[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1204 and H.R. 2408
=======================================================================
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
__________
June 26, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-34
__________
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
______
87-973 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
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
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Carolina Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 26, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
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.................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Bristow, Dr. Edgar C., President, Friends of Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge, Inc.............................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Campbell, Chip, President, Okefenokee Adventures, Inc........ 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Hirsche, Evan M., President, National Wildlife Refuge
Association................................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Hook, Thomas A., Treasurer, Friends of Blackwater Refuge..... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Jones, Marshall P., Jr., Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1204, A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966 TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE AWARD OF CONCESSIONS IN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, TO
PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SYSTEM
BY CONCESSIONAIRES AUTHORIZED TO USE SUCH PROPERTIES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2408, A BILL TO AMEND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF
1956 TO REAUTHORIZE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES.
----------
Thursday, June 26, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Saxton, Gilchrest, Souder,
Pallone, Kind and Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. I apologize for interrupting the
conversation. But we won't be here that long and you can return
to that conversation.
The Subcommittee will come to order. Today the Subcommittee
will hear testimony on two measures to improve our national
wildlife refuge system.
The first bill is H.R. 1204 introduced by our colleague
Mark Souder of Indiana. This proposal will establish for the
first time a comprehensive concession policy for our refuge
system.
And I first ask unanimous consent that my full statement be
put into the record, and I want to thank Mark for his
provisions. I think that will vastly improve the access and
enjoyability of the refuge system.
And our second bill, H.R. 1204, contains provisions--well,
that is Mark's. Our second bill is 2408, introduced by the Vice
Chairman of the Subcommittee, Congressman Jim Saxton. This bill
will reauthorize the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer
and Community Partnership Act which he authored in 1998.
And we cannot run the refuge system without volunteers, and
I want to thank both members for their attention to detail in
these two issues. And I will yield back the balance of my time
and ask Mr. Saxton if he has any opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 1204 and H.R.
2408
Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony on two
measures to improve our National Wildlife Refuge System.
The first bill is H.R. 1204 introduced by our colleague Mark Souder
of Indiana. This proposal will establish for the first time a
comprehensive concession policy for our refuge system. Based on a
survey of refuge managers, we know that there are about forty refuges
throughout the country that offer a variety of concession services to
the visiting public. These services range from book store sales, canoe
rentals, interpretive tours and tour boat operators. In seven cases,
private individuals have signed contracts with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and they operate in buildings owned by the Federal
Government.
H.R. 1204 contains provisions that require the development of a
standardized contract for all concessionaires, allows a concessionaire
to be given financial credit for any necessary maintenance and repairs
and stipulates how the concession payments will be spent. The
overarching goal is to enhance the public's recreational, educational
and interpretive enjoyment of our refuge system.
This is a good bill, it was overwhelmingly adopted in the House
last year and I compliment Congressman Souder for his tireless
leadership in promoting this innovative idea.
The second bill is H.R. 2408 introduced by the Vice Chairman of the
Subcommittee Congressman Jim Saxton. This bill will reauthorize the
National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Act
which he authored in 1998.
There is no question that volunteers play an invaluable role in the
successful operation of hundreds of refuges throughout the United
States. Since 1982, the number of refuge volunteers has grown from
4,251 individuals to over 36,000. In the past year alone, volunteers
have contributed over 1.3 million hours of their time to the refuge
system. From operating a backhoe, assisting in the banding of birds or
providing educational information to the public, volunteers do it all.
H.R. 2408 will extend the landmark 1998 law that established a
pilot program for paid full time volunteer coordinators, allowed the
service to enter into cooperative agreements and created a new refuge
enhancement program. It is appropriate that we examine the
effectiveness of these changes, determine whether modifications to
certain provisions would be helpful and question whether we should
extend or increase the level of appropriations.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I
would highlight the fact that we are considering this legislation
during the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
I am pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Democratic
Member of the Subcommittee, Congressman Frank Pallone.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss a bill
that I originally sponsored and authored, the National Wildlife
Refuge Volunteer Act. I would like to thank our witnesses for
being here today, and I would like to especially extend warm
welcome to Dr. Edward Bristow--wave your hand at us there, Ed.
Dr. Bristow is from the Friends of Forsythe. The Edwin B.
Forsythe Refuge is located partially within my Congressional
District.
And I mentioned to Dr. Bristow, we are going to have a
rather disjointed hearing this morning because we are going to
be interrupted in a few minutes to go to the House floor for
some votes, and he said that is all right, I can describe this
bill in two words: resounding success. So we are very pleased
to have you here this morning, Dr. Bristow, to share those very
concise but important thoughts with us.
Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement, and I'll just ask
unanimous consent that it be placed in the record for
expediting time. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 2408
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here today to discuss one of my bills, the National
Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act. Thank you to our witnesses for being
here today. I would like to extend an especially warm welcome to Dr.
Edgar Bristow, from the Friends of Forsythe. The Edwin B. Forsythe
Wildlife Refuge is located partially within my Congressional district.
The National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, contains 92 million acres of Federal
lands dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife. The Refuge
System contains 540 Refuges located throughout the United States.
The system provides habitat for thousands of species of fish and
wildlife and it is particularly important to migratory bird
conservation as many refuges are concentrated along the major North
American flyways.
Section 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 authorizes refuge
volunteer programs. This section of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
was adopted in the 1978 amendments to the Act and this authority was
expanded subsequently by my bill, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998.
This bill authorized a number of actions to be taken by the
Secretary of the Interior, including: to recruit, train and accept the
services of individuals as volunteers for any program conducted by the
agency; provide volunteers with food, housing, transportation and
uniforms; provide matching funds for gifts or bequests to refuges;
establish a Senior Volunteer Corps; enter into cooperative agreements
with partner organizations, academic institutions or State or local
governments to carry out resources stewardship operation and
maintenance and educational projects; develop refuge education
guidelines and refuge enhancement education programs; deem volunteers
government employees for the purpose of tort claim liability and
compensation for job-related injuries and require that gifts for
specific refuges are used on site.
In addition, the Act added a new provision to enhance community
partnerships with the refuges. This new provision allowed the Secretary
to enter into cooperative agreements with a partner organization,
academic institution, or any State or local government to carry out
projects with geographically related refuges. Such projects could
include promoting the stewardship of resources within the refuge
through habitat maintenance or restoration.
Projects could also include education on the missions of the
refuge, or projects to construct or improve facilities on the refuge.
Finally, the Act created a new Refuge Education Program Enhancement
program to provide guidance for educational programs at individual
refuges.
On June 10, 2003 I introduced the National Wildlife Refuge
Volunteer Act of 2003, which will extend the authorization for these
programs through September 30, 2009. I am pleased this hearing is being
held today to discuss this important issue. Our wildlife refuge system
provides so many people with the opportunity to enjoy the diverse
natural resources our country has to offer. Thank you and I look
forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I recognize Mr. Souder.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
ask that my full statement be submitted into the record. And I
appreciate working with the Chairman to try to move this bill.
We have sponsored similar legislation in the last few
Congresses. We have had it moved at, snared at the tail end,
and I am looking forward to actually having it become law in
this important anniversary year of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
My friend, Lou Hinds, who was the refuge director in the
Ding Darling Fish and Wildlife Refuge down in Florida where
often I would vacation, called this to my attention as we were
looking at the difficulty of concessionaires and the motivation
to provide in areas away from the nesting and away from where
it might be problems to wildlife at different seasons, but how
to bring more visitors into fish and wildlife areas where they
can appreciate and understand the importance of such refuges;
that given the current system, much like it was under the
National Park Service, there hasn't really been a motivation on
the part of individual refuge managers or concessionaires to
provide or upgrade facilities, and it was often the last part
of a package. And I believe this bill, patterned after the
National Parks Concession Act that this full Committee passed,
will address those questions for restrooms, campgrounds, boat
docks, buildings that can--roof repairs, all sorts of problems
that many of the areas have that discourage visitation and,
quite frankly, often discourage environmentally sensitive
concessionaires from even bidding in a process or wanting to
provide those concessions.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I am looking
forward to having this become law. And I want to thank the Fish
and Wildlife Service, too, for their help in drafting it as we
continue to move this through.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, on H.R. 1204
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding a mark-up on this
important legislation to reform the concessions process within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been
working for many years to establish a process to properly maintain
concession facilities located in National Wildlife Refuge areas and to
provide the visiting public with safe places for recreation.
As the House sponsor of similar legislation in the 106th and 107th
Congresses, I am pleased to be the sponsor of H.R. 1204 and look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Resources Committee to
successfully pass H.R. 1204.
H.R. 1204 amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966 to establish a new policy for the maintenance of facilities
as well as Fish and Wildlife Service authorized improvements of
facilities that are leased by concessionaires in National Wildlife
Refuge System areas. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to include in any contract with a concessionaire,
provisions that authorize concessionaires to maintain and make repairs
to facilities, and to treat such costs incurred as a form of payment
towards the leasing fees of the facilities. Under the provisions
contained in H.R. 1204, the Fish and Wildlife Service ultimately
retains the right to decide which project repairs are consistent with
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Like many Americans, I regard wildlife refuges as a significant
piece of our national natural treasures. Over 500 refuges and refuge
areas have been established across the country not only to carry out
conservation missions, but to also act as living laboratories for the
System's many visitors. Historically, and in accordance to the System's
statutory mission, refuges have sought to educate people about the
importance of wildlife and plant habitats through conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration. In order for the
National Wildlife Refuge System to continue to carry out this mission,
refuge facilities must be able to adequately support the visiting
public.
Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the
tools necessary to adequately maintain our refuges' facilities.
Restrooms, campgrounds, boat docks and buildings throughout the System
have fallen into a state of disrepair. I have witnessed and experienced
this disrepair personally. Annually, my family travels to Sanibel
Island, Florida which is home to the Ding Darling National Wildlife
Refuge. While there, I have witnessed first hand the need for roof
repairs, dock replacement and additional restrooms that handicapped
accessible.
H.R. 1204 seeks to correct the problem that is becoming commonplace
at refuges across the nation. The primary goal of this legislation is
to provide safe and properly maintained facilities for the public to
enjoy. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Souder. I don't know if I
have to ask unanimous consent for Mr. Kind to sit on the dais.
Mr. Kind. Not anymore.
Mr. Gilchrest. Not anymore.
Mr. Kind. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that as of
yesterday I was notified that room has been made on the
Subcommittee for my participation. So I am happy to be a new
member of the Subcommittee, and I couldn't think of a better
hearing to participate in today than these two bills pending,
affecting the refuge system. I have two of the most beautiful
refuges in the entire Nation in my Congressional District, the
Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, one of the largest; the
great--
Mr. Gilchrest. Have you been to Blackwater Refuge in
Dorchester County, Maryland?
Mr. Kind. We will have to do that, Mr. Chairman. I will be
happy to accept an invitation and get out and about--and also
the Necedah Wildlife Refuge, where we have three endangered
species. So it is a tremendous system that has been established
throughout the country. We have the 100th anniversary this year
that we are celebrating. I think there is a lot of work that we
can do in a bipartisan nature in order to improve the refuge
system, and will look forward to today's hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kind. Mr. Pallone?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I am
pleased to see that Mr. Kind is here today joining us as well.
I wanted to thank you for holding this hearing on the
legislation to enhance and modernize visitor services within
our national wildlife refuge system. With annual public
visitation to the refuge system soon expected to surpass 40
million people, it is critical that we address the growing
public use of refuge lands and waters in a manner that ensures
healthy and productive fish and wildlife habitat for years to
come.
By definition, refuge lands are set aside exclusively for
the benefit of fish and wildlife, and we therefore need to be
prudent and thoughtful when examining any proposal which might
detract from the overall wildlife first mission of the refuge
system, and this mission should be our priority concern.
I commend the sponsors of the bills before the Committee
this morning, both Congressman Mark Souder and Congressman Jim
Saxton. Their thoughtful legislation addresses specific aspects
of an emerging conundrum challenging refuge managers how best
to manage increased public visitation with limited or shrinking
annual operating and maintenance budgets. Certainly the ideas
embodied in both H.R. 1204 and H.R. 2408 impress me as positive
steps in the right direction. After all, it is important to
establish a standard governing policy for concessions in our
Federal refuge system, as the continued absence of such a
policy could be a potential management headache. And
furthermore, considering that $1.8 billion operations and
maintenance backlog afflicting the refuge system, it seems like
good policy to promote the participation and utilization of
volunteers to supplement the Federal employees who have been
stretched across the entire system.
We need to think both creatively and carefully to ensure
that our refuge system continues to prioritize wildlife while
providing continued access to refuge visitors. And with that
thought in mind, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
about whether these bills strike this appropriate balance.
And again, I thank you and I thank Mr. Kind for being here
as well.
]The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 1204 and H.R. 2408
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on legislation to
enhance and modernize visitor services within our National Wildlife
Refuge System.
With annual public visitation to the Refuge System soon expected to
surpass 40 million people, it is critical that we address the growing
public use of refuge lands and waters in a manner that ensures healthy
and productive fish and wildlife habitat for years to come.
By definition, refuge lands are set aside exclusively for the
benefit of fish and wildlife. We therefore need to be prudent and
thoughtful when examining any proposal which might detract from the
overall ``wildlife first'' mission of the Refuge System. This mission
should be our priority concern.
I commend the sponsors of the bills before the committee this
morning, Congressman Mark Souder and Congressman Jim Saxton. Their
thoughtful legislation addresses specific aspects of an emerging
conundrum challenging refuge managers: how best to manage increased
public visitation with limited or shrinking annual operating and
maintenance budgets.
Certainly the ideas embodied in both H.R. 1204 and H.R. 2408
impress me as positive steps in the right direction. After all, it is
important to establish a standard governing policy for concessions in
our Federal Refuge System, as the continued absence of such a policy
could be a potential management headache.
Furthermore, considering the $1.8 billion dollar operations and
maintenance budget backlog afflicting the Refuge System, it seems like
good policy to promote the participation and utilization of volunteers
to supplement the federal employees who have been stretched across the
entire System.
We need to think both creatively and carefully to ensure that our
Refuge System continues to prioritize wildlife, while providing
convenient access to Refuge visitors. And with that thought in mind, I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about whether these bills
strike this appropriate balance. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Jones, thanks once again for coming to our
Subcommittee. And we all look forward to your testimony. You
may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure
to be here and to be with all of you. And it is especially a
pleasure today to have the opportunity to present the
Administration's views on H.R. 1204, to establish a national
wildlife refuge system concessions policy, and H.R. 2408, to
reauthorize the Volunteer Act.
I am Marshall Jones, the deputy director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. And Mr. Chairman, there is so much that I
could say about each of these bills, about how important they
are, how much we appreciate the initiative by the Committee and
the members to introduce these, but I will just give you a
brief summary of my statement and would ask that my full
written statement could be put in the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. The H.R. 1204 would amend the
National Wildlife Administration Act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to provide for the maintenance and repair of
buildings and properties located on lands in the refuge system.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration strongly supports the goals of
this legislation, and we appreciate all the efforts to bring it
forward.
We do have some technical issues that we would like to
discuss with the Committee and with the Committee staff, and we
would like to work with you to address these things so that we
can fine-tune some of the provisions to make sure that it will
accomplish our mutual objectives.
We also fully support H.R. 2408, which would reauthorize
the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community
Partnership and Enhancement Act.
First let me say a few words about H.R. 1204. Concessions
are defined as businesses operated by the private sector that
provide recreational, educational, and interpretive
opportunities for the visiting public. A concession provides a
public service and generally requires some kind of capital
investment by the concessionaire and/or the Fish and Wildlife
Service for the facilities and the products which would be
used.
Mr. Chairman, in the 1980's we explored whether it would be
possible for concessionaires to, instead of making a direct
payment in cash to us, to instead use the costs that they might
incur in upgrading or repairing facilities to offset part of
what they would owe us as the concession fee. But the
Department of Interior Office of the Solicitor gave us a pretty
definitive ruling that that was not possible under current law.
Unlike the National Park Service, we do not have the exemption
that would enable us to do that.
As a result, although we have, certainly, some excellent
concessionaires operating in some refuges, concessions have not
been used to nearly their full potential within the refuge
system, since a concessionaire is hard-pressed both to make the
required payments to us, payments that are determined through a
bidding system, and then also to take it on themselves to incur
the additional cost of repairing the boat dock or whatever
facility they may be using. And so this has served as a
disincentive to concessionaires in places where they might
otherwise be able to provide very valuable services to the
public.
When you combine this with the fact that both the Office of
the Inspector General of the Department of Interior and then
the GAO have audited our concession programs and found that
there would be--great improvements could be made if we operated
them on a more business-like basis but also used them more, and
that we needed to also maintain our facilities better.
And so we believe, for all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman,
that concessions can make an even greater contribution to the
experience which the public would have in refuges than they
have right now.
We appreciate the fact that the bill in front of us also,
however, keeps in mind the need to ensure that any proposed
concession activity first be screened to make sure that it is
compatible with the mission of the refuge system and the
purposes of that refuge, and that it will not have an adverse
impact on priority activities that would take place on the
refuge or the resources of the refuge. And so we believe, Mr.
Chairman, that this bill does incorporate the right checks and
balances within it.
However, Mr. Chairman, we do note that the requirement in
the legislation that there be a standardized contract adopted
by regulation could restrict our flexibility, since if we
needed later to amend that contract, perhaps for a very small
thing, if we had to go back and first change the regulations,
that could be a process that could take a year or 2 years. And
so we believe, Mr. Chairman, there might be a way that we could
work within the spirit of the legislation to make some
technical amendments that would give us that flexibility to
adjust contracts as needed and yet still do that within the
framework of regulations, as the bill calls for.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we look forward to working with
you on H.R. 1204, and we especially appreciate the introduction
of this bill during this year, the centennial anniversary of
the refuge system. And we can think of no better contribution
to enhancing the refuge system than to have concessions
legislation which would enable us to do what the National Park
Service does now, to have a more vibrant, strong concessions
program, one that we would administer in close cooperation with
the regulated public and everyone who is involved with it,
something that would expand the wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities provided by the refuge system, and increase the
value of the refuge system to the American people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to H.R. 2408, the Refuge
Volunteer Act. As I noted before, we strongly support
reauthorization of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, volunteers are one of the best investments,
we believe, that we can make. I did some calculations this
morning. We have well over 30,000 volunteers now providing
services on national wildlife refuges, and over the past 2
years, the value of the services which they provided was over
$28 million. We administer this with an appropriation of about
seven hundred and some thousand dollars. If you do the math,
Mr. Chairman, that is a 20-to-1 return on our investment.
We believe that a 2000 percent return on investment is one
that any prudent investor would think is a good deal. We think
that is a good deal for the American people, and we thank this
Committee for the effort to enact the legislation and now to
reauthorize it.
The examples of the contributions made by volunteers are
legion. And in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, you will see just a
few examples of the tremendous contributions being made at
refuges as diverse as Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in
New Mexico, where we have a organization which was recognized
for the President's Volunteer Service Award under the Take
Pride in America program.
Mr. Chairman, we have terrific work being done at Forsythe
Refuge in New Jersey in Mr. Saxton's District, where we have
terrific help from volunteers. And we have opportunities to
expand that everywhere across the country using the model of
the work that is being done at Forsythe National Wildlife
Refuge, at Blackwater Refuge, Mr. Chairman, in your District,
and at refuges across the country, refuges from Florida to my
home State, Mr. Souder, of Indiana. We have opportunities right
now that we need people for. Of course, the terrific
contributions that refuge volunteers have made at Ding Darling
Refuge on Sanibel Island in Florida has been a model for
everyone around the country. But we have examples in every
State of the Union now, where volunteers are making a
tremendous difference in offering these services to the
American people at that 20-to-2 return on investment.
We also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the law
which allow for volunteer coordinators.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Jones, I apologize, but I interrupt
because we will be called for a vote at any minute, and I want
to give the members a chance before they've left, in case they
can't come back, to ask some questions. So thank you very much
for your testimony and your insight.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall Jones follows:]
Statement of Marshall Jones, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1204
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Administration's views on H.R. 1204, which establishes a National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) concessions policy, and H.R. 2408, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer Act. I am Marshall Jones,
Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fish and
Wildlife Service).
Generally H.R. 1204 would amend the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)
(Administration Act) to authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide
for maintenance and repair of buildings and properties located on lands
in the Refuge System. The Administration supports the goals of this
legislation; however, we have some concerns with the bill and would
like to work with the Committee to address these to help improve the
management and accountability of the refuge concession program. H.R.
2408 would reauthorize the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer
and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. We strongly support
reauthorization of this Act.
H.R. 1204--Concessions in the National Wildlife Refuge System
History and Need for Legislation
A brief review of relevant legislation and background information
will help explain the need for this legislation.
Concessions (i.e., secretarially-granted privileges) are defined as
businesses operated by private enterprises that provide recreational,
educational, and interpretive opportunities for the visiting public. A
concession provides a public service and, generally, requires some
capital investment by the concessionaire and the Fish and Wildlife
Service for facilities and products. The Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) delegated the authority to approve such ventures to the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in October 1957. This
authority has since been delegated to the Regional Directors.
Since 1935, the Secretary has been authorized to sell or otherwise
dispose of surplus products, to grant privileges on units of the NWRS,
and to have the receipts be reserved in a separate fund known as the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (Fund) (16 U.S.C. 715s). Subsection (b) of
16 U.S.C. 715s stipulates that the Secretary may pay any necessary
expenses incurred in connection with the revenue-producing measures set
forth in 715s(a). However, public recreation-related concession-
generated revenues have not been utilized to offset concession-related
refuge administration, capital improvements, and maintenance expenses
because of competing priorities for refuge resources. Subsection (c)
requires that the balance of the Fund be paid to counties in which
lands are reserved from the public domain or acquired in fee and
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In Fiscal Year 2002, the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund received deposits of $6.1 million from
sales and the disposal of property. Less than $200,000 was deposited
into this account from refuge concession programs.
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k through 460
k-3), as amended, allows for public recreation in fish and wildlife
conservation areas as long as it is compatible with conservation
purposes, is an incidental or secondary use, and is consistent with
other Federal operations and primary objectives of the particular area.
Pursuant to the Administration Act, the Secretary is authorized to
negotiate and enter into contracts with any person, public agency, or
private enterprise for the provision of public accommodations when the
Secretary determines such accommodations would not be inconsistent with
the primary purpose for which the affected area was established.
In 1983, the Region 3's Regional Director requested that
concessionaires at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in
Marion, Illinois, be allowed to pay for repairs to facilities there in
lieu of making concessions payments to the refuge. This request was
denied. The Department's Office of the Solicitor had determined that 40
U.S.C. 303c (an exemption to 40 U.S.C. 303b, which requires all
payments for leasing of buildings and property to be monetary in
nature) applied only to the National Park Service. While a legislative
proposal was forwarded to Congress in 1984, it was never enacted.
In 1995, the Office of the Inspector General identified the need to
improve the condition of concession facilities, to increase the fees
paid to refuges, and to have repairs and improvements made to the
facilities (Audit Report No. 95-I-376). As an aside, the Office of the
Inspector General has issued numerous reports on the management and
administration of National Park Service concessions and Concessionaire
Improvement Accounts. The National Park Service has an extensive
concession program, and we believe that any legislation to improve the
NWRS concession program should consider the recommendations included in
these reports on managing concessions.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) subsequently conducted an
audit of government agencies providing concession opportunities. In its
1996 report, the GAO found that competition resulted in a higher rate
of return from concession operations and that agencies that were
allowed to retain fees received a better rate of return. The average
return to the government in agencies retaining fees was 11.1 percent;
in contrast, concessions managed by agencies that did not retain fees
averaged 2.6 percent.
Most recently, the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd)
(Improvement Act) established priority uses for the NWRS. Hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education,
and interpretation are the six priority uses that the NWRS must
provide, if deemed compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was
established.
Finally, the Fish and Wildlife Service supplemented this existing
statutory framework in November 2001 by issuing a Director's Order on
concession contracts. The purpose of the Order was to establish the
scope, policies, authorities, and responsibilities for concession
contracts within the NWRS, and to provide guidance for issuing
concession agreements under our current legislative mandates and
authorities.
The Value of Concessions in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Despite the long history of attention to this issue, the
concessions program in the NWRS can be improved.
The Fish and Wildlife Service utilizes concession operations as a
valuable management tool by which it can provide recreational and
educational services to the visiting public. In some instances,
concession operations may be the best means for visitors to view and
appreciate wildlife and, thus, to gain a better understanding of the
purpose and mission of the NWRS. In general, concessions help the Fish
and Wildlife Service achieve its mission. They also help to educate the
public about the importance of wildlife habitat preservation and the
protection of ecosystems.
Concession operations also help refuge managers enhance visitor
experiences. Current concession operations include services such as
canoe rentals, guided naturalist tours, ferry operations to remote
refuge islands, and fishing guides. All of these operations afford the
public the opportunity to experience, ``hands on,'' the many features
and advantages of wildlife refuges and, we hope, to come away with a
greater appreciation of how tax dollars are being spent.
Despite the many advantages of concession operations, the Fish and
Wildlife Service currently has very few operations in place compared to
the total number of refuges. Part of the reason for the low numbers is
that current law (40 U.S.C. 303b) requires leasing of buildings and
properties by concessionaires to be paid for with monetary
consideration only. Some refuge managers believe their best efforts to
provide a cost-effective means of maintaining refuge facilities are
hampered by not allowing non-monetary consideration be paid by
concessionaires for such leases. Although the Service can pay for the
administration, capital improvement, and maintenance expenses involved
with a concession operation (as is allowed under subsection (b) of 16
U.S.C. 715s), other priorities exist, and all must fit within the
framework of priorities established by the President's Budget.
We believe that improving the existing concessions program could
begin with legislation like H.R. 1204 which, among other things, would
allow the Service to accept non-monetary considerations in lieu of
concessions payments.
H.R. 1204, Establishing Concessions Policy in the National Wildlife
Refuge System
We believe that changes in existing authority could improve refuge
concessions management and accountability. The Administration supports
the goals of H.R. 1204 and would like to work with the Committee and
the bill's sponsors to strengthen and clarify a few provisions.
Specifically, Section 1(a) requires the issuance of regulations to
establish a standardized contract for concession activities in the
NWRS. We support this change but, because of the variability in the
types and terms of such agreements, we would like to ensure that the
Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the ability to adapt our contract
terms to different situations. We would like to work with the Committee
to ensure that we have that flexibility.
This section also authorizes a concessionaire to maintain or repair
any improvement on or in such land or water that the concessionaire is
authorized to use for such purposes, and treat costs incurred by the
person for such maintenance or repair as consideration otherwise
required to be paid to the United States for such use. In other words,
this legislation would allow a concessionaire to make repairs to
concessions facilities on National Wildlife Refuges, with the
stipulation that the United States retains title to property maintained
or repaired under these provisions.
Finally, this section establishes that concession-related receipts
shall be available for expenditure in accordance, without further
appropriation, to increase the quality of the visitor experience and
enhance the protection of resources. This means that an appropriate
share of the concessionaire's gross receipts would be available to the
refuge for contract administration, backlogged repair and maintenance
projects, interpretation, signage, habitat or facility enhancement, and
resource protection and preservation.
Section 2 would amend the Administration Act to require the
Secretary to provide a report to the House Resources Committee and the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee detailing concessions
activities within the NWRS.
As noted above, we do have some technical concerns with the current
language, and a few minor changes that will clarify the statutory
language, as well as provide regulatory flexibility with respect to the
standardization of concession contracts.
Conclusion
The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 1204 and looks
forward to working with the Committee to address our concerns. As the
NWRS celebrates its Centennial anniversary this year, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is working hard to ensure that visitors find National
Wildlife Refuges welcoming, safe, and accessible, with a variety of
opportunities to enjoy and appreciate America's fish, wildlife, and
plants. We continue to host thousands of activities for the public
nationwide throughout the year and will carry on activities beyond our
Centennial year. We want people in communities to become aware of their
local National Wildlife Refuges, to understand that each refuge is part
of the NWRS, and to realize how refuges can contribute to tourism and
enhance local economies.
Providing quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities is
part of the Fish and Wildlife Service's vision for the NWRS, and
concession operations can provide the visiting public with a means to
access and interpret our refuges. We look forward to working with the
Committee to help ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service's
concessions system will be more efficient and economical and improve
the quality of the visitor experience at existing operations without
compromising overall management and accountability of the refuge
concessions program.
We believe that these changes will help accomplish the Fish and
Wildlife Service's desire to build a broader base of public support for
wildlife conservation by reaching out and involving a larger cross
section of the American public in public use programs and community
partnership efforts.
H.R. 2408--National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act of 2003
H.R. 2408 reauthorizes the National Wildlife Refuge System
Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 (Act). As
note above, we strongly support this reauthorization.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's volunteers play a vital role in
helping to fulfill our mission of conserving, protecting and enhancing
America's fish and wildlife and the habitats on which they depend.
Volunteers provide essential services that we do not have the resources
or staff to provide. Further, many Americans are interested in
volunteering their time and energy to improve the environment, and the
NWRS is where volunteers can satisfy their desires to make a difference
while assisting the Fish and Wildlife Service accomplish its mission.
With passage of the Act in 1998, Congress provided the Fish and
Wildlife Service with new tools to involve the American people as
stewards of our Nation's wildlife resources. These tools have helped us
broaden and increase the size of our volunteer programs. Our volunteer
program began in 1982 with 4,251 volunteers donating 128,440 hours of
service. Those numbers have increased substantially since then, with
National Wildlife Refuges alone hosting more than 34,000 volunteers in
2002, contributing over 1.2 million hours of service. The tireless and
creative efforts of our volunteers complete more than 20 percent of the
work conducted on refuges, and volunteer contributions over the last
two years are valued at $28.8 million. Clearly, money spent on the
volunteer program yields values far greater than the initial
investment.
Our volunteers perform a variety of tasks, such as providing
information and interpretation to the visiting public, leading refuge
tours, conducting fish and wildlife surveys and habitat improvement
projects, construction and repair projects, and assisting with
laboratory and scientific research. They are individuals who want to
give back to their communities, parents who want to be good stewards of
the land and set examples for their children, retired people willing to
share their wealth of knowledge, concerned citizens of all ages who
want to learn more about conservation, and passionate people who enjoy
the outdoors and want to spread the word about America's greatest
natural treasures. Organizations providing volunteers include, among
others, boy scouts, girl scouts, members of the American Association of
Retired Persons, local Friends-of-the-Refuge groups, local Audubon or
Ducks Unlimited chapters, and school groups, and we use volunteers from
organizations such as the Student Conservation Association. The
volunteer program offers a direct link between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and citizens. There has been a strong public interest in
participating in our programs and visiting Fish and Wildlife Service
facilities, and we expect that interest to continue. Several examples
of our volunteer efforts include:
At Bitter Lake NWR, New Mexico, volunteers have provided
support and contributed thousands of hours of their time and talent to
study and determine the nesting and fledgling success of endangered
interior least terns, and also completed several 1,000+ hour studies to
determine habitat use and populations of wintering sandhill cranes.
Leading the study was a Ph.D. biologist who teaches at a local school.
This volunteer has contributed over 10,000 hours of service to date and
has received several awards for his volunteer efforts with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, including most recently the President's Volunteer
Service Award under the ``Take Pride in America'' Program. He also
trains recent college graduates to perform biological studies, which
are critical to the biological integrity of the NWRS's wildlife and
conservation programs.
At Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, New Jersey, volunteers assist
by performing weekly waterbird surveys. They also monitor the
threatened piping plover's breeding activity and construct and maintain
nest predator exclosures around piping plover nests. Nest predator
exclosures have substantially reduced egg losses to predators. This
monitoring provides valuable information on how to better protect these
species. In addition, the interpretation work by volunteers to the
public has substantially reduced people-caused disturbance to the
nesting birds.
At the Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawaii, forty-two volunteer
groups traveled to the refuge on weekends and weekdays to assist with
the reforestation and alien plant control. The reforestation work
included seed collection, tree nursery maintenance, and tree planting;
over 23,000 native and endangered trees were outplanted. The alien
plant control efforts included removal of several acres of banana poka.
Volunteers at Stone Lakes NWR, California, contributed
over 3,500 hours this past year. Many projects, such as the mistnetting
and banding of songbirds, planting of native trees and shrubs, could
not have been accomplished without the help of dedicated volunteers.
Thousands of school children and the general public learned about the
refuge and the unique habitats of the Central Valley from tours given
by volunteers during the year.
At Turnbull NWR, Washington, volunteers participating in
the refuge's biological program contributed over 6,300 hours. Projects
included assisting with spring and fall waterfowl surveys, marshbird
survey, songbird point counts, MAPS, breeding bird surveys, duck
banding, fire monitoring in ponderosa pine and aspen forests, pit fall
trapping, raptor and shorebird surveys, rare plant surveys, elk
surveys, coyote scat transects, aquatic amphibian surveys, a frog
malformation study, construction and installation of elk exclosures,
and monitoring bluebird and wood duck nest boxes. In addition,
volunteers participating in the refuge's environmental education
program contributed over 5,200 hours. Over 110 school and civic groups
enjoyed field trips, classroom activities, aquatic ecology studies,
night hikes, tours, and outreach programs facilitated by refuge
volunteers.
At Ash Meadows NWR, Nevada, two volunteers removed 240
inactive utility poles over a two month period. They donated over 500
hours and saved the Fish and Wildlife Service $100,000.
At Okefenokee NWR, Georgia, 12 trailer concrete pads with
water, sewage, and electric hookups were built to provide volunteers
with temporary housing opportunities. Volunteers are required to stay a
minimum of 2 months and work 32 hours a week in exchange for full
service hookups. This exchange of housing lots for skilled refuge
operations work has been so popular that the 12 trailer pads are used
at full capacity and having to put prospective volunteers on a waiting
list is very common.
Volunteers at St. Marks NWR, Florida, donate hundreds of
hours towards the Monarch Butterfly migration Research Program.
Volunteers educated visitors on the natural history of the monarch
butterfly, and, thanks to the coordinating efforts of one of the lead
volunteers, 3,203 monarchs were counted and 1,553 were tagged.
Chincoteague NWR, Virginia, hosts several Elder hostels.
The Elder hostel program provides retired and semi-retired seniors the
opportunity to use their valuable skills and talents toward hands-on
service projects. Last year, participants removed a portion of the
Marsh Trail dike and built an elevated boardwalk in its place. They
planted trees and built several information kiosks on the refuge.
Volunteer Coordinators
One of the most significant provisions of the Act is its
authorization to establish up to 20 volunteer enhancement pilot
projects nationwide, each of which may hire a full time volunteer
coordinator. Appropriations have allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service
to create 16 of the 20 authorized positions. These full time volunteer
coordinators are charged with recruiting, training, managing, and
supervising volunteers and seeking partnerships between refuges and
communities. The volunteer coordinators have significantly elevated the
visibility and productivity of the 16 volunteer programs as well as
helped in local fundraising efforts.
The pilot volunteer coordinators have been instrumental in setting
up key elements of effective volunteer programs on their refuges. They
have created an organizational structure, tools, training and resources
needed to manage the volunteer programs effectively. Programs
established under this Act have substantially enriched refuge
operations while providing satisfying work experiences for volunteers.
In addition to offering needed skills to refuge programs, volunteer
coordinators and the volunteers they manage provide important links
between the refuge and neighboring communities, serving as a bridge
between government and local citizens. These, in turn, help foster new
partnerships. Time and again volunteers have proven the theory that
good conservation through communication, consultation, and cooperation
works best.
Community Partnerships
The Act helps to facilitate partnerships between the Fish and
Wildlife Service and non-Federal entities to promote public awareness
of the resources of the NWRS and public participation in the
conservation of those resources. The Act also encourages donations and
other contributions by persons and organizations to individual refuges
and the NWRS.
In many cases, community partnerships take the form of ``Friends''
groups for a given refuge. ``Friends'' are groups of local citizens who
join together to form 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations in long term
commitments to support the mission of their local NWR. They provide
many important services to the refuge system including community
outreach, educational programs, habitat restoration support, volunteer
staffing and fundraising. Many of the groups are well established and
provide far reaching assistance to their refuges. Others are just
getting started. The national network of Friends groups numbered 70 in
Fiscal Year 1996 and grew to more than 225 by the end of Fiscal Year
2002, a significant rate of growth indicating their popularity in local
communities. As the number of groups have increased, so too has the
sophistication under which these groups design and implement programs--
all of which benefit the NWRS greatly.
These partnerships with outside organizations and individuals are
increasingly critical elements of our ability to carry out
conservation, recreation, and education programs. Partnerships
considerably add to our abilities to interact with the private sector
in accomplishing the NWRS mission.
The Fish and Wildlife Service thanks you, Mr. Chairman, and members
of your Committee for undertaking the reauthorization of this Act. I
cannot think of a better time, during the NWR System's 100 year
anniversary, to reauthorize this important Act. Its reauthorization
should provide a major boost for refuge volunteer programs and
community partnership efforts and the many benefits they bring to our
National Wildlife Refuges. It will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service
to continue building upon its successful efforts to engage and involve
private citizens in accomplishing our mission.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to
discuss this legislation with the Committee. This concludes my
statement and would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. And I will yield to Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Jones, let me apologize, too. It
is just one of the things that happen around here. We are going
to--those buzzers are going to ring in the next few minutes and
we are going to be out of here for a little bit.
H.R. 2408, the volunteer bill that you talked about and
that was described earlier by Mr. Bristow as a tremendous
success, talk to us--there we go. We have about five or 6
minutes that we can chat here before we have to run off. Talk
to us a little bit about the maintenance backlog and what role
the volunteer corps may be playing in helping to alleviate some
of those problems.
Mr. Jones. Well, Mr. Saxton, as you correctly note, we have
a significant maintenance backlog. Right now we have over $720
million of backlogged deferred maintenance and another $250-
some million in construction. So that is over a billion
dollars. Now, volunteers--the services that volunteers provide,
as I mentioned, $28 million over the last 2 years, a
significant proportion of the work that they do is helping us
to address some of these deferred maintenance activities.
Volunteers and friends groups have also worked with us to
partner on construction projects, so it is making an enormous
contribution, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. And with regard to user-friendly, if
you will, human user-friendly facilities, I am aware that
Friends of Forsythe, under the leadership of Dr. Bristow, have
recently added some equipment that will help visitors get
close-up looks at wildlife. Would you speak to that and other
such activities that may be ongoing in other refuges?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Saxton, probably Dr. Bristow is the best one
to talk about the terrific things that they have done there.
And I am looking forward, I hope next month, to having a chance
to be up at Forsythe Refuge and to see first-hand--it has been
a couple of years since I have been there--exactly what has
been done there. But clearly, the activities that have been
taking place at Forsythe have been a model for refuges around
the system and a terrific example of how the effort of people
like Dr. Bristow and others, their energy and their creativity,
helps us do things that in some cases we wanted to do and
couldn't, and in other cases, thing we hadn't even thought of,
new ideas that are brought into the system--all of which
provide tremendous benefits for the American people.
Mr. Saxton. The final question is, are there any changes
that are needed legislatively in order to further enhance the
program?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we have some technical things that
we would like to discuss with the Committee. Those things, a
couple of them are alluded to in my testimony. Basically, it is
excellent legislation. There are some fine-tuning we think that
could be done.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. I know that we have a vote, so let me just be
quick. I just wanted to ask the question about how many
volunteer enhancement pilot projects were conducted pursuant to
Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer and
Community Partnership Enhancement Act, and was the report
evaluating and making recommendations required in these pilot
projects ever presented to Congress? What were those
recommendations? Also, is there a senior volunteer corps
established at this point, and are there any guidelines for the
refuge education program? These are just--you know, you can try
to answer some of those, or if not, give them to me in writing,
if you can.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pallone, I will try to do this in 30 seconds
or less here.
Mr. Pallone. I know, it is hard.
Mr. Jones. We have 16 projects right now that are active.
We do have a report on this. I apologize that that report has
been delayed, but it is at the printer now, that would give you
more information about what we have done. In terms of the
senior corps, we have seniors as the mainstay of our volunteer
programs, though we have people of all ages. What we are going
to do now is explore how we could reach out more to
organizations like AARP and others and highlight the fact that
we want, need, and welcome seniors to be part of the refuge
volunteer program. They are making tremendous contributions
now, but we think we could do more, recruit more, and recognize
better the contributions that they are making.
Mr. Pallone. And that report, you say, is going to be
available soon, the one you mentioned?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. OK. What do you estimate when? Another week?
Mr. Jones. My guess is in a few weeks. And we will provide
that more specific information for the record.
Mr. Pallone. And then as far as the concessions are
concerned, it is our understanding that a new concessionaire
has entered into an agreement with Fish and Wildlife to take
over the concession at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.
Is that correct? And what process was used to go through and
select this concessionaire--any information you might have
about bidders or the financial arrangements? If you can answer
that.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Pallone, Midway is obviously a very
complicated topic. We would be happy to provide you with
details. We do have an organization, it is an Alaska Native-
based organization, which is working with us now. But we also
learned a lot of lessons from Midway because we didn't have the
sort of concessions legislation that is now being offered here.
The things we did in the past in Midway to work around that
gave us a lot of lessons in what does and doesn't work.
Mr. Pallone. Well, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, if
we could get a written response to some of these questions
about Midway, because I know we are running out of time.
Mr. Jones. We would be pleased to do that.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your testimony. I wanted to
clarify two things. One is that you referred in your written
testimony and verbally to the technical concerns about having
more flexibility at the Fish and Wildlife with the concessions,
and then--but I can't see what other concerns were enumerated,
yet you referred to ``these changes.'' I know I have met and
believe that we can meet some concerns, such as concessionaires
being based at the refuge with some of the friends groups. Are
those the type of technical changes you are talking about, or
are there additional beyond the standardized contract?
Mr. Jones. The standardized contract is one. Another issue
is who exactly should be treated as a concessionaire. We know
that there are some issues about guides, for example. A guide
is a little different than a person who rents a boat, since the
guide is with the person through their entire experience on the
refuge and provides services and takes care of the health and
safety. So we would like to discuss with the Committee what is
the right way to look at guides.
We also know that there are issues that you will hear about
later from Evan Hirsche about the issues about bookstores and
things, issues that we think we probably can fit within the
existing legislation, but we are happy to discuss that because
we don't want to have an unintended adverse effect on good
things that are already happening.
Mr. Souder. Yes, and I share that. And certainly, at the
very least, for existing refuge programs where you have such
services, the National Parks concession bill is littered with
this type of agreements. But I will say that the goal of this
is to get some standardization. And I have seen the kind of
pros and cons in the park Service at times the word
``flexibility'' is important if it is technical, it is
important if there was a whopper of an error made at the
beginning. On the other hand, part of the goal of
standardization is to limit some flexibility and to make sure
that the concessionaire can make a reasonable financial bid
without having the rules changed.
So we want to have the bulk of this be standardized,
understanding that in any new area, like Fish and Wildlife,
hopefully you can learn from the Park Service, but you are
going to have differences that may not be anticipated. I
certainly believe that this was primarily targeted for how to
expand site-based concessionaires inside a refuge and not to
impact friends groups or existing relationships.
However, I do believe that we have to be very careful in
moving where new concessionaires move in, how to work with the
friends groups in bookstores, how to work with--because in many
parks they coexist. Sometimes they can't. It depends on the
estimate of the volume, and presumably that is taken into
consideration in the initial standardized contract. Same with,
in some places, where some guide services would be refuge- or
park-based and some would come in from the outside.
But generally speaking, it isn't to upset any existing
relationships in the refuge as it is to set for expansion. As
long as we work with those kind of general guidelines, I am
sure we can work out most of the technical questions.
Mr. Jones. Congressman, I agree with everything you said,
exactly. We agree that there needs to be standardization and we
believe this bill will help us do that. We have a hodge-podge
of things right now, where we have work-arounds because we
don't have the authority. But we want to learn from the Park
Service's experience, such as at Midway, so that we can have a
program that this Committee would feel fully meets the letter
and the spirit of the law and everything you have said.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you want to ask other questions of Mr.
Jones when we come back?
Mr. Souder. No, I am fine. We will work on the details.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Souder. Thank you very much,
Mr. Jones. We are going to recess now for three votes. We
probably will be back in the neighborhood of 20 minutes. I
think we are done with Fish and Wildlife. And again, thank you,
Mr. Jones, very much.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. What's left of the Subcommittee will come to
order. I appreciate everybody's patience.
Our next panel will be Mr. Marshall Jones--oh. Mr. Marshall
Jones has left. Left the building. Mr. Thomas Hook, Treasurer,
Friends of blackwater Refuge. Welcome, sir.
Mr. Hook. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Edgar Bristow, President, Friends of
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge; Mr. Chip Campbell,
President, Okefenokee Adventures, Inc.--sounds like a great
organization; and Mr. Evan M. Hirsche, President, National
Wildlife Refuge Association. Welcome to all of you. We look
forward to your testimony. Thank you for crossing the Bay
Bridge, Mr. Hook.
Mr. Hook. It was a pleasure. Beautiful ride there this
morning.
Mr. Gilchrest. And we appreciate all of your attendance
here this morning and we look forward to your testimony on
these two pieces of legislation, and very often your insight on
the ground as a compassionate yet objective observer of
Government programs is always very useful. Mr. Hook, you may
begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. HOOK, TREASURER,
FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER REFUGE
Mr. Hook. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Committee this morning. My name is Tom Hook, and for
over 5 years I've been the volunteer treasurer at the Friends
of Blackwater. Friends of Blackwater is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3)
organization of over 800 members and is an official cooperation
association authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
In 2003, the Friends of Blackwater received the prestigious
Friends Group of the Year award from the National Wildlife
Refuge Association. We appreciate it, Evan, thank you very
much.
The mission of the Friends of Blackwater is to support the
purposes of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge by working
for the protection, preservation, enhancement of these precious
lands through advocacy, environmental education, and outreach.
In 2002, volunteers contributed over 19,000 hours of volunteer
support to the Blackwater Refuge. That is the equivalent of
over nine full-time employees. And Congress Gilchrest is one of
our volunteers.
Without the time and efforts contributed by volunteers,
refuge management would have no choice but to forego many, if
not all, of the projects I outline in my written testimony.
This would mean there would be fewer and less valuable, fewer
or no bird tours, fewer or no school orientation programs. The
visitors center would be staffed by docents much less of the
time, there would be fewer recreational facilities and
opportunities like the photo blind, paddling trails, and hiking
trails; less marsh, wetland, and forest restoration, and refuge
staff would not have the behind-the-scenes support for the
never-ending task of refuge maintenance, biological studies,
and special projects.
Blackwater is not the only refuge with a friends group or a
cooperating association. There are over 230 such volunteer
groups across the Nation supporting the refuge system. One of
the most important volunteer jobs in the friends group is that
of volunteer coordinator. This is the time-consuming and
arduous task of making sure the visitors center is staffed by
volunteers 363 days a year, keeping track of each individual's
hours and contributions, making sure sufficient volunteers are
available for tours and projects on the right day and at the
right time and scheduling replacements when the original
volunteer has a conflict, recruiting new volunteers, and
serving as a volunteer clearinghouse for information.
Clearly, this would be a job description for a full-time
employee. However, neither Blackwater Refuge nor the Friends of
Blackwater have an employee to handle these duties. These
duties are handled by Maggie Briggs, the refuge outdoor
recreation planner in addition to her regular duties and
several volunteer volunteer-coordinators. Maggie and
volunteering coordinators have done a tremendous job managing
this task.
We would like Blackwater to have a position available to
handle the job, which will only grow in value as we undertake
more and more refuge projects and refuge support activities. It
would also free up Maggie to conduct more interpretive and
educational activities, making Blackwater's outdoor programs
even more valuable to the public.
H.R. 2408 is an important piece of legislation for the
refuge system. It continues the funding for volunteer
coordinators hired since 1998 on those refuges that were given
a volunteer coordinator staff position. This is good. However,
I strongly urge you to consider expanding the Act to provide
funding for more volunteer coordinators and make the funding
available for additional full-time or part-time positions in
order to provide more refuges with this critically needed
support.
We constantly receive requests from people who want to
volunteer a few hours or days a week or a month, or who want to
work on a particular project or who have a particular skill of
interest. However, the task of managing those requests in
addition to the current volunteer activities is too much for
one person to handle in addition to their other full-time
duties.
My point is this: If we at Blackwater, in a small rural
community with a population of just over 30,000, are in a
position of not being able to handle the volunteers that come
to us, I am certain there are many, many refuges across the
country in the same position. Which means the valuable
resources of many volunteers for the refuge system are not
serving the refuge system or are going somewhere else to
volunteer. The bottom line is the refuge system is missing out
on valuable volunteer time and expertise that are there and are
free for the asking.
Before I close, I would like to acknowledge the support and
encouragement the Friends of Blackwater receives from the
management and staff of the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge. Glenn Carowan, the refuge manager; Maggie Briggs, the
outdoor recreational planner; and the entire staff of the
refuge are truly our partners. We love what we do, and it would
not be possible without the management and staff support we
receive from the refuge.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to support H.R.
2408, and I would be glad to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hook follows:]
Statement of Thomas A. Hook, Representing The Friends of Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge, Cambridge, Maryland
My name is Tom Hook, I am the volunteer Treasurer for the Friends
of Blackwater, a position I have held for over 5 years. I would like to
thank the Committee for this opportunity to speak this morning in
support of H.R. 2408, the extension of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998.
WHO WE ARE & WHAT WE DO
The Friends of Blackwater is a tax-exempt 501 c (3) organization of
over 800 members from across the United States and Canada. Chartered in
1987, the Friends of Blackwater is an official ``cooperating
association'' authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
In 2003, the Friends of Blackwater received the prestigious
``Friends Group of the Year'' award from the National Wildlife Refuge
Association.
The mission of the Friends of Blackwater is:
``To support the purposes of the Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge by working for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of
these precious lands through advocacy, environmental education and
outreach''.
In carrying out this mission, the Friends of Blackwater volunteers:
Conduct educational Programs for elementary, middle and
high school students,
Serve as docents and contact sources for the Visitors
Center,
Conduct three educational ``Open House'' events each year
directed at children, and support the annual ``Kid's Fishing Derby'',
Operate the Visitors Center bookstore, one of the best
stocked wildlife bookstores on the Eastern Shore,
Conduct refuge orientation programs and guided tours,
Assist refuge management in biological studies, forest
management projects, and forest restoration,
Conduct guided bird tours,
Apply for grants and raise funds and undertake major
projects to enhance the educational and recreational assets of the
refuge. Examples include:
* Improving and replacing exhibits at the Visitors Center,
* Constructing a new photo blind and observation deck,
* Installing and operating an osprey cam on the Internet,
* Planning and constructing over 20 miles of paddling trails,
and
* LPlanning and constructing over 4 miles of new hiking trails,
Working with the Dorchester County Department of Tourism
to install and operate a tourist information radio station that
broadcasts 24 hours a day,
Participating in and coordinating major wetland
restoration projects on the refuge. Congressman Gilchrest and his staff
were volunteers for the Barren Island marsh restoration project, and
Supporting the refuge staff in data entry, refuge
maintenance, and special projects.
While funding for these projects comes from grants, donations from
the community, funds raised by the Friends through its fundraising
activities, and partnerships with others, these efforts are conducted
with volunteer management and support. In 2002, volunteers contributed
over 19,000 hours of volunteer support to the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge. That is the equivalent of over 9 full-time employees.
WHY ARE VOLUNTEERS IMPORTANT?
Without the time and efforts contributed by the Friends of
Blackwater volunteers, refuge management would have no choice but to
forgo most if not all of the projects I just outlined.
This would mean:
There would be fewer and less valuable educational
programs, fewer or no bird tours, fewer or no school orientation
programs,
The Visitors Center would be staffed by docents much less
of the time, thus denying the public much of the valuable educational
experience of the refuge,
There would be fewer recreational facilities and
opportunities like the photo blind, paddling trails and hiking trails,
Less marsh and wetland restoration,
Refuge staff would not have the behind-the-scenes support
for their never-ending task of refuge maintenance, biological studies,
forest management and restoration, and special projects.
Most importantly the public would be denied the rich diversity of
the educational and recreational experiences the Blackwater Refuge has
to offer.
THE VALUE OF VOLUNTEER COORDINATORS
Blackwater is not the only refuge with a Friends Group or a
Cooperating Association. There are over 230 such volunteer groups
across the nation supporting the refuge system.
One of the most important volunteer jobs in the Friends Group is
that of Volunteer Coordinator. This is a time consuming and arduous
task of making sure:
the Visitors Center is staffed by volunteers 363 days a
year,
keeping track of each individuals' hours and
contributions for reporting to Fish and Wildlife Service headquarters,
and giving credit to the volunteers for their contributions,
making sure sufficient volunteers are available for
tours, and projects on the right day, and at the right time,
scheduling replacements when the original volunteer has a
conflict,
recruiting new volunteers, and
serving as a clearinghouse for volunteer information.
With a volunteer membership of over 800 and a regular volunteer
base of over 100 individuals, clearly this would be a job description
for a full-time employee. However, neither Blackwater Refuge nor the
Friends of Blackwater have an employee to handle these duties. These
duties are handled by Maggie Briggs the refuge Outdoor Recreation
Planner in addition to her regular duties, and several volunteer
``Volunteer Coordinators''. Maggie and the volunteering coordinators
have done a tremendous job managing this task. But we would like the
refuge to have a position available to handle the job, which will only
grow in value, as we undertake more and more refuge projects and refuge
support activities. It would also free up Maggie to plan and conduct
additional interpretive and educational activities, which would make
Backwater's outdoor programs even more valuable to the public.
H.R. 2408 is an important piece of legislation for the refuge
system. It continues the funding for Volunteer Coordinators hired since
1998 on those few refuges that were given a Volunteer Coordinator staff
position. This is good. However, I strongly urge you to consider
expanding the Act to provide funding for more Volunteer Coordinators,
and make the funding available for additional full-time or part-time
positions, in order to provide more refuges with this critically needed
support.
Funding more Volunteer Coordinators would mean more refuges could
leverage the expense many times over by getting the volunteers needed
to manage, conduct, and support refuge educational programs, projects
and maintenance. We all know the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Wildlife Refuge System have limited budgets and more tasks than their
budgets can handle. However, across the nation there are thousands of
people with an infinite variety of skills that are willing to volunteer
their time and expertise to the Refuge System if there were someone to
coordinate those activities.
We constantly receive requests from people who want to volunteer a
few hours or days a week or a month, or who want to work on a
particular project, or who have a particular skill or interest.
However, the task of managing those requests in addition to the current
volunteer activities is too much for one person to handle ``in addition
to their full time job''.
We do everything we can to accommodate these volunteer requests
since we do not want any volunteer to go somewhere else. However, if we
had a full time Volunteer Coordinator we could do so much more.
My point is this. If we at Blackwater, in a small rural community
with a population of just over 30,000 are in a position of not being
able to handle the volunteers that come to us, I am certain there are
many, many refuges across the country in the same position. Which means
the valuable resources of many, many ``Volunteers'' for the refuge
system are not serving the refuge system or are going somewhere else to
volunteer. The bottom line is the refuge system is missing out on
valuable volunteer talents and expertise that are there, and are free
for the asking.
While most of our volunteers are from the Eastern Shore, we have
volunteers who regularly come from D.C., Baltimore, the rest of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia. The public's love with
and excitement for the Nation's Refuge system is a tremendous asset. It
can be leveraged, and one of the best tools to do that is with
Volunteer Coordinators. I encourage you to pass this bill, with
additional funding for more coordinators.
Before I close I would like to acknowledge the support and
encouragement the Friends of Blackwater receives from the management
and staff of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Glenn Carowan the
Refuge Manager, Maggie Briggs the Outdoor Recreational Planner, and the
entire staff of the refuge are truly our partners. We love what we do,
and it would not be possible without the management and staff support
we receive from the refuge.
Thank you and I would be glad to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hook. You do
represent a beautiful area of the world.
Dr. Bristow.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR C. BRISTOW, M.D., PRESIDENT,
FRIENDS OF FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, INC.
Dr. Bristow. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dr. Edgar Bristow. I
am the president of the Friends of Forsythe, an organization
that has been in existence now for approximately five to 6
years, and I am also president emeritus of the Atlantic Audubon
Society. I don't know why they did that one to me. But we have
been volunteers at the refuge since 1981, working with the
refuge.
I was a witness for the original bill in 1997 and was
delighted to be one of the refuges that got the first volunteer
coordinators. So what I would like to do this morning is give
you some idea of what the benefit of a volunteer coordinator
is.
First of all, there has been an improvement in the
orientation and training of volunteers since we have had the
coordinator. Previously it was done by the outdoor recreation
planner who, with her many other duties, had very little time
to spare for that. As a result, our volunteers are better
trained and better able to serve the public.
Reaching out to the community, we have been able to get
folks involved that have never been involved before--everything
from Boys and Girls Clubs to Scout groups to veterans groups to
senior citizens, and everything in between--teenagers to old
folks like me. We have been working on partnerships with local
businesses for various projects that have benefited the refuge.
We have been able to perform a number of some of the lesser
maintenance requirements for the refuge that the maintenance
staff simply couldn't keep up with--things like mowing the
grass and trimming the trees along the trails, cleaning up, and
similar kinds of projects. In fact, in one instance, when the
visitors restroom facilities were in a very bad state of
disrepair, it was members of the friends group who happened to
be plumbers who volunteered to restore that to an operating
condition.
We have put on any number of events, including Refuge Day
in the fall, International Migratory Bird Day in the spring,
Make a Difference Day, and other special events through the
year. We have provided funding for a number of refuge projects
through the money that we have raised through our store
operation, through grants, and through a couple of projects
that we have undertaken. As a result, we have been able to fund
a couple of reforestation projects, currently a salt marsh
restoration project. We are working on some educational
programs now as well. We provide educational programs for
school classes that come to the refuge to learn more about the
salt marsh and water quality as well as the wildlife and the
birds that are there. We also provide guides for tour groups.
We work with the local tourism council in order to provide
services to those groups.
As a result of this we are seeing increasing use of the
refuge and more importantly to my mind is we are seeing an
increased diversity in the types of people who are using the
refuge. Rather than being just a mecca for birdwatchers as it
has been for many years, Forsythe Refuge now offers a lot of
opportunities, including cycling and walking, strolling along
woodland trails, strolling along marsh trails, use of
telescopes to observe some of the more distant things. Our
friends store provides rental binoculars for anybody who forgot
to bring their binoculars with them when they come, and so on.
So as a result of that, we are seeing a great deal more work
done here.
My recommendation is to, yes, this bill should be passed,
providing more support. More refuges need volunteer
coordinators so the same kind of good things can happen there
as is happening at Forsythe Refuge. And we look forward to
working with whoever is involved in planning this out over the
years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bristow follows:]
Statement of Edgar C. Bristow, M.D., President,
Friends of Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Edgar C. Bristow, President of Friends of
Forsythe N.W.R. Inc. (hereafter designated as ``Friends''), the support
group for the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.
I am also President Emeritus of the Atlantic Audubon Society, the local
chapter of the National Audubon Society, which is also a support group
for the Forsythe Refuge. I had been a witness before this Committee
when the original bill was considered in June, 1997, and am here today
to provide information on the effects of that bill over the intervening
years, and to support the passage of H.R. 2408. I would also make some
comments on H.R. 1204, a bill to establish a National Wildlife Refuge
System Concession Policy.
Our Friends group had just organized and was beginning to work out
our relationship with staff and the Audubon Refuge Keeper group. The
employment of a Volunteer Coordinator under the terms of the bill
allowed for better coordination and smoother action. Our corps of
volunteers has grown to well over 100, varying in age from teenagers to
older retired folks like myself. Many activities have involved other
community groups ranging from Boys & Girls clubs and scout groups to
veterans groups and senior citizens. Working with the volunteer
coordinator has enabled the Friends to be an effective force for
providing both manpower and resources for which the refuge did not have
any budgeted funds.
The Volunteer Coordinator has provided better orientation and
training for all volunteers. A Garden group was established to plan and
install a Native wildflower garden to enhance the appearance of the
headquarters building and to serve as a teaching tool for visitors
interested in planning their own gardens to benefit wildlife. A small
group of handicapped citizens have also been working with the garden
volunteers helping them to feel more useful.
Under the auspices of the Friends, a camera club was started and
has now been incorporated into the Friends organization, providing
photographic assistance to the Refuge, chronicling activities, animals,
plants and other aspects of the Refuge. The group has also established
a working relationship with MotoPhoto for support of photo contests, as
well as expertise in film development. The Audubon Society and Friends
continue to provide survey teams to do a weekly count of waterbirds
using the Refuge.
Volunteers are involved in many routine maintenance jobs, including
trail clearing, mowing grassy areas, checking nest boxes, monitoring
the weather station, doing water quality studies in the impoundments
and performing minor repairs under the supervision of the maintenance
staff. All groups work smoothly together under the direction of the
Volunteer Coordinator
Both Friends and Audubon, working together, have managed Refuge Day
activities, International Migratory Bird day events and Make-a-
Difference Day projects. Friends have operated a small gift and
information shop on weekends through spring and fall, providing
information, selling annual passes and selling items related to Refuge
activities such as field guides, T-shirts, hats and assorted gift
items. Completion of an exhibit, preparation of a trail and auto tour
route map for visitors and funding printing of a coloring book to
accompany the Puppet Show ``At the Refuge'' are examples of other
projects.
Under the guidance of the Volunteer Coordinator, Friends have
developed a small model ``T.R. Bear'' to celebrate the start of the
Refuge System by President Theodore Roosevelt during this Centennial
Year. Our Friends group also funded a Centennial CD with music composed
and performed by Fish & Wildlife staff and volunteers. Both items were
made available to the various units of the Service at both wholesale
and retail rates. All proceeds are going to benefit Forsythe Refuge.
Other activities of Friends include providing guides for tour
groups visiting the Refuge, providing visiting student groups with
guides and instructors, and working with staff on outreach programs.
Most recently, Friends hosted a ``Hooked on Fishing'' day, working with
grants from WalMart, local sportsmen's clubs, and the State Fish & Game
Department. It is expected that this will become an annual event.
In addition to my work with our local group, I have also been part
of the Friends Mentoring Program under the Friends Initiative. I have
been privileged to assist several other refuge Friends groups to
organize and more effectively work with their Refuge staff, and expect
to continue that effort this year. Since each group and refuge presents
a different set of issues, problems, opportunities and personalities,
such visits provide an ever-changing array of challenges to the
mentoring teams. It is my firm belief that this program has provided
the units of the Fish and Wildlife System with a tool that greatly
enhances their ability to interact with the public. Friends groups help
to improve the public's understanding of the nature of the system and
its role in caring for the natural world that is so important to us
all.
Finally, observations over the past five years through our store
operations, we have seen a continuing increase in public use of our
Refuge. Not only are visitor numbers increasing, now reaching 300,000 a
year, but we are also seeing an ethnic diversity that had not been
present in the past. For many, the Refuge is a peaceful oasis conducive
to quiet reflection. For others, it represents a window into the
natural world that is hard to find in the midst of ever encroaching
development. For some, it even represents an opportunity to get some
exercise as they bicycle around our eight mile Wildlife Drive.
In summary, it is my considered opinion that the National Wildlife
Refuge Volunteer Act has been a major success story since the original
Act was passed. Its continuation will provide Refuges with willing,
skilled and committed citizens to help the staff fulfil their mandates
under the various laws in a more thorough and timely fashion. However,
this can never be a substitute for more adequate funding for Operations
and Maintenance, filling staff positions already designated and
providing full funding for land acquisitions under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
In regard to H.R. 1204, the Concessions Policy Act, there should be
a specific reference under Sec. 5, (b)(2)(B) to retail sales outlets
operated under a Cooperative Agreement as well as ``volunteers''. Many
outlets are staffed only by volunteers, including ours. In some cases,
regular staff may also assist. I am assuming that the determination of
suitability of items offered for sale will be made by the project
leader, under the authority granted by the Secretary. Friends groups
should have the right of first refusal on any proposed concession.
Concession service provided by Friends would be more beneficial to the
Refuge, since a larger portion of the proceeds would return to the
Refuge through Friends. A commercial operation would have higher
operating costs, and would be returning only a percentage of the lower
profits. If the Friends do not feel that they can provide such service,
there would then be an opportunity for competitive bidding by
commercial vendors to provide that service.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Bristow, for
traveling to D.C.
Mr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF CHIP CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT, OKEFENOKEE ADVENTURES,
INC., OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CONCESSIONAIRE
Mr. Campbell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak in support of H.R. 1204. I do believe the passage of this
bill is important to the public use and support of our
country's outstanding national wildlife refuge system.
My wife, Joy, and I own and operate Okefenokee Adventures,
Inc. in Folkston, Georgia. In the spring of 2000 we were
awarded the concession contract for the Okefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge's east entrance, which is also known as the
Suwannee Canal entrance. We began operations on September 1st
of 2000.
I will refer you to my written statements for some
descriptions of the refuge, but I would like to extend an
invitation to everyone to come see it. It is an extraordinary
place, the largest national wildlife refuge east of the
Mississippi. It is the most ecologically intact of all the
large Southern wetland areas. And it is our business to help
visitors understand and appreciate the extraordinary ecological
dynamics, wilderness values, and cultural history of the
Okefenokee Swamp.
In doing so, we help to further the missions and purposes
of the national wildlife refuge system while engaging in a
compatible private enterprise that contributes directly to the
local economy. Our commitment to developing a high-quality
visitors services operation was the centerpiece of our contract
proposal. And we have worked hard to meet that commitment, and
we are gratified to note that Fish and Wildlife Service
management, the local community, and our regular visitors at
Okefenokee tell us that our efforts have succeeded. We view our
relationship with the refuge public-use program as that of a
cooperating partnership and our role as that of a liaison
between refuge management and the visiting public.
While public use is understandably and properly a priority
secondary to conservation on a national wildlife refuge, it is
a significant factor on a refuge that attracts approximately
400,000 visitors each year from the local communities, across
the United States, and around the world.
To give you some background, a Georgia Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism study reveals that Okefenokee
visitors produce an annual economic impact of $55-60 million
for the three Georgia counties in which the refuge is located.
In 2000, overall tourism expenditures in these counties totaled
77.2 million. According GDITT data, tourism supports 66
businesses and provides 1,083 jobs in this same three-county
area.
We have three entrances to the refuge. The one where I am
located is the primary refuge entrance, which is located on the
east side near Folkston, Georgia, and about half of our refuge
visitors come through our entrance. The facilities provided to
our company under our concession contract are located onsite at
the Suwannee Canal entrance.
The facilities consist of two buildings--an 1800-square-
foot climate-controlled building, and a 900-square-foot storage
shed. Along with the visitors center, the structures were built
in the late 1960's to replace the dilapidated shacks of a fish
camp that had operated at the site, and the buildings were
completed about 1970. They are immediately adjacent to a boat
basin that includes a 400-foot wooden bulkhead and dock, 25
finger docks, and a concrete boat ramp. And we also have an oil
and gas house for hazardous materials storage, and a 500-gallon
above-ground fuel tank away from the water's edge, across a
paved parking area.
At the time of their completion in the early 1970's, these
structures served a site that was really primarily and access
for fishermen. And over the years, I have observed considerable
upgrades to that facility. When I was a boy, only half of the
main building was wired. There were some beanie-weenies and
some sardines and that kind of thing there, but not a whole lot
else.
Over the years, as the visitor demographics shifted--and we
still do get fishermen, especially in the spring--but as time
went on in the 1980's and 1990's, our visitor demographics very
much have shifted toward traveling families and retirees,
birders, wildlife photographers, canoeists, and other outdoor
recreationists--so-called eco-tourists or nature-based
tourists. And the previous concessionaire began to bring in
more items for that market, such as T-shirts and rubber
alligators and other souvenirs. They did have to remove a fish-
cleaning station there at the edge of the boat basin--it became
too attractive to the alligators--and replaced it with a picnic
area immediately adjacent to the boat basin.
Today using these facilities, we provide a full range of
services. We have about maxed out the facilities that we have
there. We operate 364 days a year, every day except Christmas.
We have five tour boats. We conduct interpretive tours for
individuals, families, and organized groups. We have 12
employees, most of whom work full-time or nearly so. We conduct
custom walking tours for birders and photographers on the
refuge trails and boardwalk. And in addition to our
interpretive tours, we have 60 canoes, 22 kayaks, and 23
motorized skiffs, all of them with four-stroke motors,
available for rent. We rent camping gear, fishing gear,
bicycles. We have a gift shop that includes a variety of
nature- and swamp-related souvenirs, educational toys and local
crafts, and we operate a full-service food-service operation,
which provides good sandwiches and hot meals to the visiting
public, organized groups, and refuge personnel--which they
appreciate.
We have had a lot of support from the refuge managers, the
staff, our volunteers and AmeriCorps crews since we began
operations. At the same time, we have become aware of the
critically--or the extremely limited funding available to
maintain and repair our facilities. Now, critical materials
such as replacements for rotten dock boards--they have been
obtained promptly. But other projects languish for lack of
funds. If H.R. 1204 becomes law, necessary maintenance projects
could be funded directly from our concession revenues, and
things like dock boards and nails, keeping a ready supply on
hand, replacing the tiling in the building and our bathroom
facilities, which have been there for quite a long time, really
need to be completely renovated.
In addition to these basic maintenance and repairs, the
provisions for funding facility enhancements are very appealing
to us. A new concession building has been identified as a
priority for the refuge. Though we assume that major facility
enhancements, such as new building construction, would continue
to require special project grants or appropriations, the
proposed amendment would help provide funding for substantial
facility enhancements. And other that we can think of are a
proposed boardwalk, the trailhead to which is slated to be
immediately adjacent to our facility; new observation decks or
benches; upgrades to the composting toilets on our wilderness
canoe trail system; construction--or reconstruction, more
accurately--of new canoe trail camping platforms; and some
landscaping with native plants. These are all things that are
planned that we could help with that would be of direct
relation to our business. But it is our opinion that any refuge
projects receiving our concession fees, however unrelated to
the public-use program, ultimately do benefit our interest.
An important point that I do respectfully urge the
Committee to consider, the proposed change should represent a
net gain for refuge public use program funding. If, as I
understand it, one of the purposes of H.R. 1204 is to provide
refuge managers with greater incentives to enter into
concession contracts that enhance the public-use programs, the
proposed change will need to provide revenues that supplement
other funding sources, rather than replacing them.
I do wish to thank Congressman Souder for introducing this
important and necessary legislation. It makes good business
sense for everyone. And I want to say that it is a privilege
and the realization of a lifelong dream to serve as the
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's concessionaire. And it is
a tremendous honor to share my views here today. Thanks a lot,
and if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
Statement of Chip Campbell, President of Okefenokee Adventures, Inc.,
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Concessionaire, on H.R. 1204
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 1204. I believe that the
passage of this bill is important to the public use and support of our
country's outstanding National Wildlife Refuge system.
My wife, Joy, and I own and operate Okefenokee Adventures, Inc. in
Folkston, Georgia. In the spring of 2000, we were awarded the
concession contract for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's East
Entrance, also known as the Suwannee Canal Entrance. Okefenokee
Adventures began operations on September 1, 2000.
Established in 1937, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is the
largest National Wildlife Refuge in the eastern United States,
encompassing 396,000 acres of the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp, a vast
peat wetland complex of cypress, bay, gum and pine forests, dense shrub
bogs, freshwater marshes, small lakes and streams. In a region that
abounds with wetlands, Okefenokee is ``The Swamp''. The most
ecologically and hydrologically intact of the great Southern wetlands
and the largest blackwater swamp ecosystem in the world, it is also a
landscape of incomparable beauty. Home to hundreds of black bears and
thousands of American alligators, as well as endangered woodpeckers,
threatened tortoises, and a tangled riot of birds, frogs, dragonflies
and vegetation, the Okefenokee is a natural wildlife refuge. Although
it bears the fading scars of human economic endeavors, including a
failed drainage attempt in the late 19th century and successful logging
operations in the early 20th century, it remains one of the most
fundamentally wild places in America. In recognition of its enduring
wilderness qualities, in 1974 Congress designated 354,000 acres of the
Okefenokee as a Federal Wilderness Area.
The human history of the Okefenokee is as rich as its biological
diversity and its wilderness values. Once inhabited by people of
Woodland and Mississippian cultures whose burial mounds dot the
interior islands and upland edges, the Okefenokee was later home to
Timucuan and then Seminole before being settled by frontier folk of
extraordinary toughness and self-reliance: the ``swampers''. Today the
residents of Okefenokee communities take great pride in the colorful
history and folklore of their swamper heritage.
As the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's concessionaire, it is
the business of Okefenokee Adventures to help visitors understand and
appreciate the extraordinary ecological dynamics, wilderness values and
cultural history of the Okefenokee Swamp. In doing so, we help to
further the mission and purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge system
while engaging in a compatible private enterprise that contributes
directly to the local economy. Our commitment to developing a high-
quality visitor services operation was the centerpiece of our contract
proposal. We have worked hard to meet that commitment, and we are
gratified to note that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management, the
local community, and Okefenokee regulars tell us our efforts have
succeeded. We view our relationship with the Refuge public use program
as that of a cooperating partnership and our role as that of a liaison
between Refuge management and the visiting public.
While public use is understandably and properly a priority
secondary to conservation on a National Wildlife Refuge, it is a
significant factor in the management and operation of a Refuge that
attracts approximately 400,000 visitors each year from the local
communities, across the United States, and around the world.
A Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism study reveals
that Okefenokee visitors produce an average annual economic impact of
$55-$65 million for the three Georgia counties, Charlton, Clinch and
Ware, in which the Refuge is located. In 2000, overall tourism
expenditures in these counties totaled $77.2 million. According to
GDITT data, tourism supports 66 businesses and provides 1,083 jobs in
this same three county area. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
administers three public entrances under varying arrangements. A
private attraction, Okefenokee Swamp Park, on the north side of the
swamp in Ware County near Waycross, Georgia, receives about 80,000
visitors per year. On the swamp's Clinch County side near the small
town of Fargo, the State of Georgia operates Stephen C. Foster State
Park under a lease agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which provides access for approximately 120,000 visitors per year. And
about half of the Okefenokee's visitors, approximately 200,000 people
per year, come through our entrance, the East Entrance, located in
Charlton County south of Folkston, Georgia. The East Entrance serves as
the primary National Wildlife Refuge entrance.
The facilities provided to our company, Okefenokee Adventures,
under our concession contract with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are located onsite at the East Entrance, which was formerly known as
the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area and historically known as Camp
Cornelia. These facilities consist of two buildings: an 1800-sq. foot,
climate-controlled building and a 900-sq. foot storage shed without
climate control. Along with the Refuge Visitor Center, these structures
were built in the late 1960's to replace the dilapidated shacks of a
fish camp that had operated at the site. The buildings were completed
about 1970 and are immediately adjacent to a boat basin that includes a
400-foot wooden bulkhead and dock, twenty-five (25) 15-foot long
``finger'' docks, and a concrete boat ramp. A 6 X6'' oil/gas house for
hazardous material storage and a 500-gallon above-ground fuel storage
tank are located away from the water's edge across a paved parking
area.
At the time of their completion in the early 1970's, these
structures served a site that was primarily an access for fishermen.
According to Refuge officials, the projected useful life of the
buildings was 20 years. They are still in use, although the primary
public uses have changed and visitor numbers have increased.
Over the years, I have observed numerous renovations of this
service area as the operators have sought to accommodate changing
visitor needs. When I was a boy, we purchased fish bait and tackle in a
tiny waterside shop that offered little in the way of visitor amenities
beyond Vienna sausages, beanie-weenies and soda crackers. A counter was
located in the half of the larger building that was wired for
electricity. The other half of the building was unwired and used for
storage.
As visitor numbers increased, the larger building's former storage
area was enclosed and wired. The building's electricity, air
conditioning and plumbing systems were extended into the expansion.
Restroom facilities were constructed, although they could not (and
still cannot) be accessed from the building's interior. In the 1980's
and 1990's, as visitor demographics continued to shift towards
traveling families and retirees, birders, wildlife photographers,
canoeists, and other outdoor recreationists--so-called ``ecotourists''
or ``nature-based tourists --items such as T-shirts, postcards, rubber
alligators and other souvenirs appeared on concession shelves. The
Refuge removed a fish cleaning station beside the boat ramp that had
become far too attractive to the boat basin's resident alligators and
replaced it with an attractive and handicapped-accessible 1,100-sq.
foot picnic deck. The 900-sq. foot outbuilding was divided into three
rooms to accommodate storage and workshop needs, and a 40-foot canoe
storage rack was constructed. In the late 1990's, the previous
concessionaire converted a back room into a small kitchen, primarily to
prepare meals for organized groups.
Today, using these same facilities, our company, Okefenokee
Adventures, provides a full range of visitor services. We are open 364
days a year (every day except Christmas) from half an hour before
sunrise until 5:30 p.m. during Daylight Saving Time and until 7:30 p.m.
during Standard Time. We have 12 employees, most of whom work full-time
or nearly so. With 5 tour boats, we conduct guided interpretive tours
for individuals, families and organized groups. We also offer guided
half-day and full-day canoe and kayak tours by arrangement, and we
outfit and guide multi-day excursions on the Refuge wilderness canoe
trail system. We conduct custom walking tours for birders and
photographers on the Refuge's upland trails and ``-mile boardwalk. In
addition to our interpretive tours, we have 60 canoes, 22 kayaks, and
23 motorized skiffs available to rent for self-guided explorations. We
also rent camping gear, fishing gear, and bicycles, which visitors use
to observe wildlife along our drive. We sell Georgia hunting and
fishing licenses. Our gift shop inventory includes a variety of swamp
and nature-related souvenirs, educational toys and local crafts. In
addition to packaged snacks, beverages, and ice cream, we have expanded
the facility's limited kitchen into a full service food service
operation, Camp Cornelia Cafe, which serves quality sandwiches and hot
meals to the visiting public, organized groups, and Refuge employees.
Since Okefenokee Adventures began operations September 1, 2000, we
have enjoyed tremendous assistance and support from Okefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge managers, staff, volunteers, and AmeriCorps crews. At
the same time, we are aware of the extremely limited funding available
to repair and maintain our facilities. While critical materials such as
replacements for rotten dock boards have been obtained promptly, other
projects languish for lack of funds. If H.R.1204 becomes law, necessary
maintenance projects could be funded from our concession revenues. We
need a ready supply of replacement dock boards and nails. The ceramic
tiles in the original half of our main building do not match the
linoleum tiles of the expansion and kitchen, and they are all badly
discolored and worn, so we would like to replace our tiling. Our
bathroom fixtures are old and corroded and need to be replaced: in
fact, we would like to renovate the bathrooms completely. And we can
identify several repairs and upgrades to our kitchen facilities that
would probably please our county health inspector.
In addition to basic maintenance and repairs, the provisions for
funding of facility enhancements are appealing. A new concession
building has been identified as a priority by the Refuge. Though we
assume that major facility enhancements such as new building
construction would continue to require special project grants or
appropriations, the proposed amendment could help provide funding for
substantial facility enhancements. Examples that would be of direct
benefit to Okefenokee Adventures' interests could include the proposed
Mizell Prairie boardwalk, the trailhead for which is slated to be
located adjacent to our facility; new observation decks and/or benches;
upgrades to the composting toilets at the wilderness canoe trail
campsites; construction of new canoe trail camping platforms; and new
landscaping with native plants. If, as proposed, H.R. 1204 assures that
Revenue Sharing Program payments will not be affected, it seems
reasonable to conclude that returning our concession fees to the
Okefenokee would provide a net gain for the Refuge and the local
economy and preferable to the current situation. Furthermore it is our
opinion that any Refuge projects receiving our concession fees, however
unrelated to the public use program, ultimately benefit our business
interests.
An important point that I respectfully urge the Committee to
consider: the proposed change should represent a net gain for Refuge
public use program funding. If, as I understand it, one of the purposes
of H.R. 1204 is to provide Refuge managers with greater incentives to
enter into concession contracts that enhance their public use programs,
the proposed change will need to provide revenues that supplement other
funding sources rather than replacing them.
In conclusion, I wish to thank Congressman Mark E. Souder for
introducing this important and necessary legislation. It makes good
business sense for Refuge concessionaires, Refuge managers and Refuge
public use programs--and, by extension, it makes good business sense
for the local communities in which National Wildlife Refuges are
located.
It is a privilege and the realization of a lifelong dream to serve
as the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge's concessionaire. And it is
a tremendous honor to be asked to share my views today. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell. Is the
theme song for your concession ``Dueling Banjos''?
Mr. Campbell. They have actually used that on the local
Chamber of Commerce website. We told them that is probably not
sending the right message.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, the very beginning part of the movie,
when they actually played it, just tell everybody to forget
about the rest of the film.
Mr. Campbell. Right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Just that one scene with that little boy on
the bridge. That was--you know, you could cut that off right
there. Great song, though.
Mr. Campbell. It is.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hirsche.
STATEMENT OF EVAN M. HIRSCHE, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hirsche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
by saying that I am honored to sit at the same table with two
of the finest refuge friends groups in the system--in fact, the
Friends of Blackwater received the Refuge Association and the
Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Refuge Friends Group of the Year
award this year--and among the finest concessionaires in the
system, with Chip. So, an honor.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Evan Hirsche. I am president of
the National Wildlife Refuge Association. On behalf of the
association and its nationwide membership of individuals and
friends affiliate groups, thank you for the opportunity to
offer comments on H.R. 1204 concerning concessions activities
on refuges, and H.R. 2408 reauthorizing the National Wildlife
Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement
Act.
Before proceeding with my remarks, I would like to submit
written testimony for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Hirsche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the only national organization dedicated exclusively to
supporting the refuge system, the Refuge Association has a
fundamental interest in both the operation of concessions and
use of volunteers on refuges. From the outset, we want to
affirm that, while we are strong supporters of the wildlife-
first mission of the refuge system, we also recognize that
providing opportunities for the public to engage in compatible
wildlife-oriented recreational activities on refuges
contributes to building community support for these lands and
waters. With an anticipated visitation of more than 40 million
during this refuge system centennial year--and that accounts
for about a 100 percent increase since 1990, an enormous
increase--the Committee has chosen an appropriate time to take
up the issue of concessions.
In considering such legislation, it is of the utmost
importance, in our view, that programs and facilities meant to
provide a positive experience for visitors safely meet demand
while not detracting from the important conservation activities
that refuges are charged with implementing. We thank
Representative Souder for introducing H.R. 1204 and appreciate
his interest in ensuring these goals are met.
We are concerned, however, that the legislation as written
will create incentives for financially stressed refuges to
allow concessions that may not meet strict compatibility
guidelines. While all concession activities will be required to
meet compatibility determinations under law, the lure of
increased operations and maintenance funding for refuges could
result in refuge professionals tilting their decisions in favor
of allowing a concession in situations where they might
otherwise err on the side of caution.
To minimize this potential problem, the Refuge Association
recommends that language be modified in the act, or in the
bill, to more specifically limit fee expenditures to facilities
improvement and services that are directly related to the
concession.
We are pleased, however, that the bill includes Section 7,
which requires an annual accounting of concession activities,
believing that this will provide a valuable level of oversight.
Nevertheless, it is our opinion that stronger sideboards are
needed on the scope of fee expenditures. An additional way to
better ensure that concessions activities remain consistent
with the conservation objectives of refuges is to offer a right
of first refusal to refuge friends groups on the units where
they exist.
Another point on this legislation, and with further respect
to friends groups, the Refuge Association recommends that H.R.
1204 should explicitly exclude friends group bookstores
operated by friends and cooperating associations from
regulations governing concessions. For many of these groups,
operating refuge bookstore retail outlets are important funding
sources to support friends activities in connection with
refuges, and we wouldn't want to, I think, hinder that.
Moving now to comments on H.R. 2408, concurrent with the
growth of refuge friends has been the dramatic expansion of
volunteer activity on refuges. In 1982, roughly 4,000
volunteers provided support for refuges; in 2002, the number,
according to Fish and Wildlife is 34,000 volunteers
contributing more than a million hours of service and, by their
estimates, equals roughly 20 percent of the refuge system's
staffing--an exceptional number.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community
Partnership Act recognizes the important role that volunteers
play at refuges and provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with
additional tools and incentives to expand an already impressive
refuge system volunteer work force. And we thank Representative
Saxton for introducing H.R. 2408, which would reauthorize what
we consider extremely valuable legislation.
Overall, the Act has yielded strong results, particularly
in the area of placing volunteer coordinators on refuges. As
Mr. Jones pointed to earlier, 16 refuges were selected for
participation in the pilot project, and we witnessed an
extremely strong growth in volunteering as a result. We have
spoken with several of these refuges, and all were grateful for
the staffing additions and expressed real enthusiasm about the
resulting programmatic achievements.
In reauthorizing this act, we support two modifications
that we believe will strengthen the legislation. First, we
request the Committee support an amendment that would enable
Fish and Wildlife Service to transfer project funds to its
refuge partners and provide needed contracting flexibility. In
several instances since passage of the act, partner groups
engaged in developing large projects, such as visitors centers,
encountered unanticipated hurdles as a result of restrictions
on the service's ability to transfer funds.
The Refuge Association also supports an amendment to ensure
that the maximum amount of funding generated through friends
group activities is returned to sustain their important
conservation work on refuges. Specifically, the association
requests that the Committee support a provision in the
reauthorized Act that reduces the frequency of required audits,
averaging about 6,000 apiece for groups generating more than
$250,000 in annual sales. Our recommendation would be to change
from one per year to once every 3 years.
In concluding, with respect to H.R. 1204, we believe
changes can be made to ensure that this legislation addresses
maintenance needs related to concessions activities while also
preserving the mission and purposes of refuges. Further, an
exemption in this legislation for agreements with friends
groups to operate bookstores on refuges will ensure that groups
have a valuable and continued revenue source with which to make
significant contributions to refuges. Concerning H.R. 2408, the
Refuge Association strongly supports this legislation and we
will look forward to working with the Committee to strengthen
the legislation to allow greater flexibility for Fish and
Wildlife Service to contract with its partners while also
ensuring friends return as much revenue as possible back to
refuges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsche follows:]
Statement of Evan M. Hirsche, President,
National Wildlife Refuge Association, on H.R. 1204 and H.R. 2408
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA), and
its nationwide membership consisting primarily of refuge professionals
and members of the 240 refuge Friends volunteer groups representing an
estimated 40,000 individuals, thank you for the opportunity to offer
comments on H.R. 1204, concerning concessions activities on refuges,
and H.R. 2408, reauthorizing the National Wildlife Refuge System
Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998.
As the only national organization dedicated to the protection,
enhancement and expansion of the Refuge System, the Refuge Association
has a fundamental interest in both the operation of concessions and use
of volunteers on refuges.
As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE), we are also acutely aware of the need to address the System's
massive operations and maintenance backlog if these vital conservation
lands and waters are to successfully ensure that wildlife populations
remain both plentiful and diverse in this new century.
H.R. 1204--Concessions on Refuges
In our view, H.R. 1204 raises important issues as well as questions
and we look forward to working with the Committee to address these as
this legislation moves forward. We wish to thank Representative Souder
for his continuing interest in having refuges directly benefit from
concessions fees generated on site.
From the outset, we want to affirm that, while we are strong
supporters of the ``wildlife first'' mission of the Refuge System, we
also recognize that providing opportunities for the public to engage in
compatible, wildlife-/oriented recreational activities on refuges
contributes to building community support for these lands. Furthering
public understanding and appreciation for refuges can help us ensure a
well-tended Refuge System in the years ahead.
With an anticipated visitation of more than 40 million during this
the Refuge System Centennial year--a 100 percent increase from 1990--
the Committee has chosen an appropriate time to again take up the issue
of concessions. In considering such legislation, it is of the utmost
importance that programs and facilities meant to provide a positive
experience for visitors safely meet demand while not detracting from
the important conservation activities that refuges are charged with
implementing.
The NWRA applauds H.R. 1204 for seeking to address this challenge
by allowing concessionaires to allocate fees that would otherwise be
directed off the refuge, to instead improve concessionaire facilities
on site. It appears that the intent of the legislation is to ensure
funding otherwise allocated to concession facility upkeep could then be
directed to other critical refuge needs.
Incentives for Allowing Concessions
We are concerned, however, that the legislation will create
incentives for financially stressed refuges to allow concessions that
may not meet strict compatibility guidelines. As currently crafted, the
language in Sec. 5(f)(2)(C) could conceivably allow fees to support
everything from major expansion of visitor centers to habitat
restoration. In our view such a broad array of authorized uses is
fertile ground for abuse.
While all concessions activities will be required to meet
compatibility determinations under the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, the lure of increased operations and maintenance (O&M)
funding for refuges could result in refuge professionals tilting their
decisions in favor of the allowing the concession in situations where
they might otherwise err on the side of caution.
Concessions currently operate on at least 7 refuges and at first
glance it might appear that the opportunities to operate lucrative
businesses on other units are limited. As for-profit ventures, however,
private concessions must devise strategies to lure more customers and
provide more services to ensure long-term profitability. From our
perspective, there are numerous untapped possibilities that might
represent outstanding opportunities for concessionaires where such
activity may be inappropriate.
For example, a concessionaire running a photo-safari business
specializing in bird photography could make a compelling case to a
refuge manager that building a photo-blind proximate to a colonial
nesting bird rookery would be a powerful enticement for attracting new
clients--and generate additional dollars for the refuge--when such a
project may, in fact, be marginally disruptive to the nesting birds.
While careful monitoring of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)
by more objective parties may serve as a balance, and we are strongly
supportive of Sec. 7 which requires an annual accounting of concession
activities on refuges, the likelihood of consistent oversight is
unlikely. To minimize this potential problem, the NWRA recommends that
language be modified in H.R. 1204 to more specifically limit funds to
facilities improvement and services that are directly related to the
concession.
An additional way to better ensure that concession activities
remain consistent with the conservation objectives of refuges is to
offer right of first refusal to refuge Friends groups on the units
where they exist. The benefits of such an approach would have a two-
fold effect: Refuge Friends groups, by their very nature, have the best
interests of the refuge in mind and; the refuge will benefit not only
from fees returned to offset concession maintenance, but also from
profits generated by the enterprise that will ultimately be returned to
support the refuge in a number of different ways; in essence, doubling
the money.
Finally, we hope that it is not the intent of the Committee that
concessions fees serve as a substitute funding source to address
critical O&M backlog needs beyond those of operating and maintaining
concession facilities. In our view, concessions fees should not release
the Federal Government from its responsibility to provide necessary
refuge O&M funding.
Exempting Friends-Operated Bookstores from Concessions Guidelines
To the great benefit of the Refuge System, there has been an
explosion of refuge ``Friends'' groups over the past ten years, now
numbering more than 240 nationwide. These independent local citizens
groups have become instrumental in providing a range of services to
refuges, from providing interpretive tours and building boardwalks, to
running hunt programs and raising private dollars for visitor centers.
For many of these groups, operating refuge bookstore retail outlets
generates important funding with which to support the refuge. Because
of this, the NWRA believes that H.R. 1204 should explicitly exempt
refuge bookstores operated by refuge Friends and cooperating
associations from regulations governing concessions. Accordingly, we
would propose adding language in Sec. 5(b)(2) that exempts bookstore
operations agreements with Friends groups from the auspices of the
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301
et. seq.) and Title 43 CFR (Part 12).
H.R. 2408--Reauthorizing Volunteer Programs and Community Partnerships
Concurrent with the growth of refuge Friends groups has been the
dramatic expansion of volunteer activity occurring on refuges. In 1982,
4,251 volunteers provided support for refuges. In 2002, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) reports that 34,000 volunteers contributed
more than 1.2 million hours of service, valued at $28.8 million--
roughly 20% of the Refuge System's annual operating budget.
Working as part of groups or independently, volunteers assist
refuges with a range of conservation and public outreach programs.
Depending on a refuge's needs and a volunteer's skills and interests,
tasks performed can be as varied as bird banding surveys, working at a
visitor contact station or assisting refuge staff with administrative
support. In short, volunteers play an indispensable role in helping the
National Wildlife Refuge System meet critical conservation objectives.
To recognize the important contributions made by volunteers to
refuges each year, the NWRA, in partnership with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) provides awards to exceptional volunteers
and Friends groups. This year's Volunteer of the Year award went to Jim
Montgomery, a resident of Roswell, NM, who has volunteered more than
10,000 hours at Bitter Lake NWR. The NWRA and NFWF also recognized the
Friends of Blackwater NWR this year as Friends Group of the Year for
their remarkable scope of programs benefiting both the refuge and the
public.
Recognizing the beneficial role volunteers play in connection with
refuges, Congress in 1998 passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (Act), legislation
designed to provide the FWS with additional tools and incentives to
expand an already impressive Refuge System volunteer workforce. We
thank Representative Saxton and the Committee for introducing H.R.
2408, which would reauthorize this valuable legislation and will look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that necessary
improvements are made.
Volunteer and Community Partnership Act Accomplishments
Overall, the Act has yielded strong results, a top priority being
the establishment of volunteer coordinators on up to 20 geographically
diverse refuges. Since enactment, 16 refuges or complexes have been
selected for participation in the pilot program. Selected sites are
diverse, varying in size, location, habitat, number of professional
staff, access to population centers, presence of a Friends group and
the existence of volunteer programs prior to the pilot program.
The projects launched as a result of the Act vary as greatly as
their respective refuges. The most common type of service provided by
volunteers is public education and recreation, accounting for 60% of
total volunteer hours. The next most common volunteer service involves
assisting refuge staff with biological studies and wildlife monitoring,
accounting for 21% of volunteer hours. The remaining volunteer time is
spread over a variety of activities. Habitat management and restoration
accounts for 13% of volunteer hours, while maintenance is a continual
need involving facilities repair, clearing trails, trimming trees and a
variety of other projects.
Following are three examples of selected pilot projects and their
associated accomplishments:
Desert NWR Complex, NV
In 2001, the Desert NWR Complex, located outside of Las Vegas,
Nevada, hired a full-time volunteer coordinator under the pilot. The
coordinator was charged with reaching out to community members in the
rapidly advancing Las Vegas metropolitan area. As a direct result of
the coordinator's efforts, in Fiscal Year 2001 volunteers committed
10,000 hours to the refuge, valued at more than $135,000--equal to more
than five full time GS-5 employees.
Further, the refuge has also been successful in developing
partnerships with many different organizations including the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Outside Las Vegas Foundation, National
Parks Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Wildlife Habitat Improvement in
Nevada and the Red Rock Audubon Society.
Anahuac NWR, TX
Anahuac NWR is a complex of three refuges protecting more than
10,000 acres of coastal habitat running from Vermillion Bay in
Louisiana to Galveston Bay in Texas. The refuges receive more than
100,000 visitors annually who enjoy the excellent birding, hunting,
fishing and crabbing opportunities.
Anahuac's volunteer coordinator was hired in September 2000 and has
helped to generate more than 10,000 volunteer hours annually. Credit
also goes to the Friends of Anahuac Refuge which has brought energetic
leadership and promoted volunteerism at the refuge. Their combined
efforts have resulted in a 15--20% boost in volunteerism since the
position was created, and the refuge estimates that volunteers
contribute almost as many hours as the refuge staff. Volunteers staff
the information center, have helped build more than 730 feet of
boardwalk and have conducted an environmental education program
attracting 1200 to 1600 students annually. The volunteer program is so
successful that Anahuac's Friends group was nominated for the
organization of the year in Chambers County.
Neal Smith NWR, IA
The Neal Smith NWR, located 20 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa, is a
rich native prairie restoration project covering more than 8,500 acres.
Since hiring a volunteer coordinator, volunteer activities in the
refuge have doubled. In Fiscal Year 2002 volunteers spent some 20,000
hours on the refuge working on a wide variety of projects such as
managing the visitor center, greeting the public, operating the
bookstore and conducting wildlife surveys. Volunteer prairie
restoration efforts have included thousands of hours devoted to
stopping the spread of invasive plant species and promoting the re-
growth of native grasses.
Because of the refuge's proximity to Des Moines, more than 15,000
students visit the refuge every year and are guided and educated by
volunteers from the local community. Volunteers have become so active
that their work is equal to that of eight FWS employees.
Without question, the addition of volunteer coordinators on refuges
constitutes exceptional value added. By adding one additional staff
dedicated to volunteers and partners, refuges in many cases will be
able to effectively grow their overall staffing capacity. Accordingly,
the NWRA strongly supports this provision of the Act and believes that
the program should be broadly expanded to other refuges as part of the
reauthorization.
Improving FWS Cooperation with Partners on Large Projects
In several instances since passage of the Act, partner groups
engaged in developing large projects such as visitor centers on refuges
have encountered unanticipated hurdles as a result of restrictions on
the FWS's ability to transfer project funds to its partners. In two
cases, legislative fixes in the appropriations process were sought to
resolve the difficulties.
Two years ago, the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society, the Friends
group for J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge in Florida,
built a $1.3 million dollar Center for Education from 100% private
funds and donated the high quality facility to the refuge. $750,000 in
Federal funds were appropriated for Center exhibits but, by law, could
not be transferred to the group. This was resolved in the Fiscal Year
2001 Interior Appropriations bill by Congress directing the Service to
transfer the funds to the Society.
Similarly, the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum
completed construction of the Cusano Environmental Education Center in
December 2000. The majority of funds for this project came from a $2.47
million bequest that was transferred to the NFWF. The Service had
$180,000 in appropriated construction funds and $168,000 in operations
funding, as well as $82,000 from private contributions, that could not
be transferred to the Foundation as matching funds. Like the Darling
problem, this was also resolved though appropriations language in the
Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. It is impractical and
inefficient to conduct business in this manner.
To successfully address this recurring difficulty and other
unresolved public/private partnership challenges, the NWRA suggests the
following amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer
and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998:
strike ``The Secretary of the Interior may enter into a
cooperative agreement (within the meaning of chapter 63 of title 31,
United States Code'' at the beginning of subsection (2)(A); and;
insert ``Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq.)
and Title 43 CFR (Part 12), the Secretary of the Interior is hereafter
authorized to negotiate and enter into cooperative agreements with any
partner organization, academic institution, or State or local
government agency to carry out one or more projects or programs for a
refuge or complex of geographically related refuges in accordance with
this subsection.''
Friends Group Audits
To ensure that the maximum amount of funding generated through
Friends group activities is returned to sustain their important
conservation work for refuges, the NWRA requests that the Committee
support a provision in the reauthorized Act that reduces the frequency
of required audits for these groups; from once per year to once every
three years. Currently groups with more than $250,000 in annual gross
revenues must contract with an accountant to conduct a thorough,
financial audit. At an average cost of $6,000, audits cost the not-for-
profit Friends groups a considerable amount of money that could
otherwise go to support important refuge programs.
The Association agrees that group finances should be well
documented, however, and thus recommend that audits be conducted every
three years. This will make certain that Friends groups are taking
their accounting practices seriously, while also ensuring that refuges
receive the support they need for their programs. We would be pleased
to work with the Committee to develop appropriate amendment language.
Conclusion
While the NWRA supports the intent of H.R. 1204, we believe changes
can be made to ensure that this legislation addresses maintenance needs
relating to concession activities--while also preserving the mission
and purposes of refuges. Further, an exemption in this legislation for
agreements with Friends groups to operate bookstores on refuges will
allow Friends to use that revenue generating activity to continue to
make significant contributions to refuges.
NWRA strongly supports H.R. 2408 which would reauthorize the
National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership
Enhancement, and we look forward to working with the Committee to
strengthen the legislation as it moves forward. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hirsche.
I guess I would say at the outset that, to some extent, we
as Members of Congress--and most members have refuges in their
District--have taken for granted the number of volunteers on
these refuges and the extraordinary things that they do. We
don't underestimate the value. I guess we don't say it in
public enough at the refuges, so to some extent over the next
few years I would like to make that correction, especially in
my District, Mr. Hook, for the kinds of things that you do, and
also the other refuges throughout the State of Maryland. But
they are magnificent places, and they really couldn't function
if we didn't have volunteers.
Mr. Hirsche, could you just make a comment on friends of
refuges and how they operate bookstores? I was unaware that--
are all bookstores on all refuges run by the friends of that
refuge?
Mr. Hirsche. I don't know that all are. It is my impression
that the vast majority are operated by refuge friends or
cooperating associations.
Mr. Gilchrest. So it would be your opinion that bookstores
that are now operated by the friends of that particular refuge,
which seems to be the norm for refuges, there is some language
that might be useful in this legislation to ensure that that
remains, the refuge keeps that practice, as opposed to bidding
that out to some concessionaire?
Mr. Hirsche. Yeah. Yes, sir. I think that what we are
talking about is exempting friends from having to undergo the
bidding process, reporting process. And frankly I think there
is real disincentive for friends to bid on a bookstores as a
concession if in fact those funds are going, rather than back
to the friends group for their projects and efforts to support
the refuge, instead that those funds go to something else,
either to the refuge, under this act, for other activities, or
to the Federal coffers. So it is effectively removing--it is a
disincentive for friends groups to bid for a contract.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you. And I apologize for the
continued mispronunciation of your name.
Mr. Hirsche. Oh, that is quite all right.
Mr. Gilchrest. I won't make that same mistake again.
Mr. Campbell, do you have any comment on bookstores and
volunteers and concessionaires?
Mr. Campbell. We have a bookstore operating in our visitors
center katty-corner across the boat basin from us. The question
of whether there was an inherently competitive relationship,
being right there on top of each other, was one that was raised
early on, when we arrived at Okefenokee. We have made a
decision not to put books in our own operation, and our friends
group, the Okefenokee Wildlife League, has in fact made us
lifetime members of that organization. We are very supportive
of our friends group and are part of it.
I would tend to concur with Mr. Hirsche's request that
friends groups not have to go through a concession process in
order to operate bookstores. Now, whether there are some
sideboards that need to go into place there preventing the
friends group from expanding its operations into those areas
that are part of the business of the concession is another
point. Our friends group has brought in some additional
inventory items that go beyond books. It hasn't been an issue
for us. I mean, we do just fine with what we have. But I
don't--it is workable, but I think everyone, particularly if
you have a concessionaire and a friends group, you need to make
sure you have a real good relationship there.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much.
I will ask Mr. Hook and Dr. Bristow this question
specifically, but Mr. Campbell or Mr. Hirsche, if you want to
answer it as well, I would appreciate it.
I guess the question is what is the volunteer's role--and
to some extent you have answered this in a general way in your
testimony--a volunteer and a volunteer organization at a refuge
have a diverse range of activities, as you have described.
Could you tell me, maybe specific to the refuge that you
represent, what do you think the role of the volunteer
organization, or the goals of your volunteers are in
relationship to the maintenance of the refuge, the ecology of
the refuge, the educational activity in reference to that
ecology to the surrounding community, in that the surrounding
community enhance their understanding as to how that system,
the ecosystem works? And then what do you see as the role of
the volunteers to maintaining the ecological integrity of that
refuge when they see things occurring that are not compatible
with the ecology? And that could be anything from a
concessionaire that might not be operating appropriately to the
mismanagement of an oil and gas operation on the refuge.
Dr. Bristow. I think that the place of volunteers on the
refuge, first of all, has to be determined by discussion with
the staff as to what they feel their needs are and where the
volunteers can be of the most service to the refuge in
performing their mission. Fortunately, we have had an excellent
working relationship with the staff at Forsythe over the years,
more than 20 now. We have picked up things--the refuge lost its
biologist a few years back; Audubon group took over a weekly
survey of birds. And even though we now have a biologist again,
the biologist is very happy to have us doing it and he can
focus his attention on other things that are needed more than
doing the bird counts.
We provide some services, particularly on weekends, when
there is no staff present normally, through our store. We
provide information. We provide change for people who need to
pay the $4 fee. We provide annual passes, which they could not
otherwise get; they would have to get there during the week.
For many people, that is a real problem. So they are very happy
to have us there to provide that service. Obviously, we have
things for sale there. We have also been able to provide
funding for many things that are not in the refuge's budget. We
have a wildflower gardening group that is putting in a native
wildflower garden around the refuge headquarters. We provided
the materials for them. This is something that the refuge
certainly isn't going to be able to squeeze out of its budget.
A number of repairs have been done. We are working on
providing real educational experiences for the classrooms that
come through. If it wasn't for the friends group and the
Audubon group working really hand-in-glove, most of these
groups would simply be taking a day off from class and riding
around and looking at the birds maybe, or busy talking among
themselves. Frankly, I have been impressed even with teenagers,
who like to be real cool and don't necessarily want to look
like they were approving something like this, to see them very
individually step up to the telescope and look at a snowy owl
sitting out in the marsh, as big as their eyes can get, and
hear very, very quietly things like, ``Wow,'' ``Oooh.'' And
then they step back and they become that cool teenager again
with their friends. No price can be put on something like that,
obviously.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think you provide them with life-changing
experiences.
Dr. Bristow. We certainly hope so.
The other thing that we have done, and particularly with
the help of our volunteer coordinator, is reaching out to the
rest of the community. And again, through our little store
facility, on weekends we can tell people, hey, there is a nice
little restaurant where you can get a good sandwich and
something to drink, or there is a place you can go get dinner.
So we are helping the local business people as well. People
occasionally ask us if there is someplace they can launch their
canoe, so we refer them to the launching areas and the marinas
that have such facilities. We have a kayaking operation that
one of the local business people runs, so we have been putting
them on. And all that kind of thing that I think not only helps
the refuge, but it also helps the local business. About $10
million comes into the area, as of last survey, just for
tourism related to the refuge. So it is a big thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Bristow.
We are checking to see if that is a vote. I know not
everybody has answered the questions I asked, but if you could
hold that thought, I am going to yield to the gentlelady from
Guam because I am going a little over my time.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of questions. First, I think, for Mr. Jones, could you
describe how the revenues generated thus far by the service
from annual franchise fees and a percentage of gross receipts
from concessionaires to date have been used by the service? The
fees that you receive from the concessionaires, how are they
used by Wildlife?
Mr. Gilchrest. Was that question directed to Mr. Jones?
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Jones, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Mr. Jones, unfortunately, has had to
leave as a result of the last vote.
Ms. Bordallo. Oh, I see. So anyone else could answer. I
guess no one, then.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am not sure if anybody on the panel right
now could answer that question. There is a lady in the back of
the room that you could probably talk to later. Raised her
hand.
Ms. Bordallo. How are the fees used that you collect now?
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you come up and speak into the mike,
and then identify yourself?
Ms. Rowell. I am Allyson Rowell. I am chief of visitors
services for National Wildlife Refuge System. The way those
concessions funds are used now is we have $187,000 in funds
that came from those concessionaires last year. And those funds
go into the refuge revenue-sharing fund. They do not go back to
the refuge. And that is why this bill is so important, so it
can go back to the refuge and maintain these buildings.
Ms. Bordallo. I see, all right. And then the second one,
perhaps--I think they were all directed to Mr. Jones. I am
sorry I didn't--
Has the service generated any numbers as to what this
legislation may bring about if enacted, and if we are to treat
capitalization costs incurred by concessionaires, how is the
compensation for using the facility--what does this mean to the
revenues the service currently collects?
Ms. Rowell. Well, right now, as Mr. Jones said earlier, we
don't really have a concessions program. We hope that this bill
will help us get there. We do all sorts of different things--
special use permits, memorandums of understanding, concessions.
And we are trying to actually define a concessionaire. Once we
do that, we will be able to decide how much more revenue will
be available for maintenance. We have a feeling that there is a
great potential there to find maintenance money. And as Mr.
Jones said, we have over a billion-dollar backlog in
maintenance. And the concessionaires like Mr. Campbell surely
would like to have their facilities maintained.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Well, I think it is good legislation.
And Mr. Chairman, we do have a Fish and Wildlife facility on
Guam; however, we don't have any concessionaires. But I will
tell you, the facility is falling apart.
Ms. Rowell. I will tell Mr. Jones.
Ms. Bordallo. I can see that, you know, this is needed.
Now, my other question is, if we are to treat
capitalization costs as compensation for using the facilities,
could you offer us some detail as to how this will be
reconciled? Will the concessionaire have to pay--will he be
given, you know, recognition for everything that he puts into
the maintenance and the repair?
Ms. Rowell. I believe that the way the bill states right
now that they are in-kind services. So if they do--you know,
you calculate the value of that, and I think that is a very
important factor of all of this.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rowell. There is compensation.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo, very much.
Mr. Hook, if you wanted to respond to that question that I
had earlier?
Mr. Hook. Sure. I would also like to mention, Friends of
Blackwater has members in Guam.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh.
Mr. Hook. Friends of Blackwater and the refuge is a
tremendous partnership. We consider the refuge our 51 percent
partner. We work with Glenn and his staff in the refuge to do
what needs to be done down there. Our volunteers not only man
the bookstores, serve as docents in the bookstores, there is
just a tremendous biological research, wetlands, and forest
restoration program, as Congressman Gilchrest knows, slogging
in the marsh out there on Barren Island for 8 hours.
By the way, that project--I was out there about a month
ago--the grasses are up to here.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is holding?
Mr. Hook. Unbelievable what is happening.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wonderful.
Mr. Hook. But the Friends of Blackwater not only contribute
money to the refuge, all the money we make goes back to the
refuge. We don't spend any money on ourselves. But a lot of our
projects are educational in nature. For example, we are opening
up 20 miles of paddling trails on Saturday. We are in the
process now of building a little over four miles of brand-new
hiking trails. And part of that will be an educational pavilion
back in the woods. They are looking at something about 25 feet
by 45 feet, screened-in educational pavilion that we can use to
help people understand and provide the interpretive information
on the refuge.
The trails have some very unique educational interpretive
potential. The one trail is right in the path of where the
tornado hit a year and a half ago, and it is really something
to see what the tornado did in the way the forest comes back,
Mother Nature comes back. There are several areas on the trail
that are mature forest, select-cut forest, and replanted
forest.
The question you asked about if we see something wrong on
the refuge--and I assume that is something somebody is doing
wrong on the refuge--of course, we are the biggest whistle-
blowers going if anybody does anything wrong. But we also help
organization and help put together the programs to maintain the
refuge in many areas where it is just things that volunteers
can do that would take staff time that would be better spent,
the staff time, doing something else with their expertise and
then having volunteers do the--I hate to say it, but the grunt
work and the hands-on and some of the dirty work to free the
refuge staff to do other things. We do a lot of that.
The biggest thing, I think, is the cooperation we have from
the refuge in this relationship, where the refuge is our 51
percent partner. And everything goes back to them. In my
written testimony, I had a whole list of things we have
accomplished. By the way, I hope that gets in.
Mr. Gilchrest. Your full statement will be submitted to the
record.
Mr. Hook. OK, thank you. I hope that helped answer the
question.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, it did very much. Thank you.
Mr. Hook. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. One last--oh, Ms. Bordallo, do you have a
question?
Ms. Bordallo. Go ahead.
Mr. Gilchrest. I was just going to ask--unless you wanted
to comment, Mr. Hirsche, on that.
Mr. Hirsche. If I could.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Hirsche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to raise a--
or clarify something, a distinction of friends and volunteers.
If I am not mistaken, certainly Friends of Blackwater--I don't
know about Dr. Bristow's group--they run the volunteer
programs. But in many cases, the volunteer program is separate
from the friends group and the volunteer program is actually
operated by the refuge. And depending where you go in the
country and which refuge and which group, that relationship can
be different. So I think it is important to help clarify that.
But I think you would--and I think Mr. Hook raises this
point--the relationship between a friends group and the refuge
is what makes a partnership successful. It is a partnership,
and it is not a subservient relationship. And the most
successful groups out there working jointly with the refuges
are doing so because they have tremendously strong
relationships with the refuge managers and understand their
respective roles.
You had asked about biological integrity and monitoring to
some extent what is occurring on refuges and ensuring that
those things occurring on refuges are in fact compatible. I
think more often than not you will find that friends groups can
serve as a valuable voice and outreach tools to communities,
particularly when we are talking about activities that may be
popular in the community but potentially a challenge as far as
ensuring compatibility. And so a friends group can play an
incredibly important role in educating the community, involving
them. And so I think friends, yes, they are involved in a whole
range of activities, but one of the most important activities
from our perspective is reaching out to local communities and
educating and involving them.
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a quick comment. It seems that every
decade or so, individuals continue to expand their
responsibilities. There always seems more and more to do. This
is a preface to this question I am about to ask. And the more
humans there are, the more activities there are, the more
things need to be done to react to that activity. And one of
the things humans have done pervasively over the last century,
I guess, is to spread invasive species. So I know you are
looking out for education, you are selling books, you are
paddling down, you are getting connected with the community,
you are doing all those things--is there any thought about
volunteers that observe or then actually react to invasive
species that they see in their refuge?
Mr. Hirsche. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond. There in
fact is a considerable amount of effort by volunteers on the
ground to--
Mr. Gilchrest. And concessionaires as well.
Mr. Hirsche. And concessionaires, to monitor the advance of
invasives and address invasives. More specifically, in the 2003
Interior appropriations bill, there is a million dollars and
language allocated to Fish and Wildlife Service to implement
volunteer programs around invasives. And they are in fact in
the process of implementing pilot projects around the country
to get volunteers out there monitoring and, where appropriate,
taking action.
In my testimony, I cite Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
in Iowa in particular, which is a native prairie restoration
project, and they report that they have volunteers putting in
thousands of hours, both stopping the advancement of invasives,
but planting native grasses.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think the Friends of Blackwater are
considering a concession where they will sell nutria burgers.
Mr. Hook. We have some terrific recipes, yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. I yield to the
gentlelady from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
have one question. And I think perhaps the representative from
the Fish and Wildlife Service may have to be the one to answer
this. And I was very happy to hear that we do have the Friends
of Blackwater on Guam. Isn't that what you state?
Mr. Hook. Yes, there are members of Friends of Blackwater
from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
I am curious. If we do not have a concessionaire in our
facility on Guam, and it is near the ocean coastline-- and that
is why I say it needs maintenance, it needs repair--would there
be funds in the department, then, to take care of something
like that? I mean, this bill has to do with the concessionaires
taking care of repairs and maintenance, but we do not have a
concessionaire in Guam. So how is that going to be handled?
Ms. Rowell. If you really want a concessionaire, I think
that we can explore the possibility of what the economic value
is. And we have a concessionaire national program person here.
We can look into that. And another option, a lot of these
friends groups, many of the people at Ding Darling and the
friends group, they have gone off and started friends groups at
Midway and all over the world where there aren't people.
Ms. Bordallo. We would love to have you on Guam. So,
please--
Ms. Rowell. Well, let's look into it.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. All right. And so, for that
reason, if we are not successful, then there wouldn't be any
funds, then, to maintain the facility, is that what I am
hearing?
Ms. Rowell. That is probably what you are hearing, because
then it goes on the backlog.
Ms. Bordallo. All right, then, we will extend an invitation
to concessionaires to Guam.
Ms. Rowell. I will go.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And Mr. Hook, Mr. Bristow, Mr.
Campbell, Mr. Hirsche, thank you all very much for your fine
testimony. We will take it to heart and become relentless to
ensure that both these pieces of legislation, with your help,
will be guided through the process and signed into law.
Thank you all very much, and thank you for coming. Have a
great, cool day.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]