and the Defense Department's
difficulty in dealing with that, I really think what you are
seeing is more pretext than it is what is going on, on the
bottom.
What is happening is it is a breakdown of the consultation
process that Jim Connaughton is in charge of. I think CEQ has
for many years, and this is a bipartisan failure, not developed
the kind of teamwork between Federal agencies, so that the
consultation is done early and there is a lot of time to deal
with the problem. Because there is a delay, you end up with a
crisis at the end, which then the Defense Department thinks is
affecting its training.
I think that if Congress wants to get to the issue of why
people are stepping on each other's toes on the dance floor
between critical habitat designation and INRMPs, they need to
get to the heart of what is the problem with the consultation
issue, and it is a very complicated issue, Congressman.
I have had situations where, because one agency does not
feel comfortable talking with the Defense Department, they will
go through the Natural Resource manager on the base. So Fish
and Wildlife will talk more with its contacts on the base than
it will directly with the base and with the chain of command at
the facility, in the same way, because the person on the base
doesn't feel comfortable talking with a commander who is not
pro environment, he will then have the issues raised through
the Fish and Wildlife Service or through the National Marine
Fisheries Service and come back to the base that way.
The consultation process is very complicated. I don't think
it is well-understood and I think part of that is making your
job more difficult on sorting out critical habitat designation
and INRMPs.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I know you made some suggestions about
how we might amend the Sikes Act. You talked about the
enforcement clause, whistleblower protection. Did you want to
say anything, in that regard, about what we just discussed in
terms of this consultation process or anything else that you
think we might do in clarifying or amending the act?
Mr. Meyer. On enforcement, I would yield to Chester's group
because I think NMFWA has a great understanding of where the
Act needs to go.
On the whistleblower protection provisions, which is our
bread and butter at PEER, due to a decision that came out of
the Federal Circuit of Appeals in 2001, it is very difficult
for a Federal employee who stays within his or her chain of
command by reporting up through the commander and is retaliated
against in that situation, to receive protection.
The Federal Circuit has set up a situation, under the WPA
and all of the whistleblower clauses in the environmental
statutes, that if you are a Federal employee, you only get
protection if you go to the Office of Special Counsel or if you
leak the information to the press. As a former military man,
this horrified me when I figured out that you have more
protection if you leak the information to the New York Times,
than you do if you take the information to your base commander.
So the only way we are going to get around that, until
somebody gets on the U.S. Court of Appeals, is if Congress
starts inserting into its statutes disciplined whistleblower
protection language that circumvents the Huffman case or
corrects the record in the Huffman case.
And then the last position in here, which I think is very
important, and I added late--it was a thought I had in the
shower, actually, on Sunday morning--is that with the
delegation agreement to the States, when you start moving
Federal functions, to the States, whether it is law enforcement
positions on the bases related to environmental violations or
if you start moving review of environmental requirements to
State agencies, there is this body of jurisprudence out of the
Supreme Court, on the seminal line of cases, in which a State
will be able to raise sovereign immunity any time a State
employee, doing work for the Federal Government, sues the State
for a whistleblower issue or matter.
So, if you are going to turn over your functions to the
States and the Defense Department has been thinking about that,
I think you need to think through whether the States need to
waive their sovereign immunity so that your whistleblower
clauses still have effect.
Those are the two technical parts of that.
Mr. Pallone. That is very helpful. Thank you.
I don't know if we have time, but I was going to ask Mr.
Rurka a question. Well, first of all, where do you live,
actually?
Mr. Rurka. I live in Somerset, New Jersey, outside of
Rutgers University.
Mr. Pallone. So that is Franklin Township.
Mr. Rurka. It is, exactly.
Mr. Pallone. You are in my district.
Mr. Rurka. I am. I am proud to see you doing such a great
job here today.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. I don't know, maybe I
shouldn't ask this question, now that you told me that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. But I guess it is obvious from the testimony
of the first panel, Mr. Rurka, that the DOD has been struggling
with addressing the issue of encroachment on military lands in
recent years, and they are seeking legislative relief from a
number of acts, including ESA.
I guess the question is, given the heightened alert that we
have now in these times, where military readiness is placed at
a premium, how do you propose to justify increased public
access to military installations when the DOD finds
encroachment a burden to readiness and training activities the
way that they have said or the way that Mr. DuBois mentioned in
the first panel?
Mr. Rurka. There is certainly no easy solution to this, and
we can appreciate the efforts of our military men and women
today, and they need the training and everything else. But you
are looking at vast tracts of property.
I submit to you McGuire Air Force Base, we don't need the
entire base. You have got millions and millions of acres. Would
100 feet of a stream, with one dockage area with a railing,
make a tremendous impact?
Would 100 acres, out of 100,000 acres, impact dramatically
what we are going to do with our men, women and service
personnel? And I would submit to you, no, it would not.
When I look at the problems of getting access, just a phone
call to McGuire is a joke. I love our people, but no one knows
about the program. If we could dedicate certain areas, and I
have to refer to Colonel Deal, it is an area where you don't
want 45 cars an hour going by. It is an area that is more
isolated, that a person with a handicap could bring a mom, a
dad, a brother, a partner, a hunting buddy, a fishing buddy and
say, ``Hey, we have got access here. We are not sitting in a
park being pushed around by whatever it might be. We can come
here. We can enjoy a few hours, and we are not going to disturb
anybody.''
So we are not looking to encroach on anybody's terrain. We
are not here to hurt our military personnel at all--just a
little area.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to commend those persons working on
programs for persons with disabilities. Most of my life I have
devoted to working with programs that have to do with persons
with disabilities, and both the Chair and the Ranking Member
did touch on questions that I was going to ask.
And you know we might keep in mind, when we are thinking of
the disabled veterans, that after this war in Iraq, we will
have probably a significant number. It will increase,
certainly. And so we want to be able to keep on working for
them and keep them always in the forefront.
Our Chairman asked how many bases have initiated these
programs, and you answered in the negative. Would you possibly
have remembered if Guam was on that list?
Colonel Deal. No, ma'am, I don't.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to ask, then, Mr. Chairman, if
you could look into this, provide us with this list and provide
it to the Chairman, if that is all right, Mr. Chairman.
Another question I would like to ask is the accessibility
for persons with disabilities on bases, generally, is it good?
Mr. Rurka. If I could address that, and he will add to
this.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Rurka. We have members in every State of the Union and
across the world. We are an international group. To my
surprise, when chapters in various States make an effort to get
onto a military base, we find ourselves with our hands tied. I
am not going to say there aren't bases that do help, but I
would say in most cases there is maybe a lack of knowledge of
the program or an inability to set aside a small space for this
effort, and it seems that we spin a lot of tires.
So we go to the private sector, and the private sector
embraces us with open arms. So we are finding that where we
hoped to be welcomed on our bases, we have better access
privately. Unfortunately, that is not access 52 weeks a year
because it might be a farming operation, it might be where a
number of issues come in.
So, from my experience right now, I would say that we are
not doing well in that area.
Ms. Bordallo. But when you get onto the bases, is the
accessibility there? Are they complying with the ADA Act?
Mr. Rurka. Well, we have not had, other than McGuire Air
Force Base, which has been pretty good in a small segment, but
with all of the efforts going on now, things have sort of shut
down a little bit. So we are saying that maybe we could have a
person designated on each base to just address that issue,
whether it be for photography, still video, fishing, whatever
it might be. We are not looking at access to the entire base,
just small areas of it.
Ms. Bordallo. Colonel?
Colonel Deal. The specific language of the Disabled
Sportsmen's Access Act, there are three levels, and it says:
First priority goes to disabled veterans, and then to
dependents with disabilities and then all others.
The other big issue, and having spent 24 years in Marine
Corps security, you know, it is very difficult, if you are a
civilian, to get on a base. Now, I can speak for Quantico.
They did a survey down there for able-bodied hunters. More
civilians hunted Quantico than the Marines did--open access,
but that is Quantico--mostly because the Marines didn't have
time to go hunting. All right? So it depends.
But I agree, we are a reservoir. We could help solve that
issue. But if I was a base commander and the law says,
dependent upon operational commitments, I would be real
hesitant about civilians coming on board. First of all, I am
going to take care of my vets and then dependents. It can be
worked out.
Ms. Bordallo. So perhaps this would be the time, then, for
you to look at future recommendations and provide us with
legislation.
Colonel Deal. Right.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
I think that pretty much concludes the formal part of the
hearing. I would like to continue, Mr. Pallone, and I, and the
other members of this Subcommittee would like to continue to
have a dialog with you on a number of aspects; certainly, how
we can improve the Act with the disabilities situation. And
some of the material that you sent up to the desk is just
extraordinary, almost to the point where only in America can
this kind of thing happen, and we would like to make other
bases certainly more accessible, and using Quantico as the best
example of how it can be done.
We also appreciate, Mr. Martin and Mr. Meyer, your
testimony, so that we can truly integrate the kind of best
natural resource management, working through an ecosystem
approach, and integrate the concepts of ESA and MMPA with the
necessary training that is required and critical.
So we appreciate your testimony this morning and look
forward to our continued dialog.
Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Felix P.
Camacho, Governor, Territory of Guam, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Felix P. Camacho, Governor,
Territory of Guam
Guam would like to thank you for the invitation to provide oral
testimony at the hearing on H.R. 1497 and regrets that travel logistics
prevented a representative from being able to attend. Guam's
perspective on H.R. 1497, the Sikes Act Reauthorization Act of 2003 in
unique. Guam remains a strategic military location especially in these
times of War with Iraq and the risks posed by North Korea.
Ultimately we recommend the reauthorization supports allowing both
primary goals of protecting natural resource and meeting the U.S.
military mission to be achieved. The Government of Guam has had a
collaborative relationship with the Department of Defense for over 30
years and can show that it is this collaboration that has allowed the
military mission to be met while maintaining prudent natural resource
management. This is not to say there have not been disputed issues or
disagreements on the suitability of both natural resource management
needs and eligibility of selected military actions with respect to
their impact on endangered species habitat. However, logic and
commitment can find ways for these issues to coexist.
Guam residents have always been and continue to be strong advocates
of the U.S. military efforts. Having significant U.S. Air Force and
U.S. Navy Bases that occupy roughly 30% of the island's land area as
well as significant representation by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Marines, U.S. Civil Engineering Battalion and Army and Air Force
Reserve Units makes the Sikes Act an important management tool.
The issue of endangered species further complicates this issue as
many of Guam's native bird species have been extirpated, while quite a
few others have been place at risk as a result of the introduced brown
tree snake. This has resulted in significant Federal endangered species
listing of Guam species and this triggers the critical habitat issue.
Critical Habitat designation does not guarantee preservation of
habitat and there are numerous examples of habitat being ``taken''
because the data presented was not sufficient to render a jeopardy
opinion or no Federal action was proposed and therefore there is no
legal oversight. Additionally, critical habitat designation does not
assure funding to manage such areas and this has in many cases made the
long term goal of species recovery unreachable. Some have said the ESA
protects the habitat but this is only true if the species is still
present. In Guam's case, much of the previously occupied habitat is
uninhabited by these species but there is still hope that these areas
can once again hold these species. If the land available to recover
species falls below the definition of what is needed in the Federal
recovery plan to have a sustainable population, then the species can
never be delisted and this clearly needs to be everyone's goal.
For this reason, the integrated natural resource management plan
(INRMP) concept is the preferred approach with several considerations
attached. This approach obligates the DOD landholder to commit to a
natural resource management plan. They must commit funds and personnel
to completing the plan and this is one of the primary failures of the
critical habitat approach. The state fish and wildlife agencies must
continue to have the ability to participate in the development and
approval of the plan. This approach has also allowed management issues
beyond ESA to be addressed. This also increases the likelihood of best
management practices being applied that can avoid or minimize impacts
while allowing the military mission to proceed. These plans are
evolutionary documents and support adjustments being made as resources
or missions change. It is critical in considering this approach that
strong language is developed to hold the stakeholders to the agreement
and to ensure that local stakeholders are entitled to participate in
the development and approval of the strategy. This also requires that
the protection intended to occur in critical habitat and the ESA are
upheld in any alternative approach. In the case of DOD, their primary
military mission is clear and it is critical that the reauthorization
that it remain equally clear that DOD must uphold the ESA and critical
habitat goals but that alternatives such as INRMPs can continue to be
considered as substitutes.
To do anything that would preclude either goal from being achieved
would have tremendous negative impacts on either side. Exempting DOD
from having to meet CH concerns in their INRMP would potentially
obligate species to endangered listing for a lack of habit to meet
recovery needs. To obligate CH without alternatives like INRMP
substitution would potentially prevent critical operations or
preparedness by DOD.
This concept should be extended beyond DOD lands to local
government or private lands. This should include safe harbor agreements
or other alternatives as substitutes for critical habitat that provide
better approaches to manage endangered species and associated critical
habitat.
The animals and plants know no political boundaries and the SIKES
has a long history of ensuring proper management of natural resources
on Federal lands and also provides strong support for local
stakeholders to have legal standing in managing such Federal areas.
These issues continue to be essential elements of the Act while
alternatives to achieve these goals should be broadened.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to
continuing to work with your Committee on this and other issues.
-