    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     H.R. 3109, TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY
                     BIRD TREATY ACT TO EXEMPT CERTAIN
                     ALASKAN NATIVE ARTICLES; H.R. 3409,
                     ``NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE EXPAN-
                     SION LIMITATION ACT OF 2013'';
                     H.R. 5026, ``FISH HATCHERY PROTECTION
                     ACT''; AND H.R. 5069, ``FEDERAL DUCK
                     STAMP ACT OF 2014''

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
                           OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Wednesday, July 23, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-81

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush Holt, NJ
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    John Fleming, LA                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Glenn Thompson, PA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Niki Tsongas, MA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Tony Cardenas, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Jared Huffman, CA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Raul Ruiz, CA
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Bill Flores, TX                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Joe Garcia, FL
    Markwayne Mullin, OK                 Matt Cartwright, PA
    Steve Daines, MT                     Katherine M. Clark, MA
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Vacancy
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO
    Vance M. McAllister, LA
    Bradley Byrne, AL

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                    Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
                     Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
                              AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                           JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
        GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Bill Flores, TX                      Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Joe Garcia, FL
    Vance M. McAllister, LA              Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
    Bradley Byrne, AL
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, July 23, 2014.........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Arizona.................................................    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
            Exhibit 1 submitted for the record.......................    34
            Exhibits 2-6 submitted for the record....................    42
        Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress
          from the Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands.........     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................     9

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Angius, Hon. Hildy, Chairman, Mohave County Board of
          Supervisors................................................    48
            Prepared statement of....................................    50
        Cornell, Martin Clifford III, Grant Administrator, Friends of
          Brazoria Wildlife Refuges..................................    64
            Prepared statement of....................................    65
        Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
          Service....................................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Mansell, Hon. Robert E., Chairman, Arizona Game and Fish
          Commission.................................................    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Pata, Jacqueline, Vice Chair, Sealaska Corporation...........    53
            Prepared statement of....................................    55
        Schmidt, Paul, Chief Conservation Officer, Ducks Unlimited...    58
            Prepared statement of....................................    60

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, April 1, 2014 Letter
          submitted for the record on H.R. 5026......................    79
        Cronkite News, July 23, 2014, Online article, ``Arizona
          officials call for a halt to `devastating' hatchery
          changes,'' by Julianne Logan...............................    84
        Ducks Unlimited, July 14, 2014 Letter submitted for the
          record on H.R. 5069........................................    82
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    85
        Sport Fishing & Boating Partnership Council, July 10, 2014
          Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 5026...............    81
        The Wilderness Society, July 22, 2014 Letter submitted for
          the record on H.R. 3409....................................    83
        Trout Unlimited, July 22, 2014 Letter submitted for the
          record on H.R. 5026........................................    12

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3109, TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD
       TREATY ACT TO EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKAN NATIVE ARTICLES FROM
        PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE
      MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 3409, TO
    AMEND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF
       1966 TO REQUIRE THAT ANY EXPANSION OF A NATIONAL WILDLIFE
      REFUGE MUST BE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, ``NATIONAL
    WILDLIFE REFUGE EXPANSION LIMITATION ACT OF 2013''; H.R. 5026,
        TO PROHIBIT CLOSING OR REPURPOSING ANY PROPAGATION FISH
        HATCHERY OR AQUATIC SPECIES PROPAGATION PROGRAM OF THE
      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNLESS SUCH ACTION IS EXPRESSLY
       AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
     ``FISH HATCHERY PROTECTION ACT''; AND H.R. 5069, TO AMEND THE
     MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMP ACT TO INCREASE
    IN THE PRICE OF MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING AND CONSERVATION STAMPS
    TO FUND THE ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS FOR MIGRATORY
      BIRDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FEDERAL DUCK STAMP ACT OF
                                 2014''

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 23, 2014

                         U.S. House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Southerland;
    Sablan and Garcia.
        Also present: Representatives Gosar, Crawford, Fincher and
    Dingell.
        Dr. Fleming. The subcommittee will come to order. The
    Chairman notes the presence of quorum.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Dr. Fleming. Good morning. Today the subcommittee will
    conduct a hearing on several important legislative proposals.
    The first bill, H.R. 3109, was introduced by the gentleman from
    all of Alaska, Congressman Don Young, which makes a common-
    sense modification to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.
    Specifically, the bill would allow Alaskan Natives to utilize
    the non-edible parts of a migratory bird.
        Under current law, Alaskan Natives are permitted to harvest
    migratory birds for subsistence needs. They can use the non-
    edible parts for handicrafts but are prohibited from selling
    those products. This is a nonsensical Federal policy and is
    contrary to the intent of the 1997 protocols to the Migratory
    Bird Treaties and the direct testimony of the director of the
    Fish and Wildlife Service who testified at the time that, ``The
    protocols do provide for the sale of authentic articles of
    handicraft using non-edible byproducts of birds.''
        The second bill, H.R. 3409, was introduced by Congressman
    Steve Fincher of Frog Jump, Tennessee. This bill would require
    that the Congress approve all new expansions of the units of
    the National Wildlife Refuge System. While I understand that
    the Fish and Wildlife Service wants maximum flexibility, what I
    do not understand is why any Member of this legislative body
    would oppose this bill. It is our constitutional responsibility
    to identify and allocate how our constituents' hard-earned tax
    dollars will be spent. If authorizing these expansions is such
    a problem, then why has no Member of Congress introduced a
    single bill to give the same flexibility to the Bureau of Land
    Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service
    or the U.S. Park Service?
        Under current law, it takes an Act of Congress to expand
    the boundaries of some of our most hallow and sacred national
    parks by even 1 acre. But the Fish and Wildlife Service can
    expand a refuge by hundreds of thousands of acres with little,
    if any, input from Congress.
        The third bill is H.R. 5026, the Fish Hatchery Protection
    Act, which has been introduced by our committee colleague, Paul
    Gosar of Flagstaff, Arizona. Under the terms of his
    legislation, the Fish and Wildlife Service would be prohibited
    from permanent closing, re-programming, re-purposing, de-
    commissioning, significant altering or moving to caretaker
    status any propagation program unless authorized by Congress.
        I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona for his
    tireless leadership on behalf of his constituents and all
    Americans who enjoy fishing in our Nation's lakes, rivers and
    streams.
        While the bill may be prescriptive, this agency needs to
    spend more time communicating with their partners. On March 5,
    the agency testified on its strategic hatchery and workplace
    policy report. At that time, Assistant Director David Hoskins
    stated that this report ``was not a decision document but an
    opportunity to engage partners and stakeholders, including
    Congress, state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes and others
    in a discussion of its major findings and recommendations.''
    What Mr. Hoskins failed to tell us that day was that the
    Service had already terminated a number of propagation
    programs, particularly in Region 4, without telling anyone in
    Congress, the states or local communities.
        This failure to communicate prompted responses from both
    the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Sport
    Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. In the first letter,
    the president of the Association representing all 50 states
    noted that, ``The report laid out a new desired direction
    without any direct input from any state partners who all have a
    vested interest in the management and production of fish from
    the National Fish Hatchery System.''
        The second letter by the Sport Fishing and Boating
    Partnership Council had a similar theme, that, ``The fact that
    no stakeholders, including the state agencies that depend on
    the National Fish Hatchery System, were consulted highlights
    the significant and problematic lack of transparency in the
    current direction of the fisheries program.''
        If nothing else, I am sure that H.R. 5026 has finally got
    the attention of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Finally, we will hear testimony on H.R. 5069, a bipartisan
    bill I am proposing with the Dean of the House, Congressman
    John Dingell, and Congressman Rob Wittman, Ron Kind and Jason
    Smith.
        This year is the 80th anniversary of the issuance of the
    first Federal Duck Stamp. Under the Federal Duck Stamp Act, the
    price of the hunting stamp would increase from $15 to $25. The
    $10 increase would be used exclusively for acquiring
    conservation easements, and the Congress would receive an
    annual report on expenditures. This would be the first price
    increase in 23 years. And the legislation is strongly supported
    by Ducks Unlimited, who we will hear from today.
        I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, the
    distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of the Northern
    Marianas--which we will be visiting soon, I will add, for any
    statement he would like to make.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fleming follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
                Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
        Good morning, today, the subcommittee will conduct a hearing on
    several important legislative proposals.
        The first bill, H.R. 3109, was introduced by the gentleman from All
    of Alaska, Congressman Don Young, which makes a commonsense
    modification to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Specifically,
    the bill would allow Alaskan natives to utilize the non-edible parts of
    a migratory bird. Under current law, Alaskan natives are permitted to
    harvest migratory birds for subsistence needs. They can use the non-
    edible parts for handicrafts but are prohibited from selling those
    products.
        This is a nonsensical Federal policy and it is contrary to the
    intent of the 1997 Protocols to the Migratory Bird Treaties and the
    direct testimony of the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service who
    testified at that time that ``The Protocols do provide for the sale of
    authentic articles of handicraft using non-edible by-products of
    birds.''
        The second bill is H.R. 3409, was introduced by Congressman Steve
    Fincher of Frog Jump, Tennessee. This bill would require that the
    Congress approve all new expansions of units of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System.
        While I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service wants maximum
    flexibility, what I don't understand is why any member of this
    legislative body would oppose this bill. It is our constitutional
    responsibility to identify and allocate how our constituent's hard
    earned tax dollars will be spent. If authorizing these expansions is
    such a problem, then why has no Member of Congress introduced a single
    bill to give the same flexibility to the Bureau of Land Management, the
    Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service or the U.S. Park
    Service? Under current law, it takes an Act of Congress to expand the
    boundaries of some of our most hallow and sacred national parks by even
    one acre but the Fish and Wildlife Service can expand a refuge by
    hundreds of thousands of acres with little, if any input, from the
    Congress.
        The third bill is H.R. 5026, the Fish Hatchery Protection Act,
    which has been introduced by our committee colleague, Paul Gosar of
    Flagstaff, Arizona. Under the terms of his legislation, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service would be prohibited from permanently closing,
    reprogramming, repurposing, decommissioning, significant altering, or
    moving to caretaker status any propagation program unless authorized by
    Congress.
        I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona for his tireless
    leadership on behalf of his constituents and all Americans who enjoy
    fishing in our Nation's lakes, rivers and streams. While the bill may
    be prescriptive, this agency needs to spend more time communicating
    with their partners. On March 5, the agency testified on its Strategic
    Hatchery and Workplace Policy report. At that time, Assistant Director
    David Hoskins stated that this report ``Was not a decision document but
    an opportunity to engage partners and stakeholders, including Congress,
    State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, tribes and others in a discussion of
    its major findings and recommendations''.
        What Mr. Hoskins failed to tell us that day was that the Service
    had already terminated a number of propagation programs, particularly
    in Region 4, without telling anyone in Congress, the states or the
    local communities. This failure to communicate prompted responses from
    both the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Sport
    Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. In the first letter, the
    President of the Association representing all 50 states noted that
    ``The report laid out a new desired direction without any direct input
    from any state partners who all have a vested interest in the
    management and production of fish from the National Fish Hatchery
    System''. The second letter by the Sport Fishing and Boating
    Partnership Council had a similar theme that ``The fact that no
    stakeholders, including the state agencies that depend on the National
    Fish Hatchery System, were consulted highlights the significant and
    problematic lack of transparency in the current direction of the
    fisheries program''. If nothing else, I am sure that H.R. 5026 has
    finally got the attention of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Finally, we will hear testimony on H.R. 5069, a bipartisan bill I
    am proposing with the Dean of the House, Congressman John Dingell and
    Congressmen Rob Wittman, Ron Kind and Jason Smith. This year is the
    80th Anniversary of the issuance of the first Federal Duck Stamp.
        Under the Federal Duck Stamp Act, the price of the hunting stamp
    would increase from $15 to $25 dollars, the $10 increase would be used
    exclusively for acquiring conservation easements and the Congress would
    receive an annual report on expenditures. This would be the first price
    increase in 23 years and the legislation is strongly supported by Ducks
    Unlimited who we will hear from today.

                                     ______

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A
    DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA
                                ISLANDS

        Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you for holding today's hearing.
        Good morning everyone. And I am always in awe when the Dean
    of the House, Mr. John Dingell, is present in any room, one of
    our strong, very strong conservationists in Congress. And
    welcome, Congressman Dingell.
        Today, we will hear testimony on four bills related to
    programs that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers,
    including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife
    Refuge System and the National Fish Hatchery System. Some of
    these bills are well-intentioned, but I cannot help but notice
    that some of them are also at odds with each other, both in
    practice and in principle.
        I am happy to see we will be considering H.R. 5069,
    Chairman Fleming's bill to authorize an increase in the price
    of the Federal Duck Stamp from $15 to $25. Revenue from Duck
    Stamps provide funding for the purchase and conservation of
    wetland habitats, critical to maintaining healthy populations
    of waterfowl and other wildlife.
        This increase is long overdue. And while I do not support
    the provision of the bill that prohibits the additional funds
    from being used for fee simple purchase of land, I hope we can
    work together with the Senate to make a version of this bill
    law by the end of this Congress. High hopes working with the
    Senate.
        Ironically, while H.R. 5069 seeks to increase habitat for
    ducks, geese and other waterfowl prized by hunters, bird
    watchers and other outdoor enthusiasts, H.R. 3409 seeks to
    limit it. This bill would eliminate the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's authority to add lands to our National Wildlife
    Refuge System, requiring instead that each refuge expansion be
    approved by an Act of Congress. When you consider that 98
    percent of Duck Stamp dollars are currently spent on adding
    land to the National Wildlife Refuge, it is hard to imagine how
    someone could support both bills. Together H.R. 5069 and H.R.
    3409 would create a mandate to increase funding for the
    conservation of wetlands essential to the survival and recovery
    of waterfowl while at the same time prohibiting the Service
    from actually using it.
        Wildlife refuges provide immense benefits to Americans,
    particularly those who hunt, fish and otherwise enjoy the
    outdoors. In 2013, recreation in the refuge system generated
    $2.4 billion in sales and economic output, created 35,000 new
    U.S. jobs and $793 million in employment income, which
    contributed more than $342 million in tax revenue. And all
    these benefits were gained from a refuge system which occupies
    less than 1 percent of the land area of the contiguous United
    States. By comparison almost 2 percent of our land area is
    leased for exploitation of oil and gas reserves. And nearly 9
    percent is leased for livestock grazing.
        The logic of H.R. 3409 suggests that every new mineral
    lease or grazing allotment should also require congressional
    approval, a restriction we can all agree would be as unpopular
    as it is impractical.
        Meanwhile, H.R. 5026 would actually require the Service to
    continue funding programs within the National Fish Hatchery
    System because of the recreational and economic benefits they
    provide to local communities. Wildlife refuges provide an even
    larger jolt to local and regional economies in addition to
    supporting $32 billion in ecosystem services, like water
    filtration, fish and wildlife protection and carbon
    sequestration. Yet, somehow spending money on the refuge system
    is too much government for some. I would hope that those
    Members who support government-subsidized rearing of non-native
    fish will also support investments in wildlife refuges.
        Finally, H.R. 3109 seeks to provide an exemption to the
    Migratory Bird Treaty Act for Alaskan Native handicrafts. The
    exemption appears consistent with other important conservation
    laws, but also I realize we have treaty obligations that may
    complicate matters.
        I look forward to hearing from my witnesses about that and
    the other bills before us today. And I really look forward to
    having Chairman Fleming join me on the small island of Saipan
    very soon.
        Thank you very much and good morning.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking
    Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Today we will hear testimony on four bills related to programs that
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers, including the Migratory
    Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System and the National
    Fish Hatchery System. Some of these bills are well intentioned, but I
    cannot help but notice that some of them are also at odds with each
    other, both in practice and in principle.
        I am happy to see we will be considering H.R. 5069, Chairman
    Fleming's bill to authorize an increase in the price of the Federal
    Duck Stamp from $15 to $25. Revenue from Duck Stamps provides funding
    for the purchase and conservation of wetland habitats critical to
    maintaining healthy populations of waterfowl and other wildlife. This
    increase is long overdue, and while I do not support the provision of
    the bill that would prohibit the additional funds from being used for
    fee simple purchase of land, I hope that we can work together with the
    Senate to make a version of this bill law by the end of this Congress.
        Ironically, while H.R. 5069 seeks to increase habitat for ducks,
    geese, and other waterfowl prized by hunters, birdwatchers, and other
    outdoor enthusiasts, H.R. 3409 seeks to limit it. This bill would
    eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Service's authority to add lands to our
    National Wildlife Refuge System, requiring instead that each Refuge
    expansion be approved by an Act of Congress.
        When you consider that 98 percent of Duck Stamp dollars are
    currently spent on adding land to National Wildlife Refuges, it is hard
    to imagine how someone could support both bills. Together, H.R. 5069
    and H.R. 3409 would create a mandate to increase funding for the
    conservation of wetlands essential to the survival and recovery of
    waterfowl, while at the same time prohibiting the Service from actually
    using it.
        Wildlife Refuges provide immense benefits to all Americans--
    particularly those who hunt, fish, and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. In
    2013, recreation in the Refuge System generated $2.4 billion in sales
    and economic output, created 35,000 U.S. jobs and $793 million in
    employment income, which contributed more than $342 million in tax
    revenue.
        And all these benefits were gained from a Refuge System which
    occupies less than 1 percent of the land area of the contiguous United
    States. By comparison, almost 2 percent of our land area is leased for
    exploitation of oil and gas reserves and nearly 9 percent is leased for
    livestock grazing. The ``logic'' of H.R. 3409 suggests that every new
    mineral lease or grazing allotment should also require congressional
    approval, a restriction that we can all agree would be as unpopular as
    it is impractical.
        Meanwhile, H.R. 5026 would actually require the Service to continue
    funding programs within the National Fish Hatchery System, because of
    the recreational and economic benefits they provide to local
    communities. Wildlife Refuges provide an even larger jolt to local and
    regional economies--in addition to supporting $32 billion in ecosystem
    services like water filtration, fish and wildlife production, and
    carbon sequestration--yet somehow spending money on the Refuge System
    is too much government for some. I would hope that those members who
    support government subsidized rearing of non-native fish will also
    support investments in Wildlife Refuges.
        Finally, H.R. 3109 seeks to provide an exemption to the Migratory
    Bird Treaty Act for Alaskan Native handicrafts. The exemption appears
    consistent with other important conservation laws, but also I realize
    we have treaty obligations that may complicate matters. I look forward
    to hearing from our witnesses about that, and the other bills before us
    today.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to
    the trip as well.
        At this time, I would ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleman from Michigan, Congressman John Dingell; the
    gentleman from Arizona, Congressman Paul Gosar; the gentleman
    from Tennessee, Congressman Steve Fincher; and the gentleman
    from Arkansas, Rick Crawford, be allowed to sit with the
    subcommittee and participate in the hearing. Hearing no
    objections, so ordered.
        Based on the traditions of the subcommittee, I would now
    like to recognize the Dean of the House, who is making his way,
    and we will certainly allow time, but the Dean of the House,
    Congressman John Dingell, for comments that he would like to
    make.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy to
    me. I have a prepared statement which I will personally submit
    for the record.
        This is not the first time I have been in this room. I used
    to be in this room when it was the Committee on Interstate and
    Foreign Commerce, which had that painting done up there some
    time in the past.
        Dr. Fleming. Mr. Dingell?
        Mr. Dingell. That lady up there is----
        Dr. Fleming. Mr. Dingell, sir, would you turn your
    microphone on so we can better hear you?
        Mr. Dingell. I have a bad relationship with these, Mr.
    Chairman.
        But I later served on this when it was also the Committee
    on Merchant Marine and Fisheries during which time we did a
    great deal of work on trying to preserve the refuge system.
        It is a very happy system. It works well. And it has had no
    controversy that I can recall except one instance, which I
    recalled last night when I was going over it. Basically, the
    refuge, we have two proponents to the refuge system, the one
    which is set aside by Executive Order by the President. The
    other is that which comes out of the purses of Migratory Bird
    Duck Stamps.
        Your comments on that one were entirely fitting. And it is
    a serious problem that we are seeing land costs go up, receipts
    go down and the amount of land acquired being severely hurt.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is a public-friendly
    institution. And it is not one which causes all manner of
    trouble and controversy, and particularly with regard to
    administration of refuges. They are open to hunting as much as
    the Congress allows. They are open to fishing. They are open to
    all kinds of beneficial recreational use. And they are
    generally very popular in the communities in which they are.
        We have one on which I have worked, which is the Detroit
    River International Wildlife Refuge and which we are bringing
    the Canadians in. And they are going to put some 11,000 acres
    where we are putting 6,000. And the number of our acres
    contributed is going to grow up as in times past.
        One of the things you would be surprised at is how much
    land is being given not by conservation organizations but by
    businesses. Ford gave us just recently Henry Ford II's private
    duck marsh, which is about 243 acres of really gorgeous land
    which is now available for public use and which ties into other
    recreational and conservation endeavors which we are making.
        The only instance in which I can recall where there was any
    differences at all with regard to including any land in a
    Migratory Bird Refuge occurred at a meeting of the Commission.
    The Commission has to sit there and to approve each and every
    one of these. And one of the requirements that the refuge--that
    the Commission wants to prove is, has the state approved? On
    one occasion, we had a little bit of sputtering down in Texas.
    And that was caused largely by the fact that there was a
    controversy between different agencies in the Texas government.
    I had the opportunity and the privilege to speak to two of the
    people who were up there and to say, ``Fellows, you have got
    together.'' Well, it turned out we got it all--we got it all
    stitched together. They were happy, and there is no controversy
    whatsoever.
        So I am here this morning, Mr. Chairman, to urge the
    increase in the Migratory Bird Stamp. It is a fine expenditure
    of money, and they are in lieu of cash payments--rather in lieu
    of tax payments, which were made available from refuge receipts
    which go to the states and the local units in government to
    address the problem if they are not able to get the amount of
    money that they used to get when these items were on the tax
    rolls. But they do have other benefits which are clearly
    visible.
        The first of the refuges which was created was in 1903 by
    Teddy Roosevelt. And it was Pelican Island down off the Florida
    coast. It is just about 100 years ago as a matter of fact that
    we are looking at.
        There has been virtually no controversy on this matter
    except in instances where the Presidents have been using their
    executive authority to increase the amount of land in the
    refuge by increasing single refuges or by increasing the total
    amounts.
        What I am here to speak to you about, Mr. Chairman,
    particularly is that, what I am talking about very specifically
    is the few bucks that are put into this by the migratory bird
    hunters who buy the Duck Stamps which are then used to pay for
    the cost of the lands which are then included in the refuge
    system. Those have created no controversy whatsoever, and I
    would hope that the committee, in its wisdom, would recognize
    that this is a desirable and a useful thing, one which creates
    no controversy and no difficulty.
        And I would point out one other thing. We have a policy on
    the Commission that the land may not be acquired except with
    the approval of the state, but it may also not be acquired if
    there is any controversy about it. And only in the fewest
    occasions have we ever used condemnation to acquire land. And
    the only times that I can recall that that ever was done, it
    was done when we had to use that device to clear title.
        So, Mr. Chairman, you have been extraordinarily courteous
    to me, the committee has. I thank you and my friends and
    colleagues on the committee, particularly our ranking friend,
    the Ranking Member. And I also see my old friend, Mr. Young,
    who used to work with me on this to deal with his Alaska land
    problems. We developed an extraordinary friendship during that
    time, one which has meant a lot to me.
        So, Mr. Chairman, your courtesy has been extraordinary, and
    I thank you for your kindness.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
         Congress from the State of Michigan on H.R. 3409 and H.R. 5069
        Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today about our country's wildlife refuge
    system, a system which I have spent my entire career working to expand
    and protect.
        On March 14, 1903, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was
    established by President Theodore Roosevelt as the first wildlife
    refuge. Over the last 100 years, presidents from both parties have
    created roughly 90 percent of our refuges.
        I remember hunting in Humbug Marsh on the Detroit River with my
    dear dad when I was young and I vowed it would be my life's mission to
    make sure these areas would exist for generations to come. These
    refuges are treasures, to be enjoyed by millions of people every year
    who want to hunt, fish, or just enjoy the outdoors. The refuge system
    boosts our economy as well. According to a study by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, use of these national wildlife refuges generated $1.7
    billion in economic activity and supported 27,000 private sector jobs.
        Establishment of a refuge does not instantly make the Federal
    Government a steward of an area of land. It simply allows for the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to enter into a partnership with state and local
    governments. The executive branch must go through an exhaustive public
    process providing ample opportunity for public comment. If a community
    doesn't support it, the Fish and Wildlife Service does not go forward--
    nor does the Service acquire land from anyone but a willing seller or
    participant. Moreover, before the Migratory Bird Conservation
    Commission votes on a Refuge expansion, or acquisition, for that
    matter, they gain both written and verbal approval from a
    representative of the affected state. To be clear, when these things
    come before the Commission there is no disagreement. None. And this
    through bipartisan administrations. The Federal Government simply does
    not take land from businesses or homeowners. My colleague, Member of
    the Natural Resources Committee, and fellow Member of the Commission,
    Mr. Wittman of Virginia can attest to that.
        While I have great respect for you, Mr. Chairman, and the sponsor,
    Mr. Fincher, I have serious reservations about H.R. 3409, the National
    Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act of 2013. This legislation
    would require Congress to authorize any expansion of a national
    wildlife refuge, doing away with a century of conservation precedent.
        We need to make conservation easier in this country, not harder.
    This bill would be detrimental to our Nation.
        I would also like to express my support for H.R. 5069, the Federal
    Duck Stamp Act of 2014. As a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation,
    I believe it is an excellent step in the right direction to expand and
    improve the refuge system. This bill would increase to price of a duck
    stamp from $15 to $25. This increase will allow Fish and Wildlife to
    acquire roughly 10,000 additional acres in conservation easements
    annually. While it is not the way I would have written the bill, it is
    significant progress which tracks with the current conservation trends.
        This subcommittee has the critical responsibility of overseeing our
    refuge system, one of our great national treasures that must be
    expanded and preserved for future generations. I hope my colleagues
    will do the right thing for the future of our refuge system by opposing
    H.R. 3409 and supporting H.R. 5069.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. I yield back the balance
    of my time.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Well, I thank the gentleman. And certainly we
    know as Dean of the House, this is not your first rodeo, and we
    appreciate all the many years of work that you have done on
    this issue and similar issues. And, again, the Dean of the
    entire House, the Congressman from Michigan, who is retiring
    this year.
        So now the Chair would like to recognize a similar dean,
    Dean of the Republican House, the gentleman and only Member
    from Alaska.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I
    acknowledge my good friend, John Dingell, for the work we have
    done together on a lot of fish and wildlife issues. It has been
    I think a good thing for the Nation.
        You may not know it but Mr. Dingell and I used to hunt
    together a lot, and he was a fine shot. I always admired him
    for that. I mean he did well.
        Mr. Dingell. We did very well.
        Mr. Young. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here
    today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. My bill is very
    simple, H.R. 3109, although opposed by the administration,
    which is no surprise, for thousands of years, the inclusion of
    bones, feathers and other non-edible bird parts in traditional
    handicraft have been commonplace in Alaskan Native culture.
    However, the issue came to light a couple of years ago when a
    widely celebrated Tlingit artist was cited by the U.S. Fish and
    Game Service for including feathers in a piece he offered or
    sale. By the way, the feathers came from a roadkill. While he
    could have served jail time and received a hefty fine, he did
    settle with the Service because of the so-called interpretation
    of the law. But he did pay a couple of thousand dollars, which
    is no small fee for this one person.
        As a result of 2012, the Alaskan Federation of the Natives
    passed a resolution supporting a legislative fix for a problem
    that many Native artists were previously unaware even was a
    problem. The legislation you have before you today is a result
    of their request. H.R. 3109 would recognize legitimate
    subsistence needs of Alaskan Natives and allow the sale of
    handicrafts that include non-edible migratory parts. Handicraft
    sales are often a small but important economic activity for
    remote villages in my state.
        Further, other laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection
    Act, include a similar subsistence exemption for other species,
    and H.R. 3109 seeks to apply equal treatment for this subject
    to the artistic community. The bill is unanimously supported by
    the Alaskan Natives of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management
    Council, the managing body that helps inform subsistence bird
    hunting.
        Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member,
    for including this bill in today's hearing, and I urge the
    committee to advance this bill. I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman, my friend from Alaska.
        The chair now would like to recognize the gentleman from
    Arizona who is a member of the full committee, Congressman Paul
    Gosar, for any statement he would like to make on his bill,
    H.R. 5026, and any introductions he would like to make of the
    two distinguished witnesses from Arizona who will testify
    today.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
                            STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Fleming and members of the
    subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    regarding the future of the National Fish Hatchery System and
    the need for passage of H.R. 5026.
        I am extremely pleased to be joined today at this hearing
    by two witnesses from my home state of Arizona: Chairman Angius
    and Chairman Mansell. I really appreciate you both making the
    trip and look forward to your testimonies.
        The Fish Hatchery Protection Act, H.R. 5026, will preserve
    the propagation of fish hatcheries and propagation programs
    within the National Fish Hatchery System and stipulates that
    only Congress can authorize the termination or significant
    alteration of such facilities or programs.
        In November 2013, the Fish and Wildlife Service released a
    Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report. With the
    release of this report, the administration arbitrarily changed
    the priorities for the five different propagation program
    categories and announced their intent to close propagation
    programs and possibly hatcheries throughout the Nation in
    Fiscal Year 2015.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting to unilaterally
    turn over our National Fish Hatchery System into an Endangered
    Species Recovery Program. As a result of the November 2013
    report, the two propagation program categories which direct
    funds toward species conservation will receive almost all the
    funding from the hatchery system. Currently, there are at least
    28 recreational fish hatchery propagation programs on the
    Service's hit list. Such actions will be particularly harmful,
    especially in the light of the fact that our National Fish
    Hatchery System has already been reduced from approximately 140
    hatcheries to 70 hatcheries.
        The bureaucratic decision to terminate recreational fishing
    propagation programs is extremely misguided, as several of the
    hatcheries affected were constructed more than 50 years ago for
    the sole purpose of offsetting the loss of native fisheries
    resulting from the construction of Federal dams. This was the
    case for the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery in my
    district, which was created to counter the negative impacts
    that resulted from the construction of the Hoover Dam.
        On November 24, 2013, the Willow Beach Hatchery was
    instructed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to terminate
    its recreational fishing propagation program. The pathetic
    excuse used by the Service for terminating the rainbow trout
    stocking program at the time was that the agency did not have
    the $1.5 to $8.5 million to repair a broken water supply line
    and keep the stocking program going. Recent engineering reports
    indicate these estimates were a gross exaggeration and that the
    broken water supply line will only cost around $100,000 to fix.
        Such deceptive behavior by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, altering the fundamental
    goals and purposes of the National Fish Hatchery System should
    not be done via executive fiat and without an official public
    comment and without approval from Congress.
        Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service either does
    not get it or simply wants to focus on their own misguided
    agenda. When asked at a Capitol Hill briefing on the subject
    whether he considered the $28 return to local economies for
    every dollar invested, the representative for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service stated it is not something that factors into
    their decisionmaking. Really?
        Trout stocking propagation programs in Arkansas and
    Oklahoma are so successful that a recent economic analysis
    found that for every dollar from a fish hatchery operation
    budget spent, $95 was put back into the economy. Recreational
    fishing propagation programs generate hundreds of thousands of
    dollars of private and public investment from non-Federal
    entities. In 2011, recreational fishing supported nearly
    365,000 jobs and contributed more than $70 billion to our
    economy.
        My bill provides economic certainty for local communities
    and is retroactive to November 1, 2013, prior to the date when
    the Fish and Wildlife Service publicly announced their intent
    to terminate these important propagation programs.
        This legislation will preserve jobs and ensure the
    continuation of vibrant recreation fishing economies throughout
    the Nation. H.R. 5026 has bipartisan support and currently
    cosponsors of the bill include former Natural Resources
    Chairman Rick Rahall from West Virginia; Doug Collins from
    Georgia; Mike Michaud from Maine; Rick Crawford to my right
    from Arkansas; Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat from Arizona; Phil
    Roe from Tennessee; G.K. Butterfield from North Carolina; Kevin
    Cramer from North Dakota; Tim Griffin from Arkansas and Joe
    Heck from Nevada.
        The bill has also been endorsed by the Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agencies, the American Sports Fishing Association
    and Mohave Board of Supervisors.
        Trout Unlimited also has some nice things to say about this
    bill, and I would like to submit their letter for the record at
    this time.
        Dr. Fleming. With no objection, so ordered.

        [The letter submitted for the record by Trout Unlimited
    follows:]

                  Letter Submitted for the Record on H.R. 5026

                                       Trout Unlimited,
                                                 Arlington, VA,
                                                         July 22, 2014.
    Hon. Paul Gosar,
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    504 Cannon House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.

        Dear Representative Gosar:

        On behalf of more than 153,000 Trout Unlimited (TU) members, I
    write to thank you for attention to the funding and management issues
    regarding the hatcheries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
    some of which are at risk of closure. These facilities provide a wealth
    of recreational fishing and youth education opportunities, and support
    thousands of jobs. We appreciate the goals of your Bipartisan Fish
    Hatchery Protection Act (H.R. 5026), the hearing to be held by the
    subcommittee on the bill, and your ongoing efforts to compel the FWS to
    do a better job of coordinating its hatchery decisions with state,
    Federal, and conservation group partners.
        The FWS Fisheries Program is a vital component of the Nation's
    fisheries conservation efforts. The Fisheries Program provides numerous
    benefits, including fish habitat restoration, invasive species
    management, and recreational fisheries. The state fishery management
    agencies also play an essential role in fisheries management across the
    Nation, and increasingly groups such as Trout Unlimited and The Nature
    Conservancy are working with the states and the FWS on fish habitat
    restoration projects.
        As budgets have tightened over the past several years, a
    fundamental problem has arisen: while the FWS continues to do exemplary
    work with TU and its partners on fish habitat, invasive species, and
    other projects that benefit recreational fisheries, it has fallen short
    in other areas. In particular, it has failed to work effectively with
    the states and other partners to maximize the benefits of its hatchery
    system.
        This problem has resulted in annual threats of disruptive hatchery
    closures, which thankfully have been avoided by effective directives
    and funding provided by Congress, and increasing amounts of funding
    provided for FWS mitigation hatcheries by Federal dam operating
    agencies such as the Army Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, and TVA.
        Congressional consideration of H.R. 5026 will help compel action on
    two needed solutions. First, Congress, FWS, state fishery agencies, and
    the Federal dam operating agencies need to work together to find the
    funding needed to keep the hatchery system functioning for the next
    several years to allow development of longer term solutions. For
    example, last year we commended TVA for its decision to fund its share
    of mitigation costs for hatcheries in the southeast for 3 years to
    allow for longer term solutions to be developed. Also, we support the
    strong language recently unveiled by the House Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee in its FY 2015 bill and accompanying committee report to
    do just what we recommend: add $5 million to the administration's
    request for the hatchery program, and direct the FWS to do a better job
    of working with its state partners to find long-term solutions.
        Second, FWS must engage in a meaningful dialog with its Federal
    agency (Corps, TVA, and Bureau of Reclamation), state, and conservation
    group partners to develop long-term solutions. TU doesn't have all of
    the answers. In some cases, state agencies, perhaps aided with FWS
    funding, may be the best entities to operate some of facilities
    currently run by the FWS. What we do know is that agreement among
    partners on how to proceed is critical for future success. FWS must
    lead the dialog and find the solutions that are supported by its
    partners.
        Having worked on these issues for 25 years, we are confident that
    viable long-term solutions are within reach, and the modest funding
    needed to enable them is available. We appreciate your bill, the
    hearing on it, and the constructive role you continue to play to solve
    the problem.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Steve Moyer,
                                 Vice President for Government Affairs.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. My hope is that today's hearing will further
    strengthen the bipartisan effort to protect our National Fish
    Hatchery System, an important propagation program. I appreciate
    the opportunity to discuss this important legislation. And with
    that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
                       Congress from the State of Arizona
        Chairman Fleming and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify regarding the future of the National Fish
    Hatchery System and the need for passage of H.R. 5026.
        I am extremely pleased to be joined today at this hearing by two
    witnesses from my home state of Arizona. Chairman Angius and Chairman
    Mansell, I really appreciate you both making the trip and look forward
    to your testimonies.
        The Fish Hatchery Protection Act, H.R. 5026, will preserve
    propagation fish hatcheries and propagation programs within the
    National Fish Hatchery System and stipulates that only the Congress can
    authorize the termination or significant alteration of such facilities
    or programs.
        In November 2013, the Fish and Wildlife Service released its
    ``Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report.'' With the release
    of this report, the administration arbitrarily changed the priorities
    for the five different propagation program categories and announced
    their intent to close propagation programs, and possibly hatcheries,
    throughout the Nation in Fiscal Year 2015.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting to unilaterally turn
    our National Fish Hatchery System into an endangered species recovery
    program. As a result of the November 2013 report, the top two
    propagation program categories which direct funds toward species
    conservation, are now receiving almost all the funding from the
    Hatchery System. Currently, there are a total of 28 recreational
    fishing propagation programs that have been terminated or slated for
    termination. Such actions will be particularly harmful, especially in
    light of the fact that our National Fish Hatchery System has already
    been reduced from approximately 140 hatcheries to 70 hatcheries.
        The bureaucratic decision to terminate recreational fishing
    propagation programs is extremely misguided as several of the
    hatcheries affected were constructed more than 50 years ago for the
    sole purpose of offsetting the loss of native fisheries resulting from
    the construction of Federal dams. This is the case for the Willow Beach
    National Fish Hatchery in my district which was created in 1962 to
    counter the negative impacts on fishery resources that resulted from
    construction of the Hoover Dam.
        On November 24, 2013, the Willow Beach Hatchery was instructed by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus on producing suckers and
    other fish that do not attract anglers or generate revenues for local
    economies and to terminate its recreational fishing propagation
    program.
        The excuse used by the Service for terminating the rainbow trout
    stocking program at the time was that the agency didn't have the $1.5
    to $8.5 million to repair a broken water supply line. Recent
    engineering reports indicate these estimates were a gross exaggeration
    and that the broken water supply line will only cost around $250,000 to
    fix.
        Such deceptive behavior by the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot be
    tolerated. Furthermore, altering the fundamental goals and purposes of
    the National Fish Hatchery System should not be done via executive fiat
    and without a public comment period or approval from Congress.
        Recreational fishing propagation programs are the driving force for
    many rural economies.
        Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service either doesn't get it
    or simply wants to focus on their own misguided agenda. When asked at a
    Capitol Hill briefing on the subject whether he considered the $28
    dollar return to local economies for every dollar invested, the
    representative for the Service stated that is ``not something that
    factors into their decisionmaking.''
        The trout stocking propagation programs in Arkansas and Oklahoma
    are so successful that a recent economic analysis found that for
    ``every $1 of hatchery operational budget spent, $95 was put back into
    the economy.''
        Recreational fishing propagation programs generate hundreds of
    thousands of dollars of private and public investment from non-Federal
    entities. In 2011, recreational fishing supported nearly 365,000 jobs
    and contributed more than $70 billion to our economy.
        My bill provides economic certainty for local communities as it is
    retroactive to November 1, 2013, prior to the date when the Fish and
    Wildlife Service publically announced their intent to terminate these
    important propagation programs and hatcheries. This legislation will
    preserve jobs and ensure the continuation of vibrant recreational
    fishing economies throughout the Nation.
        H.R. 5026 has bipartisan support and current co-sponsors of the
    bill include: Representatives Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Michaud (D-ME),
    Rick Crawford (R-AR), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), Phil Roe (R-TN), Kevin
    Cramer (R-ND), Tim Griffin (R-AR) and Joe Heck (R-NV).
        My hope is that today's hearing will further strengthen the
    bipartisan effort to protect our National Fish Hatchery System and
    important propagation programs. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
    this important legislation and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields his time.
        I thank you all for your opening statements and comments.
        We would now like to hear from our first panel of
    witnesses, which includes Mr. Steve Guertin, Deputy Director
    for Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Honorable
    Robert E. Mansell, Chairman, Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
        Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
    record so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5
    minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under
    Committee Rule 4(a).
        Our microphones are not automatic. I think you are probably
    familiar with them but, as you can tell, it is important to
    have the tip close by so we can pick up sound. The time clock
    will be under green 4 minutes, then yellow for a minute, and
    when it turns red, please go ahead and immediately complete
    your comments.
        Mr. Guertin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
    present testimony on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service.

      STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
                            WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Guertin. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Minority Member
    Sablan and members of the subcommittee, I am Steve Guertin,
    deputy director for the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in introducing
    H.R.----
        Mr. Young. Hold that microphone a little closer to you,
    please.
        Mr. Guertin. I'm sorry, Congressman.
        Mr. Young. Is it on?
        Mr. Guertin. Is that better?
        Mr. Young. Yes, OK.
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in introducing
    H.R. 5069, to increase the price of the Federal Duck Stamp. The
    price of the Duck Stamp has not changed since 1991 while the
    cost of purchasing land has tripled. This price increase will
    restore the Duck Stamp's purchasing power. At a time when
    wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region are decreasing, H.R.
    5069 will provide the revenue that is needed to conserve key
    habitats for migratory waterfowl.
        The Duck Stamp is a critical tool that benefits hunters and
    wildlife enthusiasts who make substantial contributions to the
    Nation's economy in pursuit of their passions.
        We support H.R. 5069 and have some suggestions that would
    make the bill even more effective. We look forward to
    discussing these with the subcommittee as the bill moves
    through the legislative process.
        The Department opposes the other bills before the
    subcommittee today. H.R. 3409, the National Wildlife Refuge
    Expansion Limitation Act, would create hurdles and uncertainty
    in the Service's effective and transparent land planning
    protection process. This process is rooted in the organic act
    for the National Wildlife Refuge System. It has resulted in the
    deliberate and transparent expansion of many popular national
    wildlife refuges. These expansions have enhanced wildlife
    conservation. They have also been boons to local communities by
    providing visitors with opportunities to hunt, fish and observe
    wildlife while contributing to numerous sectors of the economy.
        Congress provided the Service with the tools to create and
    expand refuges, and the Service has used this authority in a
    manner that is transparent, involves public engagement and is
    based on scientific data driven by our mission to conserve
    priority habitat and ecosystems.
        When high-priority conservation needs align with public
    support and the presence of willing sellers, the Service is
    able to expand an acquisition boundary. We do not expand
    refuges without substantial support from the local citizens,
    and our refuges want to be good neighbors and a source of pride
    for the communities where they are located.
        It is also important to be clear about the effect of an
    acquisition boundary. It authorizes the Service to purchase fee
    title or conservation easements within the boundary from
    willing sellers if and when funds are appropriated by the U.S.
    Congress.
        H.R. 5026, the Fish Hatchery Protection Act, would prohibit
    the Service from closing or reprogramming funds for any fish
    propagation hatchery or propagation program within the National
    Fish Hatchery System unless it is expressly authorized by the
    U.S. Congress. This would jeopardize our ability to be good
    managers and effective stewards of the hatchery system. For
    example, the bill would affect our ability to shift resources
    among hatchery facilities or even within a facility. It would
    also require the Service to produce fish and eggs that may not
    be needed or even requested by our partners and stakeholders
    leading to inefficient and potentially wasteful expenditures of
    taxpayer funds.
        H.R. 3409 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to
    authorize activities that may be in violation of international
    treaty obligations. Our understanding is that Migratory Bird
    Treaty obligations greatly limit the activities that the bill
    would exempt. The Service is working closely with the Alaska
    Migratory Bird Co-Management Council to more clearly define
    these limitations but this review is not complete at this time.
        We believe the Council process will produce the best
    opportunity for Alaskan Natives while providing sustainable
    migratory bird populations and ensuring the integrity of the
    international migratory bird conservation treaties.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. We are happy to
    answer any questions that you may have. We look forward to
    working with the subcommittee on the Federal Duck Stamp Act,
    and we again thank you for introducing this bill.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Steve Guertin, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
     Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior on H.R. 3109, H.R. 3409,
                            H.R. 5026, and H.R. 5069
        Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am Steve Guertin, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department of the Interior
    (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee today to testify on a range of bills that affect the
    Service's mission and responsibilities.
      h.r. 3109, a bill to amend the migratory bird treaty act to exempt
    certain alaska native articles from prohibitions against sale of items
       containing nonedible migratory bird parts, and for other purposes.
        The Department recognizes the economic and cultural need in Alaska
    Native communities to improve their quality of life with opportunities
    to benefit from their unique handicrafts and other traditional items.
    However, the Department does not support H.R. 3109. This bill would
    amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to provide statutory
    authority for activities that may be in violation of current
    international migratory bird conservation treaty obligations.
        The MBTA implements four international treaties the United States
    holds with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. These treaties protect a
    wide range of avian families and species that migrate through or
    stopover in the United States and the treaty nations. The MBTA
    prohibits ``take,'' possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipment, or
    transport of birds, feathers, eggs or other such products, and it is in
    part designed to protect bird populations from vulnerability to the
    demands of commercial use. For example, in 1886, 5 million birds were
    estimated to be killed for their feathers. When Congress passed the
    MBTA in 1918, it sought to put an end to the commercial trade in birds
    and their feathers that, by the early years of the 20th century, had
    devastated populations of many native bird species.
        H.R. 3109 would allow Alaskan Natives to make and sell any
    handicraft or clothing made from the nonedible parts of federally
    protected bird species from birds taken in a manner that is not
    wasteful, provided these are made without the use of mass copying
    devices. Our understanding is that migratory bird treaty obligations
    greatly limit such activities. The Service is working closely with the
    Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council to more clearly define
    these limitations, but this review is not complete. We would be pleased
    to keep your subcommittee apprised of these efforts and to continue to
    work with you to address this very important issue.
        h.r. 3409, the national wildlife refuge expansion limitation act
        The Department strongly opposes H.R. 3409, the National Wildlife
    Refuge Expansion Limitation Act. H.R. 3409 would create an additional,
    uncertain hurdle to the Service's effective and transparent Land
    Protection Planning (LPP) process. This process has resulted in the
    careful expansion of many popular refuges that are vital for wildlife
    conservation, valued and supported by local communities, provide
    visitors with opportunities to hunt, fish and observe wildlife, and
    contribute to numerous sectors of the economy. When priority
    conservation needs and values, public support, and the presence of
    willing sellers align to allow for the establishment or expansion of a
    refuge, the Service must be able to act. Authority to strategically
    grow the Refuge System, as we have been directed to do by Congress, is
    important to the conservation of our Nation's fish and wildlife
    populations.
        The Refuge System is the world's premiere network of public lands
    devoted solely to the conservation of wildlife and habitat. It
    encompasses over 150 million acres of land and water, preserves a
    diverse array of land, wetland, and ocean ecosystems. The Refuge System
    offers about 47 million visitors per year the opportunity to fish,
    hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, as well as learn about nature
    through environmental education and interpretation. These visitors make
    refuges an important economic driver, generating nearly $2.4 billion
    for local economies each year. Investing in the Refuge System is a
    sound use of taxpayer dollars as each dollar appropriated for the
    Refuge System returns nearly $5 in economic benefits. Refuges also
    provide local communities with other ecosystem services, such as
    improved water quality, increased property values, and access to
    quality wildlife-dependent recreation.
        However the Refuge System, with all its benefits, is facing ever
    increasing pressures and difficulties. Populations are growing rapidly,
    the amount of undeveloped land is declining, the economic environment
    is challenging, and we are faced with conservation crises on several
    fronts. The Service must be strategic, flexible, and responsive in
    protecting declining undeveloped lands to ensure sufficient habitat is
    maintained to support America's wildlife populations in the future. In
    the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Congress
    directed the Service to ``plan and direct the continued growth of the
    System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of
    the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the
    United States, to complement efforts of states and other Federal
    agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to
    increase support for the System and participation from conservation
    partners and the public.'' Congress provided the Service with the tools
    to create and expand refuges and the Service has used this authority in
    a manner that is transparent, rooted in public engagement and founded
    on scientific data driven by our mission to conserve habitat and
    ecosystems.
        On January 30, 2014, the Service published a draft strategic growth
    policy to ensure that we continue to responsibly concentrate our
    limited resources on land protection efforts that make the greatest
    contribution to the conservation of species in a strategic, cost-
    effective, and transparent manner.
        The Service uses land protection planning to study opportunities to
    conserve land, including by adding it to the Refuge System. Conserving
    wildlife through land protection is an adaptive, public, and voluntary
    process, founded on the best scientific processes and data available.
    We use this data to identify gaps in the conservation estate, which we
    define as lands that are protected at local or landscape scales by
    private, state, or Federal partners.
        When a need to conserve land is identified, a preliminary proposal
    is submitted to the Service's Director for approval to develop a
    detailed LPP. Development of a LPP is a public process, during which we
    reach out to state agencies, local communities, Congressional offices,
    and partners to inform and help shape the plan. The LPP is a planning
    document, not an acquisition plan. The Service uses the best available
    scientific information to analyze the effects of the LPP and
    alternatives on the physical, biological, social, and economic
    environment.
        If a LPP is approved, after a long period of study and public
    engagement, an acquisition boundary for the refuge is authorized. It is
    important to be clear about the effect of an authorized acquisition
    boundary: it authorizes the Service to purchase fee title or
    conservation easements within that boundary from willing sellers. Such
    purchases are subject to available funds and overall Service
    acquisition priorities. In many cases, much of the land within refuge
    acquisition boundaries remains in private ownership. The approved
    acquisition boundary gives landowners, within the boundary, another
    option for how they use their land.
        The expansion of an acquisition boundary does not result in new
    restrictions or regulations on landowners within or adjacent to the
    boundary. An expanded boundary does not lead to condemnation of private
    property or any form of coercive purchases. This is a voluntary program
    and it has been long-standing Service policy to acquire lands from
    willing sellers only. The expansion of an acquisition boundary does not
    lead to an aggressive campaign to purchase land or easements covering
    large swaths within the boundary. Rather, land purchases tend to occur
    gradually, taking decades to even begin to acquire significant portions
    of the land within the boundary for the refuge.
        As an example of how this process works, the Service considered a
    proposal to expand the acquisition boundaries for Chickasaw and Lower
    Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges, located in Tennessee, to protect and
    restore this high-quality bottomland hardwood forest habitat as well as
    places where the public can hunt, fish, and observe wildlife. The
    preliminary proposal encompassed approximately 120,000 acres in
    Lauderdale, Tipton, Haywood, and Dyer Counties in Tennessee. The public
    process for this proposal began in December 2012 when the Service
    launched a public scoping effort to seek input on the proposal.
    Congressman Fincher, sponsor of H.R. 3409, expressed his constituents'
    concerns with and opposition to the Service's proposed boundary
    expansion, and the project was halted. We simply do not create or
    expand refuges without substantial support from the local citizens. Our
    refuges want to be good neighbors and a source of pride for the
    communities where they are located.
        Public input also shaped the establishment of the Everglades
    Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. When the
    Service engaged the public during the planning process, the River Ranch
    Property Owners Association, a group of local landowners, opposed the
    establishment of the refuge and conservation area, envisioning that the
    Service would close access to any purchased lands as other Federal
    agencies had done elsewhere in Florida. We actively engaged with the
    River Ranch community and established a level of trust and
    understanding after multiple meetings over the course of a year. The
    Service listened to their concerns and, as a result, reevaluated our
    initial proposal. Ultimately, we removed the River Ranch landholdings
    from the proposal while maintaining the conservation integrity of the
    project. The overall outcome of the discussions between the Service and
    the River Ranch community has led to understanding and support for the
    Everglades Headwaters project.
        Without question, providing high-quality stewardship of the
    Nation's wildlife refuges requires resources, and refuge managers must
    make decisions within a prioritized framework to ensure key assets
    remain at sustainable levels. The Service sometimes faces questions
    about how the operational needs and maintenance backlog within the
    Refuge System relate to its pursuit of acquiring new fee-title land or
    conservation easements.
        The Service has a mandate to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants
    and their habitats. One of the most effective ways to do this is to
    protect areas that hold the greatest value for wildlife. Another
    compelling reason to purchase land or acquire easements is that
    consolidating fragmented lands often reduces operations and maintenance
    needs, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
        Most new fee title or conservation easements acquired by the Refuge
    System simply serve to fill in the gaps. Many are private inholdings
    within or adjacent to an existing refuge parcel. Private inholdings may
    seem of small consequence, especially if the majority of the
    surrounding land is already protected and managed for wildlife, but
    those inholdings can have a disproportionate and often adverse effect
    on the ability of a refuge to achieve its purpose. Strategic
    acquisitions of fee title or easements can simplify management and
    reduce expenses related to signage, fencing, law enforcement patrols,
    legal permits, rights-of-way conflicts, fire-fighting, road
    maintenance, habitat management and restoration, and invasive species
    management. Such strategic acquisitions help the Service meet important
    conservation objectives.
                  h.r. 5026, the fish hatchery protection act
        The Department strongly opposes H.R. 5026, the Fish Hatchery
    Protection Act, which would prohibit the closing, reprogramming,
    repurposing, decommissioning, significant alteration, or move to
    caretaker status of any fish and other aquatic species propagation
    hatchery or propagation program within the National Fish Hatchery
    System unless it is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress, for a
    period of more than 10 years, retroactive to November 1, 2013.
        The Department opposes this legislation because it would jeopardize
    our ability to fulfill our ongoing legal obligations, respond to new
    and constantly evolving environmental challenges, fulfill the
    expectations of our Federal, tribal, state and local partners, and
    cost-effectively manage the National Fish Hatchery System within an
    already strained Federal budget.
        The National Fish Hatchery System, comprised of 72 National Fish
    Hatcheries, 1 Historic National Fish Hatchery, Fish Technology Centers,
    Fish Health Centers, and the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership
    Program, has played a critical role in conserving America's fisheries
    for more than 140 years. This national and highly specialized network
    of facilities and employees not only provides fish and other species
    for stocking into America's waterways, helping to sustain economically
    and recreationally important fisheries, it plays a vital role in the
    recovery of threatened and endangered species, the restoration of
    imperiled species, and in fulfilling our trust obligations to Native
    American tribes.
        Working with our state partners, the National Fish Hatchery System
    restores native fish populations that support significant recreational
    fisheries, and H.R. 5026 would limit our ability to adapt the system to
    meet those challenges. The National Fish Hatchery System also
    propagates fish, native mussels, and other aquatic species listed as
    threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA), and restores declining species before they are listed. The
    Service's work to propagate aquatic species also addresses our
    responsibilities under other Federal statutes, such as the Fish and
    Wildlife Coordination Act, as well as mitigation requirements
    established for individual Federal water resource development projects.
        In addition to the conservation mandates established by Federal
    fish and wildlife statutes, the Department has broad trust
    responsibilities to Native American Tribes. These include
    responsibilities required by treaty, statute, or pursuant to a consent
    decree or court order. By helping to ensure that tribes have continued
    access to native species important to their way of life, the National
    Fish Hatchery System also plays an essential role in meeting these
    trust responsibilities.
        The National Fish Hatchery System, however, has struggled with
    declining funding for a number of years. Significant increases in
    operational costs for fish food, fuel for distribution vehicles, and
    energy costs have contributed to these fiscal challenges. In Fiscal
    Year (FY) 2012 alone, the National Fish Hatchery System incurred a $2.1
    million shortfall in overall funding, and needed to reprogram Deferred
    Maintenance funding to cover operational shortfalls and continue fish
    propagation. The Service realized that this approach was not
    sustainable.
        As a result of those fiscal challenges and other financial issues
    plaguing the National Fish Hatchery System, the Service assembled a
    team of experts from across the county in 2012 to conduct a
    comprehensive review of the 70 active propagation hatcheries. The
    purpose of this review was to position hatcheries to meet national
    aquatic resource conservation needs, operate hatcheries consistent with
    available funding and without having to borrow from other accounts,
    identify the highest priority propagation programs, and make informed
    management decisions under a range of potential budget scenarios. The
    National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic Hatchery and Workforce
    Planning Report (Report) is the product of that comprehensive review.
    It offers management options and recommendations to put the system on
    more sound and sustainable financial footing.
        One of the findings of the Report is that reimbursable funding is
    an important resource for our hatcheries. Over the past several years,
    the Service has successfully negotiated reimbursement or developed
    agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley
    Authority, and others to help cover the costs associated with
    mitigation fish production. In FY 2014, Congress provided $4.7 million
    in Corps funding for mitigation reimbursement. In addition, the Service
    and the Tennessee Valley Authority recently reached a 3-year funding
    agreement through 2016 that will provide $900,000 to the Service each
    year.
        As the Service announced in November 2013 when the Report was
    released, we do not intend to close any hatcheries in FY 2014.
    Moreover, Congress provided the Service with $46,528,000 to operate the
    National Fish Hatchery System in the recently enacted FY 2014 Omnibus,
    which is substantially more than we anticipated had sequestration
    continued into FY 2014. However, that level of funding is still not
    sufficient to fully cover our operational costs for all of our
    propagation programs at current levels.
        The Service is using the Report to engage partners and
    stakeholders, including state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and
    others, in a discussion on its major findings and recommendations. We
    are seeking their input on how we should operate the National Fish
    Hatchery System more efficiently and within available resources in the
    future. Taking into consideration their input, current and anticipated
    funding levels, the costs to operate our existing propagation programs,
    and the Report's findings and recommendations, we will consider how we
    can continue to further streamline our operations to better reflect the
    Service's priorities and bring expenditures in line with available
    funding. Our hope is that by engaging in a transparent and open dialog
    with this subcommittee and others in Congress, our partners and
    stakeholders, we can chart a unified course forward for the National
    Fish Hatchery System that not only allows us to operate the system on
    sound financial footing, but positions the system to better meet
    current and future conservation challenges.
        Toward this end, the President has requested $48.617 million for
    operation of the National Fish Hatchery System in FY 2015,
    approximately $2 million more than Congress appropriated in FY 2014.
    But even at these increased funding levels, the Service needs
    flexibility to operate the system to fulfill our ongoing legal
    obligations under the ESA and other statutes, address new environmental
    challenges, meet the expectations of our Federal, tribal, state and
    local partners, and manage the National Fish Hatchery System, cost-
    effectively and within budget.
        By preventing the Service from making even modest changes in
    current operations of individual hatcheries or species propagation
    programs, H.R. 5026 would make it difficult for us to utilize the
    National Fish Hatchery System to respond to the changing and increasing
    needs of threatened, endangered, and imperiled aquatic species. As a
    result of a number of factors, including natural disasters, the
    National Fish Hatchery System serves as a critical refuge for a growing
    number of these species, which depend on the system for their survival,
    reintroduction and recovery.
        By restricting the Service's ability to shift resources among
    hatchery facilities or even within a facility, this provision would
    also force us to produce fish and eggs that may not be needed, or even
    requested, by our partners and stakeholders, leading to inefficient and
    potentially wasteful expenditures of taxpayer funds. Funds, for
    example, that could instead be better spent to help restore local
    native and recreationally important fisheries.
        We allocate these funds each year out to the seven regions that
    operate and maintain our 70 propagation hatcheries and rely heavily on
    our Regional Directors and their staff to decide how best to use these
    funds within their regions and in coordination with the states. In many
    instances, hatchery production targets are coordinated with the states,
    and may change from year to year with changing circumstances and
    resource needs. This unprecedented level of restrictions of species-
    specific operations across our 70 propagation hatcheries would limit
    our ability to respond to these and other changing environmental and
    management challenges, which inevitably arise.
                 h.r. 5069, the federal duck stamp act of 2014
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in introducing
    legislation to increase the price of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting
    and Conservation Stamp, commonly known as the Duck Stamp. A price
    increase is critically needed to restore the Duck Stamp's eroding
    purchasing power, so that there is sufficient revenue available to
    provide adequate habitat for migratory waterfowl to find food, rest
    during migrations, and to raise their young. The Duck Stamp is a
    critical tool for sportsmen and women, as well as wildlife enthusiasts,
    who make substantial contributions to the Nation's economy in the
    pursuit of their passions.
        The price of the Duck Stamp is set by Congress through the
    Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. The price of the
    Duck Stamp has remained at $15 since 1991. Based on the Consumer Price
    Index, the stamp would need to cost more than $26 today to have the
    same buying power that $15 had in 1991. However, the increased cost of
    land, including easements, during this period has risen even more
    dramatically. Between 1991 and 2013, the Service's average cost per fee
    acre increased from $450 to $1,590, and the Service's average cost per
    easement acre increased from $112 to $765. In 1991, revenue from the
    Duck Stamp enabled the Service to protect 91,000 acres of waterfowl
    habitat for the Refuge System. However, in 2013, the Service was able
    to protect significantly less habitat, despite allocating nearly 80
    percent of the funding to easement acquisition, because land values in
    important migratory bird areas have increased by up to 600 percent.
        An increase in the price of the Duck Stamp is a top priority for
    the Department and has been included in the President's budget
    proposals over the past number of years, and during the administrations
    of the past two Presidents. We strongly support the increase that would
    be accomplished through H.R. 5069, the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014,
    and support the legislation. We have some suggestions that would make
    the bill even more effective, and look forward to discussing these with
    the subcommittee as the bill moves through the legislative process.
        To understand the importance of restoring the purchasing power of
    the Duck Stamp, it is helpful to look back to its origins and its role
    in restoring North America's great migratory waterfowl populations. The
    restoration of the continent's waterfowl following a grave decline is a
    grand conservation success story. It is a story that involves sportsmen
    in partnership with states, Congress, and Federal agencies applying
    science to habitat protection and restoration efforts. Because of
    strategic, science-based actions taken by these partners to conserve
    key habitats along the four major North American flyways, migratory
    waterfowl populations are improving. This work has maintained our
    hunting tradition, and has significantly contributed to the economies
    of many states through the recreational activities of hunters and
    outdoor enthusiasts.
        The Duck Stamp plays a critical role in this conservation
    partnership and its success story. Created in 1934, the Duck Stamp
    represents the permit required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
    to hunt waterfowl. Every waterfowl hunter who is more than 15 years old
    is required to carry a Duck Stamp into the field. Duck Stamp revenue is
    deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF), through which
    the Service, with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation
    Commission, acquires wetland and associated habitats to support
    populations of waterfowl. Ninety-eight percent of the receipts from
    Duck Stamp sales are used to acquire important migratory bird breeding,
    migration, and wintering habitat, which is added to the National
    Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). Since 1934, sales of the Duck
    Stamp have helped to add more than 5.6 million acres of waterfowl
    habitat to the Refuge System. These acquisitions have benefited
    individual refuges all across the county, in 45 states. In many cases,
    acquisitions made through the MBCF account for 100 percent or a
    substantial percentage of a refuge's total land. These protected lands
    not only benefit waterfowl, but also countless other wildlife species,
    as well as increased opportunities for outdoor and wildlife-dependent
    recreation, such as hunting.
        While the Duck Stamp's price has been static since 1991, other
    factors affecting habitat conservation have significantly changed. Land
    prices in prime waterfowl nesting habitat have increased; price
    increases of crops and other factors have expanded conversion of native
    prairie to farm lands; and a warming climate is evaporating prairie
    ``pothole'' wetlands.
        The Prairie Pothole Region is vital to waterfowl populations. The
    U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole Region includes parts of Montana,
    North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Approximately 118
    million acres of land, 21 million acres of grass cover, and 2.63
    million wetland basins support more than 300 species of migrating and
    resident birds. Termed America's ``Duck Factory,'' this formerly
    glaciated landscape is the most productive area for nesting waterfowl
    on the continent. The region also provides stopover habitat for
    migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and songbirds.
        A Service study and report, Status and Trends of Prairie Wetlands
    in the United States 1997 to 2009, found that wetlands in the Prairie
    Pothole Region declined by an estimated 74,340 acres between 1997 and
    2009--an average annual net loss of 6,200 acres. In addition to these
    losses, millions of acres of prairie wetlands are threatened with
    degradation from extreme weather patterns, rising agricultural
    commodity prices, and oil and gas development, putting further pressure
    on the most valuable breeding area for ducks in the Americas. Continued
    vigilance in monitoring and protecting the Prairie Pothole Region is
    needed to ensure it remains healthy for waterfowl for generations to
    come.
        Funding provided by the sale of Duck Stamps is a critical component
    of conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region, and in other important
    waterfowl areas in the Nation. The Administration's proposed budget for
    fiscal year 2015 includes a legislative proposal to amend the Migratory
    Bird and Hunting Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718b) to increase
    the sales price for Duck Stamps from $15 to $25, beginning in 2015.
    With the additional receipts that would be generated from the proposed
    price increase, the Service anticipates the additional annual
    acquisition of approximately 7,000 acres in fee and approximately
    10,000 acres in conservation easements. After 2015, the
    administration's legislation also proposes that the price of the
    Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp can be increased
    by the Secretary of the Interior, after appropriate consultation with
    the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This component of the
    administration's proposal is important to helping ensure that the Duck
    Stamp's purchasing power does not substantially erode in the future.
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5069 takes a different approach by providing for
    a one-time increase, and mandating that the increase be used only for
    the purchase of easements. Currently, the Service, working in
    cooperation with the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, uses Duck
    Stamp proceeds for purchases of both fee title lands and conservation
    easements. We recommend maintaining the current discretion to ensure
    the most strategic and beneficial acquisitions can be made, without
    limiting the Service's discretion to purchase lands in fee title when
    necessary. One consideration is that access to certain lands by hunters
    is often not possible across easement lands, and we use fee title
    acquisition to provide such access.
        We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with the
    subcommittee on this legislation moving forward and thank you for your
    leadership and for introducing H.R. 5069. H.R. 5069 would allow the
    Service to ensure that the ``Duck Factory'' and other key habitats are
    protected into the future and that waterfowl populations continue to
    thrive for the continuing benefit of the American people.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this range of
    legislation that addresses multiple responsibilities of the Service for
    the conservation of our Nation's fish and wildlife for the benefit of
    our citizens. In particular, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
    leadership on H.R. 5069, the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. I am happy
    to answer any questions the subcommittee may have and we look forward
    to working with the subcommittee members as you consider these bills.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. Chairman Mansell, you
    are now recognized for 5 minutes to present testimony on behalf
    of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
        Mr. Mansell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. I'm sorry, we have one other thing to do, one
    item of business, I apologize. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Gosar for some introductions.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
    introduce Robert Mansell, Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish
    Commission and a lifelong resident of my home state of Arizona.
        Mr. Mansell hails from Winslow, Arizona and was confirmed
    as a member of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in March of
    2011. He is an avid outdoorsman, hunter, angler, boater, pilot
    and community leader.
        Chairman Mansell has a long and distinguished career in
    public service and was superintendent of the Winslow Unified
    School District from 2003 to 2009. He is an active member of
    his community and previously served on the Winslow City
    Council.
        Chairman Mansell grew up around fish hatcheries and his
    father and uncle served as fish hatchery superintendents at the
    Canyon Creek and Tonto Creek Hatcheries, respectfully.
        He holds a master's of art degree in education and a
    bachelor of science degree in education science from Northern
    Arizona University.
        Chairman Mansell, I certainly and sincerely appreciate you
    making the trip. You are now recognized for your testimony,
    thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. You are recognized a second time.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT E. MANSELL, CHAIRMAN, ARIZONA GAME
                          AND FISH COMMISSION

        Mr. Mansell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan
    and members of the committee. And thank you, Congressman Gosar,
    for your kind comments.
        It is really an honor to come before you and speak to you
    about H.R. 5026. I want to add a little bit about my history. I
    am a lifelong resident of Arizona. I am a volunteer citizen
    conservationist. What I am not, I am not a biologist. I am not
    a scientist. And you will soon realize I am not a paid public
    speaker, but I am going to give it a try anyway.
        Congressman Gosar mentioned that my father was a biologist
    and was a fish hatchery superintendent. As a child, I grew up
    observing firsthand the workings of fish hatcheries.
        The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is a firm proponent of
    the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This Model
    has seven tenets but the two main tenets are that wildlife
    belongs to everyone. And unlike other parts of the world where
    wildlife may belong to the landowner or wildlife may belong to
    the elite, in America, wildlife belongs to everyone.
        The second one is that wildlife must be managed so it can
    be sustained forever. It is the hunter and the fisherman who
    buy a license and the revenue from excised tax on the sale of
    hunting and fishing licenses that provide the financial
    backbone for this conversation.
        And I want to mention the Dingell-Johnson Act. And what a
    pleasure to be in the same room with Mr. Dingell. And I am not
    sure, I think in the early 1950s, your father sponsored the
    Dingell-Johnson Act, which provided money for fishing. So thank
    you, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you. My dad was very proud of that.
        Mr. Mansell. Thank you. The Arizona Game and Fish has a
    vested interest in the National Fish Hatchery System and what
    changes could mean for our fisheries, recreational
    opportunities and our state hatchery system. A national survey
    on wildlife-associated recreation was commissioned by the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011. And it reported that there
    are over 636,000 fishermen in Arizona resulting in a yearly
    expenditure in excess of $1.5 billion.
        Mr. Chair, in the West, we have had a longtime relationship
    with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Hatchery System. States rely on
    the production of sport fish to meet critical fisheries
    management and recreational needs. The National Fish Hatchery
    System has a trust responsibility to ensure sufficient stocks
    for sport fishing purposes. This is important for Arizona and
    the Nation.
        I am going to cite three examples of the impact the
    National Fish Hatchery System have in Arizona. And the first
    one is the Ennis National Fish Hatchery in Montana. We receive
    over two million trout eggs annually from this fish hatchery.
    If this was to cease, we would have to do one of two things:
    look elsewhere for our trout eggs, and, quite frankly, this may
    be difficult as there is not really a trout egg store where you
    can go and purchase two million trout eggs, or we will have to
    restructure a hatchery. I am told that the restructuring of a
    hatchery may take as long as 3 years and cost several million
    dollars. Obviously, we have not budgeted several million
    dollars, but more importantly we do not feel our state could
    survive 3 years without trout production.
        The Willow Beach Hatchery, which brought me here today, is
    downstream from Lake Mead on the Colorado River. It produces
    150,000 trout annually, stocked in the lower Colorado River.
    Two other hatcheries in Arizona are the Williams Creek and
    Alchesay Hatchery, both on the White Mountain Indian
    Reservation, and they produce all of our Apache trout eggs for
    Arizona. Willow Beach, again it is downstream from Lake Mead,
    was built in 1959 and produces rainbow trout for recreational
    purposes.
        On November 21, 2013, the Service reported to us an
    emergency stocking of 11,000 rainbow trout and additionally
    that 40,000 had died because of water quality caused by lack of
    infrastructure repair. Only after this, did Arizona become
    aware of the soon-to-be-published Strategic Hatchery and
    Workforce Planning Report. We were informed by the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service that all trout stocking would end. Willow
    Beach is ground zero in discovering the Service's new
    priorities established under this report.
        Mr. Chair, I must make clear that neither the Arizona Game
    and Fish Commission or Department leadership were consulted or
    participated in any discussions about this. It was simply a
    surprise. If not for the infrastructure failure at Willow
    Beach, we would not have found out the problem at this time.
    The infrastructure problem accelerated the release of the
    Service's plan to end trout production.
        Willow Beach is the tip of the iceberg.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mansell follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Robert Mansell, Chairman, Arizona Game and Fish
                            Commission on H.R. 5026
        Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and members of
    the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be with you today to
    share the perspective of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission on H.R.
    5026, the bill authored by Mr. Gosar. My name is Robert Mansell a
    native Arizonan and the Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish
    Commission.
        The Commission is a firm proponent of the North American Model of
    Wildlife Conservation; our fish and wildlife belong to all Americans,
    and need to be managed in a way that their populations will be
    sustained forever. The financial backbone of this model of wildlife
    conservation is the hunter and angler who pay the freight for wildlife
    conservation through their license dollars and Federal excise tax on
    hunting and fishing equipment.
        The Commission has a vested interest in the future of the National
    Fish Hatchery System and what changes to that system could mean to our
    fisheries, recreational opportunities and state hatchery systems.
    According to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife
    Associated Recreation commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service over 636,000 people fish in Arizona, resulting in an estimated
    fishing expenditures of over $1.5 billion annually.
        Mr. Chairman, states, particularly in the West, have had a long-
    standing relationship with the National Fish Hatchery System. The
    states rely on the production of federally cultured brood fish and
    sport fish to meet critical fisheries management and recreational
    demands. Many times fish must be produced in certain environments and
    in such a way as to meet mandates by the Service. We appreciate the
    difficult choices Federal agencies must make given the current budget
    climate; however, the National Fish Hatchery System's trust
    responsibility is to ensure sufficient fish stocks for sport fishing
    purposes. This is not only important to Arizona and the Nation's
    economy but is vital to many of the state hatchery systems across the
    Nation. In Arizona for example:

         Ennis National Fish Hatchery in Montana provides over 2
                million triploid rainbow trout eggs annually to our state
                hatcheries.
         Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery along the Colorado
                River rears an average of 150,000 rainbow trout stocked in
                the Colorado River annually;
         Williams Creek and Alchesay on the White Mountain Apache
                Reservation in Arizona supply all of our Apache trout eggs
                annually stocked in the White Mountains for sport fish
                recreation.

        Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery located along the Colorado
    River south of the Hoover Dam, operated by the Service is part of the
    National Fish Hatchery System built in 1959 has operated as a
    mitigation hatchery since its existence to produce rainbow trout for
    recreational purposes. On November 21, 2013 the Service conducted an
    emergency stocking of 11,000 rainbow trout when the low water levels
    compromised the delivery system of water to the hatchery. However, over
    40,000 fish were lost due to a lack of water movement through the
    system that stemmed from a lack of infrastructure repairs.
        Only after this emergency did the state become aware of the plans
    set in motion by the, then, soon to be released, Strategic Hatchery and
    Workforce Planning Report. At that time the Service informed the state
    that they would end all trout stocking efforts in perpetuity. Mr.
    Chairman, while a small operation, Willow beach served as ground zero
    for many states in discovering the Service's ``new priorities''
    established under this report. New priorities that the states were not
    consulted on and frankly, at least in Arizona, would not have found out
    about until much later except for the unfortunate incident at Willow
    Beach where an infrastructure issue prematurely accelerated the
    Service's plans to end sport fish production.
        Mr. Chairman, Willow Beach is just the tip of the iceberg. I flew
    here from San Antonio where I attended the Western Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agency's annual meeting. All across America, states are
    looking at ways to shore up their sport fish programs given the fallout
    of this report.
        The state's long-standing relationship with the National Fish
    Hatchery System is in peril. Cessation of sport fish production at
    Federal hatcheries across the west will result in:

         Loss of a successful economic driver.

         Loss of recreational opportunities.

         Reduced ability to get youth and the public outdoors.

        Mr. Chairman, according to the American Sport Fishing Association,
    more people in America fish than play golf and tennis combined. If
    fishing opportunities are severely curtailed, many state and Federal
    agencies will have fewer tools to get youth and the public recreating
    outdoors.
        The Arizona Game and Fish Commission appreciate Mr. Gosar's
    vigilance on this issue. We are supportive of the 10-year moratorium on
    National Fish Hatchery Closures and believe this will allow the Service
    and other Federal agencies the opportunity to properly consult with
    states to come up with a viable alternative.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman we appreciate the attention you and others
    are devoting to maintaining and enhancing a system crucial to sport
    fishing and fishery conservation work across the country. We strongly
    believe that the states, anglers and the whole American public benefit
    from the good work of the national fish hatcheries. Thank you for the
    opportunity to share our perspective with you and I would be please to
    respond to any questions.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Mr. Mansell, your time has expired, and your
    entire testimony will be entered into the record. We have a lot
    of questions for you, so let's move on. But, again, all of your
    written statement will be entered into the record.
        At this point, we will begin member questioning of our
    witnesses. To allow members to participate and to ensure that
    we can hear from all of our witnesses today, members are
    limited to 5 minutes for their questions. However, if members
    have additional questions, we can have more than one round of
    questioning.
        I now yield to myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guertin, with regard to the Duck Stamp bill, H.R. 5069,
    has the Fish and Wildlife Service undertaken a study on the
    impact on the Federal Duck Stamp increase and at what level
    does the price become a major deterrent to migratory bird
    hunters?
        Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, yes, we have looked at those
    potential factors, and we do not believe that a modest
    increase, as you envision, would have a significant negative
    impact on the sale of Duck Stamps. We annually sell about 1.5
    million a year. The average waterfowl hunter probably spends
    $300 or $400 a year, largely on ammunition and other equipment.
    We believe that the market is there for them to willingly step
    up to the plate and agree to this modest $10 increase because
    they fully understand the magnificent resources they are
    protecting and are willing to make that conservation
    investment.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, I appreciate your comments on that. And
    that is something we need to be sensitive to. In the private
    sector, we call that price point. At what point does the cost
    become a deterrent. We want to make sure that there are more
    birds for hunters, but we want to make sure that hunters do not
    feel in some way disengaged or firewalled from access to
    hunting.
        But I would agree with you, considering all the equipment
    and ammunition and the cost thereof, that it would seem to be a
    small price increase. And if you would, provide for us the
    information that you have, the studies that you may have done
    this far.
        A second question is, as I understand your testimony,
    Native Alaskans can shoot, eat and use non-edible parts in
    handicraft items, but they are prohibited from selling these
    products. Is it not true that any non-edible parts that are not
    used by the Native Alaskans are simply thrown away? And what is
    the logic of that policy?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act, it bars any individual from selling for commercial
    profit any of these body parts from species protected under the
    Act. So the practical effect is, yes, these parts would be
    discarded. However, this does not preclude individuals from
    presenting them or giving them as gifts or donating them as
    well. It just precludes them from selling them as a commercial
    entity.
        Dr. Fleming. Would the Fish and Wildlife Service support
    further refining of the Migratory Bird Treaties to allow
    Alaskan Natives to use non-edible parts of the migratory birds
    in a range of handicraft products?
        Mr. Guertin. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are currently working
    with the members of the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management
    Council, including Native Alaska representatives, Alaska Fish
    and Game and ourselves to explore what kind of opportunities
    there are to do just that. And our position is that allowing
    this leadership group in Alaska to work through potential
    solutions with a deadline of next spring would yield that kind
    of information for yourself and other congressional leaders on
    a potential path forward.
        Dr. Fleming. The staff reminds me that the committee voted
    on this 10 for, 2 against. And the two votes against were from
    the Fish and Wildlife. So it seems that the Fish and Wildlife
    is sort of apart from everyone else on that issue, making those
    changes.
        Mr. Guertin. I understand, Mr. Chairman. And our official
    position is to work through this Council on a potential
    solution, but we would be glad to sit down with yourself, the
    members and the staffs to continue to hold discussions on this
    issue going forward.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. And Chairman Mansell--oh, I'm sorry. This
    is Mr. Guertin here, yeah. I'm sorry, back to Mr. Guertin. What
    steps can the Fish and Wildlife Service take to encourage non-
    hunters and those who observe wildlife at our national wildlife
    refuges to purchase an annual Duck Stamp? And are these Federal
    stamps prominently offered and displayed in every refuge
    throughout the country?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have a very aggressive
    marketing campaign underway to reach out to non-consumptive
    citizens who also enjoy the value of wildlife. We can offer
    them through web portals, at refuge visitor centers, through
    the post office and a lot of other mechanisms.
        And we could certainly point to your leadership in
    introducing this legislation to increase the bill as a good
    example of the strong support for this program nationwide. And
    we will redouble our efforts to market this product to a lot
    more constituent groups out there to help support the larger
    vision for conservation that up until now has been largely paid
    on the shoulders of hunters, both male and female, for the last
    several decades.
        Dr. Fleming. My time has expired. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record the written
    statement of Mr. Dingell, as well as a report from the
    Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.
        Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must be getting old
    but are those microphones working? I can hardly hear either one
    of you. Are they working?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sablan. Oh, now they are working.
        Dr. Fleming. Again, I think the problem tends to be that
    the tips are not close enough. So if you are not hearing a
    little bit of echo in the background, you are probably not
    close enough.
        Mr. Sablan. Alright, can we start my time now, please? I
    have four questions for Mr. Guertin. So, Mr. Guertin, welcome.
        I asked these questions to Director Ashe at the last
    hearing on wildlife refuge. And I will ask you them again today
    just for the record.
        One, the expansion of the Refuge System is authorized by
    the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Do you
    recall the votes by which that legislation passed a Republican-
    controlled House and Senate?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, I believe the vote was 407 to 1.
        Mr. Sablan. In the Senate?
        Mr. Guertin. In the Senate, I don't know. In the House it
    was a 407 to 1 vote against.
        Mr. Sablan. In your opinion then why did Congress ask the
    Service to plan and direct the continued growth of the Refuge
    System? Why does it need to grow?
        Mr. Guertin. We believe that our agency mission in the
    Refuge Organic Act charges us on behalf of the American public
    to make strategic investments for future generations for
    biologically important land acquisition, protection and habitat
    restoration and other congressionally driven mandates to
    support mission delivery objectives out there. And we believe
    that this legislation would not allow the Service to have the
    management flexibility, as well as the opportunity and
    nimbleness we need to pursue these objectives on behalf of the
    American people.
        Mr. Sablan. Alright, thank you. And, Mr. Guertin, H.R. 5026
    would mandate that, ``Fish and wildlife may not permanently
    close, reprogram, repurpose, decommission, significantly alter
    or move to caretaker status any fish and other aquatic species
    propagation hatchery or propagation program within the National
    Fish Hatchery System of the Department of the Interior unless
    such action is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress.''
        What would be the practical implications of these
    restrictions, how would it affect the Service's ability to
    operate the Hatchery System for the benefit of the public and
    to carry out other responsibilities?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, we fully recognize the emerging concerns
    from all of our partners and constituents on the future of the
    National Fish Hatchery System and the ongoing investment all of
    our partners, particularly the states, have made in its
    direction. We are the agency that is charged with implementing
    on the ground the operational imperatives of the refuge and
    hatchery system, and we believe that the director needs the
    authority, now and in the future, to make strategic investments
    based on the operational tempo and emerging priorities that
    occur on a daily basis.
        We also want to note for the record that under the
    guidelines included in the current year appropriations for the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, we were directed that we would not
    close any national fish hatcheries, and we have not closed any
    fish hatcheries. We have only out of the 270 individual
    production lines for propagation within the hatchery system
    over the last 2 years have discontinued about four of those,
    largely pan fish production in some southeast states where
    there was no request from the states to deliver that product to
    them.
        Mr. Sablan. OK, and I am going to H.R. 3409, which would
    prohibit the Service from adding land to the National Wildlife
    Refuge System without the express permission of Congress, even
    if the land is donated by a private individual or company. So
    does the Service frequently add donated land to the System? And
    how would H.R. 3409 affect people's willingness to donate their
    lands?
        Mr. Guertin. Over the last several years, a number of
    individuals have stepped up and made donations on behalf of the
    American people for several hundred thousand acres, which was
    incorporated into the National Wildlife Refuge System, either
    in fee title donations or more likely in an easement donation,
    including several large landowners who have donated over
    100,000 acres at a time for their conservation value. And so
    this legislation we believe would have a chilling effect on
    individuals wanting to step up to make those kind of donations.
        Mr. Sablan. Alright, I have one more question, Mr. Guertin.
    In the second panel, Chairman Angius in her testimony refers to
    a Fish and Wildlife Service report that valued the hatchery
    system and other fishery conservation efforts. Ms. Angius
    claims that the economic value of the hatchery system is $3.6
    billion. Is that accurate or is $3.6 billion the economic
    impact of all the Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries
    conservation activities, including habitat conservation and
    control of invasive species? What is the economic impact of the
    hatchery system alone based on the study reference by Chairman
    Angius, and what is the economic impact of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System?
        Mr. Guertin. I believe the study they are referring to
    cites a larger objective of economic contributions of $3.6
    billion from all aquatic conservation programs in the Fish and
    Wildlife Service program delivery toolbox. The National Fish
    Hatchery System is a subset of that at about $900 million, and
    then the literature cites about a $2.5 billion contribution to
    the economy from refuge visitation and about $32 billion from
    the refuges in ecosystem services impact to the national
    economy overall.
        Mr. Sablan. So the $900 million has turned into what, $3.6
    billion----
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, the $900 million is a subset of a larger
    aquatic conservation. And we would be glad to provide for the
    record all of those economic reports.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Young for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guertin,
    the 97 protocols in the migratory bird treaties, how did these
    protocols address non-edible parts of the migratory birds?
        Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, I am personally not aware, but I
    would be glad to provide that for the record for the hearing.
        Mr. Young. Well, again, you guys came down and opposed my
    bill, and I would wish you had the answer. I want you to know
    that right now. Now, what feathers were used in this mask when
    this gentleman was cited?
        Mr. Guertin. The case you are referring to, Congressman, I
    believe were a raven species as well as a flicker.
        Mr. Young. Now, the raven is a species that migrates?
        Mr. Guertin. It does, Mr. Chairman, yes.
        Mr. Young. Where does it migrate to?
        Mr. Guertin. Some of them cross over into Canada. Some of
    them move north and west. Some of them are local populations as
    well, but it does qualify----
        Mr. Young. They do not migrate really to the lower 48.
        Mr. Guertin. Some of them have been seen----
        Mr. Young. No, they do not. Now, do not argue with me. They
    do not. Now, I can say you may think a crow is a raven but it
    is not. It is a black bird but it is not a raven. Ravens stay
    in Alaska. They may go to Canada because they are part of
    Canada. Keep that in mind.
        Now, this raven to my knowledge was a dead raven, was not
    shot, roadkill, and you cited him. That is the first time I
    think in many, many years there were any citations issued. What
    instigated or why did your agent cite that individual?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, it was a very long process. The
    individual in question advertised on Craigslist that he had for
    sale a headdress that included feathers from two species.
        Mr. Young. But you have to listen to me now. Why did your
    agency--remember all this land, gentlemen and ladies, about
    this donation of lands. It is not the idea of refuge, which I
    am a big supporter of. It is the management of. And your
    government, not mine, insistence on citing people who have
    never done this before. They had never been cited until you
    came along. Now, what instigated that?
        Mr. Guertin. Again, Congressman, our agents noticed on
    Craigslist that he had been posting for sale----
        Mr. Young. And your agent, and that goes back to what I
    said. Did that come from headquarters?
        Mr. Guertin. No, our agents are empowered to make
    operational decisions.
        Mr. Young. Your agent is a hot-dog. That is what he is. And
    interfered with Alaskan Natives and the raven has always been
    used as a sacred bird in their testimony and in their culture.
    And they have never been cited. And along comes Uncle Sam and
    the Fish and Wildlife. That is where you are getting a black
    eye. You are getting a black eye because you are not managing
    with people. You say you are working now with the co-management
    of the Commission. Now, what is your work? I noticed that there
    were only two votes against trying to do this that was from
    you. Is that what you call working together?
        Mr. Guertin. No, Congressman, we are trying to implement
    these larger international treaties. We are trying to be a good
    partner. And on the case you are citing, our agent actually
    called the individual in question several times and told him
    both unofficially and officially that he needed to take his
    Craigslist post down.
        Mr. Young. It was a dead raven, roadkill raven. It was not
    shot. And your agency cites this individual that is culturally
    creating a mask because you can. That is the problem with your
    agency now. You have become the Park Service, the EPA, over-
    extending. And that is why you are getting a black eye. And
    that is why we are going to address your agency again and again
    and again, as long as I sit here, because you are not working
    with the people. This is not ``deplenishing'' the raven. It is
    not ``deplenishing'' the flicker. These are birds that are not
    being shot for this type thing.
        Now, you brought the attention to it, and we are going to
    pass this bill. It probably will not pass the Senate. The dark
    hole never does anything. But we will get it done someday if
    you do not address this issue enthusiastically. You have the
    authority to do this right now executively, is that correct?
        Mr. Guertin. We have prosecutorial discretion on how we
    move forward.
        Mr. Young. You have the authority to negotiate with the
    Natives, do you not?
        Mr. Guertin. Well, Congressman, we are really sitting down
    with our advisors at DOJ and the Solicitor's office to make
    sure that this over-arching----
        Mr. Young. That makes me feel very comfortable, the
    Department of Justice. I mean that really makes me comfortable,
    believe me.
        Mr. Guertin. I know, sir, we are aspiring to envision where
    we can come back to you next spring and give you a better
    status report on this situation.
        Mr. Young. I would make a suggestion. Do not cite anybody
    in my state again until we work this issue out because if you
    do not, we will do it legislatively because this is silly when
    you are using a dead bird's feather that has no value to
    anyone, to cite a person, an individual citizen of my state,
    especially when they have cultural background. That is what I
    want you guys to start thinking about. You are not God for
    God's sakes. Keep that in mind.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. Mr. Southerland, the
    gentleman from Florida, is recognized.
        Mr. Southerland. Thank you. Mr. Guertin I wanted to ask you
    a question or some questions. First of all, thank you for being
    here today.
        I am just curious, tell me about the Duck Stamp issue. I am
    just curious how since 1960--let me start here. What is the
    purpose of the Duck Stamp?
        Mr. Guertin. The Duck Stamp program was set up in response
    to the decline in waterfowl species exacerbated by the larger
    Dust Bowl and other factors that biologically were wiping out a
    lot of habitat back in the 1920s and 1930s. And a group of
    sports people banded together and got congressional support to
    voluntarily step up to the plate and make strategic investments
    in waterfowl conservation through agreeing to buy a stamp that
    would allow them to----
        Mr. Southerland. OK.
        Mr. Guertin [continuing]. Entrust resources.
        Mr. Southerland. I got it.
        Mr. Guertin. It's a user fee kind of program.
        Mr. Southerland. So basically in common language, it was
    to--it was to increase duck population?
        Mr. Guertin. The money was plowed back into buying up and
    restoring waterfowl nesting----
        Mr. Southerland. For the purpose of increasing duck
    population?
        Mr. Guertin [continuing]. So that it would yield a larger
    population for bird watchers, hunters and others.
        Mr. Southerland. Just increase duck population? That is
    what the American people can understand.
        I am looking at data that you gave that is off your Web
    site. In 1960, there were five million duck and geese harvested
    nationwide. Do you want to take--do you know how many were
    harvested in 2010?
        Mr. Guertin. Probably in the 10 to 15 million overall.
        Mr. Southerland. Actually, you are off 100 percent. There
    were 20 million duck and geese harvested nationwide. So if we
    started in 1960, and, by the way, just for disclaimer, last
    year I hunted duck in three states with a Duck Stamp. I want to
    make that clear. And so I think if the purpose of the Duck
    Stamp was to increase duck population, and we have gone from 5
    million in 1960 to 20 million in 2010, would that be effective?
    Would that be effective? Could we say, determine that it has
    been effective in increasing the duck populations?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes.
        Mr. Southerland. Yes, OK. I am just curious, are the funds
    generated by this proposed increase, is it to fund existing
    easements or is it to purchase new easements?
        Mr. Guertin. The legislation would authorize the use for
    either new easements or expanding current easements.
        Mr. Southerland. Give me a percentage? How much would be
    for managing existing easements? What is the percentage for
    purchasing new easements?
        Mr. Guertin. Probably 60 to 40 would be a good working
    ratio.
        Mr. Southerland. OK, so here is my question: So when is
    enough enough? And how many ducks must be harvested above 20
    million for you to know that you have accomplished the goal of
    the Duck Stamp? And let me say this, I am not in favor of 15-,
    16-year-olds having to pay more for a Duck Stamp. And I am not
    in favor of giving you guys more land. You cannot manage what
    you have properly. I mean we are seeing inefficiencies
    everywhere in government. We cannot even harvest emails for
    God's sakes or track an elephant in the snow. So what I am
    curious is, when is enough enough?
        Mr. Guertin. Sure, our concern from a conservation
    perspective is that we want to maintain what you are able to
    harvest and other hunters are able to harvest.
        Mr. Southerland. OK, so based on that, and we are
    harvesting 20 million ducks, which is by your own admission,
    that is good. Why would we not say that every dollar in this
    increase would maintain the existing easements rather than
    trying to purchase more?
        Mr. Guertin. Because a lot of these species may be moving
    where they are nesting and rearing. A lot of the current----
        Mr. Southerland. But you all do not allow that to happen. I
    mean you all----
        Mr. Guertin. Well, sir, there is a lot of development
    pressure----
        Mr. Southerland. So you are saying that the wood ducks are
    going to migrate somewhere where we are not currently managing?
        Mr. Guertin. We are going to use probably the hen mallard
    and a lot of the species up in the----
        Mr. Southerland. Like Teal?
        Mr. Guertin [continuing]. Grasslands that--yes, that are
    nesting up there. There is just a lot of pressure on that land.
        Mr. Southerland. And so you are saying they are going to go
    somewhere else that they have gone for hundreds and hundreds
    and thousands of years?
        Mr. Guertin. Some of them being squeezed out of those
    traditional nesting grounds.
        Mr. Southerland. Well, let me give you an example, a
    practical example. This past year in Henderson, Louisiana, I
    harvested a banded Teal, a banded Teal. He was banded 13 years
    ago in North Dakota. That duck, and ducks like it, are going
    from North Dakota to Louisiana every year. And if you are
    trying to convince me that that duck may one day just say, you
    know what, I think I want to go Arizona.
        Mr. Guertin. They are not going to go to Arizona,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Southerland. No, they are not. They are not. So my
    point is why would we not use the dollars to manage what we
    have because it is effective? By your own numbers, you state
    they go from 5 million in harvesting to 20 million.
        Mr. Guertin. True. Again, the concern is that these
    traditional nesting grounds are under a lot of pressure and the
    more agriculture conversion, the more land is lost through
    nesting and rearing habitat, we may not be able to see those
    kinds of populations and that kind of harvest in the future. It
    is an opportunity lost for us.
        Mr. Southerland. I yield back.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, the gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Gosar is now recognized.
        Dr. Gosar. You know, Mr. Chairman, I only wish that we
    would have started this hearing by putting the witnesses under
    oath. I am getting a little bit tired of bureaucrats and their
    two-talk.
        Deputy Director Guertin, you testified that, and I quote,
    ``Our hope is that by engaging in a transparent and open dialog
    with the subcommittee''----
        Dr. Fleming. I do not think the gentleman's microphone is
    on or close enough to you, we are not hearing you. Try that
    again.
        Dr. Gosar. I will start my quote all over again. ``Our hope
    is that by engaging in a transparent and open dialog with this
    subcommittee and others in Congress, our partners and
    stakeholders, we can chart a unified course forward for the
    National Fish Hatchery System.''
        Wow, that is a fish whopper. First, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service did not consult with the state prior to establishing
    the new profiles in November 2013's report. Second, David
    Hoskins from the Fish and Wildlife Service testified before
    this very subcommittee in March and failed to tell the
    subcommittee that as many 13 recreation fishing propagation
    programs had already been terminated.
        How many, now listen carefully because I do not want you to
    misunderstand this, how many do you plan to terminate in Fiscal
    Year 2015, not 2014, 2015?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, I do not believe, and we will
    provide clarification for the record for you in detail so you
    believe us, I do not believe we have made any proposal at this
    point to put any on the chopping block so to speak. We are
    instead going to work through this stakeholder process over the
    coming year before we implement the 2015 year plan. And we
    would be glad to sit down with you in detail.
        Dr. Gosar. I am going to cut you off because I have lots,
    lots of questions for you. I mean the way that you answered
    your question about termination was very, very cleverly crafted
    because you have actually terminated a bunch in 2013. In 2014,
    you may not have because all of a sudden we have had such a
    spirited debate coming out of Arizona in regards to this.
        But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hold Exhibit 1 here.
    Chairman Fleming, I would like to make this for the record.
        Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The document submitted for the record by Dr. Gosar titled
    Exhibit 1 follows:]
                                   EXHIBIT 1

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    NOTES:

        Private John Allen NFH--``To the economy of the state of
    Mississippi where Pvt John Allen NFH stocks its half million plus fish
    each year, a whopping $714,000 is infused each year. That includes more
    than $369,000 in retail sales, $54,000 in taxes generated, and the
    creation of 8 jobs with salary and wages of $171,300. National Fish
    Hatchery System stocked recreational warm water fish contributed 11,025
    angler days to the State of Mississippi.''
        A 2011 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the
    annual economic benefit of the National Fish Hatchery System was
    approximately $3.6 billion which would represent a cost-benefit of
    1:26. The system provides jobs to 68,000 Americans and for every tax
    dollar invested, there is a return of $28 to our national economy
    because of the sport fishing opportunities they provide.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes, there are a number of them. When I look at
    this list, this actually not only comes from your office but
    let's go back into the answers to the questions that were
    submitted to you.
        ``How many of the stocking programs throughout the United
    States have been terminated in the last 12 months? Please
    provide a complete list of these propagation programs and the
    reasons why they are no longer producing fish.''
        So, once again, being asked questions over and over again,
    we are getting two different remarks. And that is not
    tolerated. And when you start citing the DOJ, well, I can tell
    you right now I have very little respect for what is happening
    in the DOJ.
        Mr. Guertin, was there a public comment period prior to
    changing the priorities with the propagation program within the
    release of the November report? Yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. No.
        Dr. Gosar. So here in my introduction you actually said
    that you want to have this confident dialog with Congress and
    members of communities and yet you produce this report without
    even a comment. Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you. That is
    why the public does not trust bureaucrats like yourself. That
    is exactly the problem here.
        By the Fish and Wildlife Service's own estimates, the
    National Fish Hatchery System returns $28 to the national
    economy for every dollar spent and $3.6 billion to our economy
    annually. Does the Service consider the impacts to local
    economies before terminating recreation fishing propagation
    programs?
        Mr. Guertin. Under the vision in the report, the Service
    put on the table----
        Dr. Gosar. Yes or no? I mean yes or no? You either do or
    you do not.
        Mr. Guertin. It did not.
        Dr. Gosar. You did not?
        Mr. Guertin. It did not.
        Dr. Gosar. Why would you not?
        Mr. Guertin. We approached it from a biological perspective
    and from----
        Dr. Gosar. Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Biological
    program? Once again, you are interpreting your own systematic
    venue here. You are not talking to the communities of reference
    that have enjoyed these hatcheries, this recreation and this
    industry for years. Who are you to tell them no? Please tell
    me? Tell me who you are?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, I would say that this was
    probably not our finest hour as an organization and our pledge
    to you going forward is that we need to rebuild trust and
    confidence with you and other elected officials.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, you know it is getting a little old
    between the IRS and the Department of the Interior and now the
    Fish and Wildlife Service. You know, trust is a series of
    promises kept, and there is no trust whatsoever.
        My friend, Don Young, and everybody sitting up here hears
    this rhetoric coming from you over and over and over again. I
    have two witnesses from my home state that are just, every time
    something happens with this administration, it comes over to
    Arizona and pokes us in the eye. I am getting a little sick and
    tired of it. And that is why I wish we would have put you under
    oath.
        My time has expired.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
    Crawford, the gentleman from Arkansas, is now recognized.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    allowing me to participate.
        This hatcheries deal is very sensitive to me. We have two
    hatcheries in my district, Norfork and Greer's Ferry. And I
    have always had an admiration for fly fishermen and became one
    myself as a result of getting very familiar and acquainted with
    the operation of these two hatcheries. And I am not sure if you
    are aware but these two hatcheries, just the two of them, in my
    district account for 1,700 jobs, $5 million in state and local
    tax revenue, $5.5 million in Federal tax revenue. All of it on
    a budget for the two of them less than $2 million.
        So my question is, and you have answered it, but, you know,
    again, I want folks at home to know that I have asked you this
    question, and I have gotten an answer: Does the Fish and
    Wildlife Service consider the devastating economic impacts
    before making a decision to shutdown a hatchery or
    fundamentally change their propagation? Not only are we seeing
    the threat of closure looming over. Every year I get a phone
    call, every year, people--not the hatcheries, they are not the
    ones calling, it is the local folks that are concerned that
    these hatcheries are going to be shut down. It is groups that
    have come together, Friends of Norfork, because they are
    concerned, how do we continue to fight this battle with the
    Federal Government. They have no confidence.
        And then folks that work there are under this continual
    specter of termination, is my job going to be here when I come
    to work tomorrow? It is just ridiculous.
        And, again, I would just like to get some clarification. Is
    any consideration of the economic impact to the local community
    given as you set out your priorities on pages 8 and 9 of the
    recently released Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning
    Report?
        Mr. Guertin. No, Congressman, it was not included as one of
    the factors in that draft vision document.
        Mr. Crawford. That is entirely unacceptable, entirely
    unacceptable. You have folks that are directly employed there
    and obviously the ripple effects of these hatcheries, it is
    going to be devastating to our local economy certainly but
    would certainly have a drastic impact on our state. My
    colleague, Mr. Gosar, has illustrated that in some detail.
        Just for the record, on March 4, Assistant Director David
    Hoskins testified before this subcommittee and said the report
    is not a decision document. It offers options and
    recommendations. I understand Mr. Hoskins was new to the
    position in March, but why was this committee not told on that
    day that 13 of the 70 propagation programs had already been
    terminated? Why this secrecy? Why do you not communicate with
    this committee?
        Mr. Guertin. Well, Congressman, again, this was viewed as a
    draft strategic plan to start engaging the stakeholders. No
    decisions----
        Mr. Crawford. Draft plan?
        Mr. Guertin [continuing]. Were made.
        Mr. Crawford. It sounds like you were working right off
    that draft plan to go ahead and implement without any
    congressional oversight or counsel.
        Mr. Guertin. Well, sure, but we have not actually
    implemented any of the recommendations in that larger vision
    document. They have been put out there. And, as I told your
    colleague, our pledge to you is we hear you loud and clear. And
    going forward, all we can say is we will redouble our efforts
    to come back up and sit down with you and the other leaders and
    your staffs to work you through our version of the world.
        Mr. Crawford. OK, let me just say this. I go to those
    hatcheries in my district, and I look them right in the eye and
    I talk to them. And they are concerned. The folks that are
    working there, Fish and Wildlife employees, the surrounding
    community, they are concerned. Has anybody in Washington left
    the beltway and visited those hatcheries and looked them in the
    eye and said, ``Here is the plan. We are going to go ahead and
    shut you down, and we are going to go ahead and deal a
    devastating blow to the local economy. Have a nice day'' ?
        Mr. Guertin. Before coming here last summer, I served as a
    regional director for our mountain prairie region and made it a
    practice on a weekly basis to go out in our field stations,
    visit all of our employees. My geography did not include the
    states you gentlemen represent but it was Montana, Wyoming and
    others. Certainly all of our leaders are out there meeting the
    employees, the partners and others. Personally, now that I am
    in Washington, my 700 employees are here in the Washington
    area. That is my area of focus now. But current leaders in the
    hatchery program, the regional directors and others are
    certainly out there looking folks in the eye. And we have folks
    at the Western Association right now.
        Mr. Crawford. OK, real quick, I have 20 seconds left here.
    The Fiscal Year 2015 Interior appropriations bill increased
    funding of the hatchery program by $9 million. Will that be
    enough to keep the remaining propagation programs fully
    operating next year, yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes.
        Mr. Crawford. Do you intend to restart some of those that
    have already been terminated, yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. Off the top of my head, I do not know,
    Congressman. I apologize.
        Mr. Crawford. I will take that as a no, and we will be
    following up with that. And my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Fincher is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
    tell the chairman I appreciate him allowing us to testify today
    and ask questions and the committee staff and all the work that
    they have been able to do.
        You know, Mr. Guertin, I listened to your testimony today,
    and a lot of us from rural America appreciate the job that Fish
    and Wildlife does for the most part and is trying to do. And as
    my colleague, Mr. Southerland, talked about being an avid
    hunter, I am as well and have two boys and a lot of family
    members that do.
        I guess the root of the problem here is, I go home one
    weekend and Randy Cook, our Fish and Wildlife guy from my
    district presents me a map with the expansion of the Hatchie
    Wildlife Refuge's new boundaries, proposed boundaries. And I
    was looking at the development of the proposal and a public
    process during which we reach out to state agencies, local
    communities, congressional offices and partners to help shape
    the plan. And I guess the problem from day one has been it was
    a slap in the face not only to me, and I remind myself everyday
    and every weekend when I go home, whom I work for. I do not
    work for Washington. I do not work for the Speaker or the
    President or Fish and Wildlife. I work for my folks in my
    district. And not only me but my constituents, my folks were
    just--I mean my phones blew up over the course of a few weeks
    and months there from not having any input in this process. And
    I guess it is the perception that the private sector is getting
    that it looks like these agencies are just railroading the
    folks.
        So there is much to be done. I think our bill today, H.R.
    3409, is a step in the right direction to give Congress the
    authority before any of these refuges are expanded, that we can
    have a say because of incidents like this. Look, we are not
    wanting to harm the environment or harm the wildlife. We are
    wanting to make it better--I am a farmer--and make it better
    for future generations.
        A couple of questions. Can you explain the public's role in
    drafting an expansion proposal?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman. What we do is float a trial
    balloon so to speak with a land protection plan where we have
    looked at key habitats based on priority species, our belief
    that we need those for priority conservation measures. We then
    initiate a very robust and transparent public planning process,
    which would include outreach and public forums, open houses,
    visits to landowners, ranchers, county commissioners, elected
    officials at the local, state and----
        Mr. Fincher. Was it unusual for Randy Cook to present me
    with a map of the new boundaries with them already being drawn
    without talking about this with our office or other offices?
    And, look, we had meetings after this happened, folks. And
    these meetings were packed, running over with people, every one
    of them saying, ``We do not want this. We do not want this.
    What is happening? Explain this.''
        Mr. Guertin. I cannot speak to the specifics of your
    encounter but arguably the map that was presented to you and
    other elected officials and the public would have just been a
    draft schematic of a vision and not a decision document. I have
    been involved in a few of these refuge expansions or creations
    myself in my former leadership role, and we painstakingly did a
    lot of partnership building, town and county meetings, outreach
    communication. And in many cases, there was no public support
    or interest and the Service abandoned the proposal then and
    there. In others, if there was a common ground for a vision for
    conservation, we would pursue it and finalize it.
        Mr. Fincher. Well what scares me, Mr. Guertin, is when all
    of this started and we were running into a brick wall it
    seemed, we had an oversight hearing, and then after that
    hearing, it seemed like things started becoming more clear for
    Fish and Wildlife and all of the partners that were operating
    in this realm. And the next thing we know, they had canceled
    the expansion.
        In closing, maybe the process of how this--and Mr. Ashe and
    I have talked about this, in communicating with the folks at
    home, communicating with Members of Congress, maybe this can be
    better going forward.
        But Congress, again, our bill I think is a step in the
    right direction. It gives us some authority before these
    decisions are made. And I appreciate your time.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. We do not have time
    to do a full second round, but I will open the dais up. I think
    Mr. Gosar has one other question?
        Dr. Gosar. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. OK, why don't you--let's see, then in that
    case--OK, I will recognize Mr. Gosar for his one question, and
    then we will go to Mr. Sablan.
        Dr. Gosar. It is about three subsets of one question, is
    that OK?
        Dr. Fleming. Yes, go ahead.
        Dr. Gosar. You know, in our dialog right before, you said
    that the Service does not consider jobs. So the 1,700 jobs in
    Mohave County and the $75 million in economic output associated
    with the Willow Beach Hatchery that is now in jeopardy are a
    result of terminating the trout stocking program and the annual
    production of $150,000 worth of rainbow trout, that just does
    not matter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
        Mr. Guertin. Well, certainly it matters. These are jobs for
    our fellow citizens.
        Dr. Gosar. But wait a minute, you said it does not matter.
    Earlier you testified that it just is never put into the
    equation.
        Mr. Guertin. Well, may I clarify, sir? What we were talking
    about is we put out a draft blueprint to manage the National
    Fish Hatchery System. The matrix of decisions, recommendations
    that we include in there, because no decisions were made yet,
    did not factor into the economic impact as one of our criteria.
    We looked at biological outcomes instead. And you are pointing
    out, and the leaders are, maybe Fish and Wildlife Service, you
    guys have it all wrong, you should be factoring in some
    economic impact to your decision as well. I cannot go back----
        Dr. Gosar. That would be really nice if it was really
    something true. It is not because you are taking it right off
    of--your litany off this playbook. And you are not engaging the
    state wildlife services, game and fish, you are not dialoging
    with the state stakeholders, local municipalities. So that is a
    bunch of crap. Four thousand jobs, $60 million in payroll, does
    the Fish and Wildlife Service once again consider these figures
    before terminating the rainbow trout stocking programs?
        Mr. Guertin. If we could use the report as it is currently
    written, it would not be one of the factors.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. No.
        Dr. Gosar. No. Boy, I mean this is just--this is absurd to
    me. The Fish and Wildlife Service stated in a letter to this
    subcommittee sent on May 30, 2014 that the reason for
    terminating the rainbow trout stocking program at the time was
    that the agency did not have $1.5 to $8.5 million to repair a
    broken water line and to keep the trout stocking program
    holding. I would like to put Exhibit 2 into the record.
        Recent engineering reports indicate that these estimates
    were a gross exaggeration, and the broken water line would only
    cost $100,000 to fix. If the water, now, let's listen very
    carefully, if the water supply line is fixed, does the Fish and
    Wildlife Service plan to reinstate the trout propagation
    program at Willow Beach Hatchery?
        Mr. Guertin. I believe we would, yes.
        Dr. Gosar. Whew, great. I am liking that. We want to make
    it a little more certain. The answer should be yes, totally.
        In your testimony, you dismissed one aspect of my bill and
    say, ``As announced in November, we do not intend to close any
    hatcheries in Fiscal Year 2014.'' You fail to mention that 113-
    6, enacted by the Congress, prevents such closures. Are you
    aware of that?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, I am, Congressman.
        Dr. Gosar. Did the Fish and Wildlife Service even discuss
    closing fish hatcheries in Fiscal Year 2014 prior to the
    release of the November 13 report with Congress?
        Mr. Guertin. Internally, there were some conversations but
    we did not publicly announce it.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, I want to make sure you understand the
    law.
        Mr. Guertin. Oh, yes, we do, Mr. Congressman.
        Dr. Gosar. So we've got a problem here, right? Yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. We violated the law. Yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. If we had closed one, yes.
        Dr. Gosar. You closed them prior to 2014, right, 2013?
        Mr. Guertin. I am not aware of us unilaterally closing a
    single----
        Dr. Gosar. We are going to go a little further here.
        Mr. Guertin [continuing]. Field station, Congressman.
        Dr. Gosar. If there was not, then why did Congressman Scott
    Tipton feel compelled to write Dan Ashe a lengthy letter on
    September 9, 2013 and state in part, ``I am told that based on
    a review of the propagation hatcheries within NFHS, that there
    will likely be some closures of hatcheries nationwide. I would
    strongly urge you to keep the Leadville National Fish Hatchery
    open.''
        Media reports also indicate that there will likely be
    hatchery closings, correct?
        Mr. Guertin. That is a--and I am not trying to give you a
    indirect answer, but that is a complicated question to answer.
        Dr. Gosar. No, no, if we are going to close hatcheries, you
    have to come talk to us.
        Mr. Guertin. Under this current appropriation law, yes, we
    do.
        Dr. Gosar. And so everything that you have told us, I mean
    you do not take into consideration economies, you are supposed
    to be talking to stakeholders, you do not do that, why would I
    even--why would we trust you?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, we clearly are off to a very bad
    start with you. And all I can pledge is going forward, we will
    redouble our----
        Dr. Gosar. It is not just with me. You are on a bad footing
    with a lot of people.
        Mr. Guertin. I understand. We can do a better job, and we
    will. And we would appreciate your giving us that opportunity
    to come back and re-earn that trust and credibility with you
    and the other elected members here.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, I want you to turn to your left, and I
    want to turn to right behind you to two people that you better
    be very familiar with, Chairman Mansell and Chairman Angius. I
    want you to make sure that those people are on your speed dial.
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman.
        Dr. Gosar. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Guertin. I met Mr. Mansell at a WAFA meeting previously
    in the West.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gosar, do you
    have something to submit to the record?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes, I have a number of exhibits that I want to
    make sure that are included for the record.
        Dr. Fleming. OK. Without objection, they are accepted.

        [The documents submitted for the record by Dr. Gosar titled
    Exhibit 2 through Exhibit 6 follow:]
                                   EXHIBIT 2
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     __

        Dr. Fleming. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any
    questions. I would just like to take notice that I very much
    appreciate Mr. Gosar and Mr. Crawford actually voicing their
    support for the economic stimulus the hatchery system provides.
    It appears that we are coming to an agreement that direct
    government spending can actually create jobs and grow this
    economy. I just have to note, I cannot help myself, I just took
    notice of it. And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
        Dr. Fleming. Well, let's move along because we have an
    entire other panel to get to. So I would ask--I would thank our
    two witnesses or, Mr. Guertin, I believe you are not in our
    second panel, I do not believe. Is he?
        Mr. Guertin. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Fleming. At either one? So we will go ahead and excuse
    both of our witnesses from the first panel and ask our next
    panel to move forward.
        We are now ready for our second panel, which includes the
    Honorable Hildy Angius, Chairman, Mohave County Board of
    Supervisors; Ms. Jacqueline Pata. Pata or Pata?
        Ms. Pata. Pata.
        Dr. Fleming. Pata, Vice Chair, Sealaska Corporation; Mr.
    Paul Schmidt, Chief Conservation Officer, Ducks Unlimited; and
    Mr. Martin Clifford Cornell III, Grant Administrator and member
    of the board of the Friends of Brazoria Wildlife Refuges.
        Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
    record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5
    minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under
    Committee Rule 4(a).
        Our microphones are not automatic, so please press the
    button when you are ready to begin. And, as you understand, we
    have a problem, witnesses oftentimes and even members sometimes
    do not get close enough to the microphone. And also your
    testimony will be 5 minutes. You will be under a green light
    for 4, yellow light for 1 and then when it turns red, please go
    ahead and conclude your statement. It will be submitted in its
    entirety for the record.
        Chairman Angius, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr.
    Gosar--Dr. Gosar, would like to do an introduction.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to
    introduce my friend and the chairwoman for the Mohave County
    Board of Supervisors, Hildy Angius. Hildy, it is great to see
    you, and I sincerely appreciate your leadership on this
    important issue. You have been there from the very beginning.
        Chairman Angius was elected to the Mohave County Board of
    Supervisors in 2012 and represents Bullhead City, Arizona. Ms.
    Angius is a former small business owner and managed significant
    budgets in her previous roles as marketing manager for Kokusai
    Wireless technology, marketing manager for LG Wireless and
    public relations manager for the Cable Television Advertising
    Bureau.
        She is passionate about her community and has also served
    as president of her homeowner's association, as well as several
    other local organizations.
        Hildy testified before the House Appropriations Committee
    in April about the importance of preserving recreational
    fishing propagation programs and her testimony was a big part
    of the reason why the House took a strong position in favor of
    recreational fishing in the 2015 Interior and Environmental
    appropriations bill.
        Chairman Angius, anglers throughout the country should be
    grateful for all your efforts. And I really appreciate you
    making a secondary trip back to Washington, DC, just do not
    drink the water.
        You may begin your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILDY ANGIUS, CHAIRMAN, MOHAVE COUNTY
                          BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

        Ms. Angius. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
    this testimony. My name is Hildy Angius, and I am the chairman
    of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors for Mohave County,
    Arizona. I provide this testimony on behalf of the more than
    200,000 citizens of Mohave County, which is the fifth largest
    county by square miles in the United States.
        Mohave County unequivocally supports the Fish Hatchery
    Protection Act, and we thank Representative Gosar for
    introducing such a critically important piece of legislation.
    Now, this is the second time this year I have traveled across
    the country to testify before a House subcommittee about the
    National Fish Hatchery System, specifically about the Willow
    Beach National Fish Hatchery.
        The Willow Beach National Hatchery has a been a critical
    component of Mohave County's economy since it was established
    in 1962. It was established to raise rainbow trout for release
    into the Lower Colorado River system to offset the massive
    impacts to local fisheries caused by the construction and
    operation of the Hoover Dam and related water resource
    management projects.
        The hatchery is located along the Colorado River near the
    border of Nevada and Arizona within Mohave County and the Lake
    Mead National Recreation Area. It helps support recreational
    sport fishing and tourism throughout the region. Those
    industries make up over 30 percent of Mohave County's economy.
    In fact, according to a study prepared for the Arizona
    Department of Fish and Game, recreational fishing within Mohave
    County in 2001 alone contributed $74.5 million to the local
    economy and supported approximately 1,682 jobs, numbers that we
    believe have remained the same or increased since that time.
        The Willow Beach facility is, or at least was until this
    year, a significant piece of that economic activity because it
    releases thousands of rainbow trout each year into our region's
    waters. The trout is an iconic species that attracts
    recreational anglers to our county from all over the country.
    In fact, it would be hard to imagine a more effective Federal
    stimulus program for our region, as pointed out.
        But yet on November 24, 2013, Mohave County learned that
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was terminating the rainbow
    trout propagation program at the Willow Beach Hatchery. The
    Service claimed that it lacked sufficient funds to prepare a
    broken water line that delivers water from Lake Mohave to the
    trout ponds at the hatchery. The Service has known since 2010
    that its water delivery system was in need of maintenance, but
    it failed to take corrective measures. My county is now
    suffering because of that failure. In fact, the Service's
    incompetence in managing the water delivery system resulted in
    the deaths of over 60,000 fish last year. That tragedy was
    completely avoidable.
        Now, the Service is claiming that it has no choice but to
    eliminate the entire trout program because it cannot afford to
    fix a pipe. We seriously doubt those claims, particularly
    because the Service's estimates for repairing the pipe are more
    than 10 times higher than the detailed estimates prepared by
    Mohave County engineers.
        The Service will tell you that they are not shutting down
    the Willow Beach Hatchery. Well, that is true. But going
    forward they will spend all available funding on raising
    bonytail chubs and razorback suckers for release into the
    Colorado River using an alternative water supply.
        While Endangered Species recovery efforts are obviously
    worthwhile, Mohave County has been struggling to understand
    where the Service gets its authority to unilaterally alter the
    fundamental purpose of a national mitigation fish hatchery that
    has operated for more than half a century. Nor has the agency
    explained how it prioritizes maintenance projects throughout
    the fish hatchery system or why it lacks sufficient funds to
    support the Willow Beach program. The reason we fear is because
    the Service is getting out of the sport and recreation fish
    hatchery business altogether.
        At the same time that Mohave County learned about the
    Service's decision to terminate trout operations at Willow
    Beach, and we learned that through the news media I want to
    add, we also learned about a new strategy that the Service had
    developed early in 2013 without any public or stakeholder
    participation for the entire National Fish Hatchery System. The
    new strategy clearly prioritizes the use of the Nation's fish
    hatcheries for threatened and endangered species recovery
    efforts and calls for the Service to dramatically curtail
    hatchery operations that support recreation and sport fishing.
        That is why Mohave County fully supports the Fish Hatchery
    Protection Act. We believe that Congress should establish the
    goals and priorities for the National Fish Hatchery System. The
    unelected executive agency charged with this administration
    should not be able to unilaterally walk away from commitments
    the Federal Government made decades ago. That type of dramatic
    shift in operational strategy should not be made without
    congressional oversight and public and stakeholder
    participation.
        H.R. 5026 will ensure that Congress maintains that
    authority. We implore this subcommittee to move this important
    piece of legislation forward and protect the economy of Mohave
    County and counties like it all over the country that benefit
    from the economic power of our Nation's national mitigation
    fish hatcheries.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gosar,
    members of the subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of the citizens of Mohave County. We
    appreciate your time and consideration. And I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Angius follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Hildy Angius, Chairman, Mohave County Board of
                Supervisors, Mohave County, Arizona on H.R. 5026
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide this testimony. I am Hildy Angius, Chairman of
    the Mohave County Board of Supervisors for Mohave County, Arizona. I
    provide this testimony on behalf of the citizens of Mohave County.
        Mohave County fully supports H.R. 5026--the Fish Hatchery
    Protection Act--because it addresses a fundamental concern the County
    has with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (``USFWS'') operation and
    management of the National Fish Hatchery System. We believe that the
    USFWS is no longer committed to operating the National Fish Hatchery
    System to offset the devastating impacts to our Nation's recreational
    sport fisheries caused by the development of Federal water resource
    management projects. Many of our national fish hatcheries were
    established decades ago to ensure that recreational fishing
    opportunities in our Nation's waters were not eliminated by those
    projects. These hatcheries provide immense economic and environmental
    benefits to the regions in which they are located, including many rural
    areas--like Mohave County--that depend on outdoor recreation and
    tourism to survive. But the USFWS is now ignoring both the history of
    the National Fish Hatchery System and its importance to our national
    economy, and is instead using the System to promote the preservation
    and reestablishment of threatened and endangered species to the
    detriment of recreational fishing and other management objectives.
    Mohave County believes that such a fundamental shift in operational
    priorities for the National Fish Hatchery System should be directed by
    Congress. That is why Mohave County endorses H.R. 5026.
        Mohave County's support for the Fish Hatchery Protection Act is
    grounded in unfortunate experience. Last November, the USFWS
    unilaterally closed the rainbow trout propagation program at the Willow
    Beach National Fish Hatchery in Mohave County. In doing so, the USFWS
    ignored its legal responsibilities, failed to engage with its local and
    state partners, and took action that will have severe economic
    consequences in Mohave County, the fifth largest county by land area in
    the United States. The Willow Beach story, which I share below,
    demonstrates why H.R. 5026 must be enacted.
      willow beach national fish hatchery--an economic engine in jeopardy
        The Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery is located along the
    Colorado River near the border of Nevada and Arizona within Mohave
    County and the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. The hatchery was
    established in 1962 to raise rainbow trout for release into the lower
    Colorado River system to help mitigate for impacts to that system from
    the construction and operation of the Hoover Dam and related subsequent
    water resource management projects, like the Davis Dam. The hatchery
    was established pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
    1934 and a 1959 Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') between the
    Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and the USFWS. The 1959
    MOU is still in effect today.
        For nearly 52 years, the Willow Beach Hatchery has been an economic
    engine for Mohave County and the surrounding region, providing
    recreational fishing opportunity to replace that which was destroyed by
    Bureau of Reclamation water resource management projects along the
    lower Colorado River. According to a study prepared for the Arizona
    Department of Fish and Game, recreational fishing within Mohave County
    in 2001 alone contributed $74.5 million to the local economy and
    supported approximately 1,682 jobs.\1\ The Willow Beach facility has
    played a huge role in generating that economic activity. The USFWS, for
    example, estimates that the overall National Fish Hatchery System
    generates $3.6 billion in economic activity, creates 68,000 jobs, and
    provides a $28 return on investment for every Federal tax dollar
    invested in the system--a remarkable Federal stimulus success story.\2\
    Recreational fishing factors significantly into those calculations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Jonathon Silberman, The Economic Importance of Fishing and
    Hunting, at 32 (undated but reporting 2001 data).
        \2\ USFWS, Net Worth: The Economic Value of Fisheries Conservation
    (Fall 2011).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To lose that kind of economic activity would have dire consequences
    on any local and regional economy, but that is exactly what Mohave
    County is currently facing. On November 24, 2013, the USFWS announced
    that it was terminating the rainbow trout propagation program at the
    Willow Beach facility, a development the government of Mohave County
    had to learn about after-the-fact through local news media. The USFWS
    claimed that it lacked sufficient funds to repair a broken water line
    that delivered water from Lake Mohave to the trout ponds at the
    hatchery, estimating that the water line would cost somewhere between
    $3.0 and $9.0 million to repair. The USFWS has known since 2010 that
    its water delivery system was in need of maintenance, but failed to
    take corrective measures. Once the water delivery system failed, the
    USFWS claimed that it had no choice but to eliminate the trout program
    because it could not afford the repairs. The agency will, however,
    continue to raise and release bonytail chub and razorback suckers at
    the Willow Beach facility, species that are listed as endangered under
    the Endangered Species Act. Water for raising those species at the
    hatchery comes from groundwater through a delivery system that was not
    impacted by the facility's maintenance failures.
        While endangered species recovery efforts are obviously worthwhile,
    Mohave County has been trying to understand the USFWS's authority to
    unilaterally alter the fundamental purpose of the Willow Beach National
    Fish Hatchery. The facility was established and has been operated for
    more than five decades as a mitigation hatchery. ``The fundamental
    purpose of fishery mitigation,'' according to the USFWS, ``is to
    compensate for adverse impacts to fishery resources caused by the
    construction of Federal dams and Federal water development projects.''
    \3\ That is precisely why the Willow Beach facility was created in
    1962. As explained by the Government Accountability Office in a June
    2000 report addressing the National Fish Hatchery System, the Willow
    Beach facility was ``constructed in 1962 to mitigate for fish losses
    associated with Hoover Dam's construction.'' \4\ This fundamental
    purpose was acknowledged by the USFWS in the early 1990s, when the
    agency described the Willow Beach facility as a ``mitigation hatchery
    established to produce a fishery in the coldwater habitat created by
    the construction of the Hoover Dam.'' \5\ And in 2006, the Willow Beach
    facility was highlighted by the USFWS as an exemplary mitigation
    hatchery in a report describing the significant positive impact rainbow
    trout production in the National Fish Hatchery System has on the U.S.
    economy.\6\ Moreover, the facility remains subject to the 1959 MOU,
    which specifically limits the USFWS's use and occupancy of the land on
    which the hatchery is located ``for the purpose of propagating trout.''
    \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USFWS, Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by the
    National Fish Hatchery System, at 5 (Jan. 2006).
        \4\ Government Accountability Office, National Fish Hatcheries,
    GAO/RCED-00-151, at 12 (June 2000).
        \5\ USFWS, Station Profile for Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery,
    at 1 (undated, circa 1991).
        \6\ USFWS, Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by the
    National Fish Hatchery System, at 7 and 9 (Jan. 2006).
        \7\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Memorandum of Understanding,
    at 2 (Apr. 24, 1959).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But now, after a half-century of operation, the USFWS has started
    referring to the Willow Beach facility as a ``non-mitigation
    hatchery.'' According to a February 14, 2014 letter from Mr. David
    Hoskins, Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation, to
    Senator John McCain, the Willow Beach facility ``was established as a
    non-mitigation hatchery to produce fish for Lake Mohave and other
    impoundments on the lower Colorado River system.'' Mohave County is
    perplexed by this revisionist history, and is concerned by its intent.
        Mohave County has patiently worked with the USFWS to try to
    understand this abrupt shift in operational strategy, but to no avail.
    The USFWS has not explained its authority for summarily dropping the
    rainbow trout program at Willow Beach. Nor has the agency explained how
    it prioritizes maintenance projects throughout the National Fish
    Hatchery System, or why it lacks sufficient funds to support the Willow
    Beach trout propagation program. The reason, we fear, is because the
    USFWS is getting out of the sport and recreational fish hatchery
    business altogether.
               national fish hatchery system--shifting priorities
        It is becoming increasingly clear that the USFWS's decision to
    shutter the trout propagation operations at the Willow Beach National
    Fish Hatchery is simply the first step in what appears to be an overall
    effort to retool the National Fish Hatchery System from a multi-purpose
    conservation, recreation and economic instrument into an endangered
    species breeding and recovery program. The USFWS released a report in
    March 2013 entitled the National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic
    Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report that de-prioritizes the use of
    the Nation's fish hatcheries for mitigation purposes related to native
    and non-native species. Instead, the USFWS intends to primarily use the
    hatcheries to recover and restore threatened and endangered species and
    address its tribal trust responsibilities. While these are certainly
    worthwhile objectives, Mohave County is struggling to understand how
    the USFWS can walk away from mitigation commitments made to offset
    impacts associated with Federal water development projects across the
    country. The agency is also walking away from its commitment
    (articulated in the March 2013 report) to wait until Fiscal Year 2015
    before closing down any particular fish hatchery operation, and to do
    so only after careful study. The Willow Beach experience clearly
    demonstrates that the USFWS has failed to live up to even that basic
    commitment.
                          willow beach--current status
        The trout propagation program at Willow Beach is still closed.
    Since learning of its closure, Mohave County has been trying to work in
    good faith with the USFWS to develop short- and long-term strategies
    for restoring and continuing the rainbow trout program consistent with
    its 52-year history. Initially, the USFWS rebuffed any meaningful
    dialog with Mohave County or other interested stakeholders, even after
    Mohave County shared its own engineering assessments and cost estimates
    for repairing the water delivery system that were remarkably less than
    the Federal estimates. That position changed somewhat after Mohave
    County provided testimony before a public witness hearing of the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on April 10, 2014. At that
    hearing, Mohave County expressed its concerns that the USFWS lacked the
    legal authority to ignore the mitigation commitments that spurred the
    original need for the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery. We also
    questioned whether the USFWS had complied with the National
    Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act before
    terminating the trout propagation program, \8\ or whether the National
    Park Service had amended its General Management Plan or its Lake
    Management Plan for the Lake Mead National Recreation Area to reflect
    the cessation of rainbow trout stocking activities.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ According to the National Park Service, ``rainbow trout are
    becoming increasingly significant as prey species for striped bass'' in
    Lake Mead and Lake Mohave. Final Environmental Impact Statement for
    Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan, at 111 (Dec.
    2002). Eliminate the trout, and striped bass are more likely to prey on
    bonytail chub or other endangered species in the region.
        \9\ The National Park Service specifically indicated in its
    Environmental Impact Statement for the current Lake Mead National
    Recreation Area Lake Management Plan that it would undertake a separate
    environmental analysis with other state and Federal agencies if rainbow
    trout stocking activities were ever discontinued in the future. Final
    Environmental Impact Statement for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
    Lake Management Plan, at 218 and 240 (Dec. 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since that time, the USFWS has worked with the Arizona Department
    of Game and Fish and Mohave County to evaluate both short- and long-
    term solutions for Willow Beach. In April 2014, Arizona Game and Fish
    committed to providing 21,000 six- to eight-inch trout to be reared at
    Willow Beach and released into the Colorado River below the Davis Dam
    this fall. The parties also recently gathered their engineers together
    to discuss long-term fixes for the broken water delivery system. At
    that meeting, Mohave County shared several engineering solutions for
    repairing the water delivery system that cost between $300,000 and
    $500,000 to implement, a far cry from the $3.0 to $9.0 million
    estimates the USFWS used to justify permanently shutting down the
    rainbow trout propagation program last fall. We are therefore hopeful
    that a short-term solution to the Willow Beach problem may be found,
    but we are not confident in the long-term viability of the hatchery.
    The USFWS has publicly stated its intent to shift the focus of all
    national fish hatcheries away from supporting recreational sport
    fishing. Without congressional intervention, the Willow Beach
    facility--like all other national fish hatcheries--will be at risk.
                            summary--enact h.r. 5026
        In summary, Mohave County fully supports the Fish Hatchery
    Protection Act. The Federal Government committed to mitigating for the
    impacts of Federal water resource development projects years ago by
    ensuring that recreational sport fisheries would be sustained post-
    construction through the National Fish Hatchery System. The USFWS has
    done an admirable job of operating that System for the past 50 years,
    but has recently changed the fundamental goals and priorities for the
    System under the guise of limited funding. Congress should decide
    whether and how to modify the public's goals and objectives for the
    National Fish Hatchery System, not the executive agency charged with
    its administration. H.R. 5026 would ensure that Congress maintains that
    authority.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Angius. Ms. Pata, you are now
    recognized for 5 minutes to present your testimony on H.R. 3109
    on behalf of the Sealaska Corporation.

     STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE PATA, VICE CHAIR, SEALASKA CORPORATION

        Ms. Pata. [Gives greeting in Tlingit language.] Chairman
    and Ranking Member and members of the committee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jacqueline Johnson
    Pata and my Tlingit name is Kuseen. I am a Raven from the
    Lukaax.adi Clan from the Raven House in Haines, Alaska. I am
    also the vice chair of the Sealaska Corporation that was
    created by Congress to implement the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act and holds a portion of our aboriginal land in
    southeast Alaska.
        Native Alaskans have used migratory birds and birds' parts,
    including feathers, for thousands of years in the making of our
    traditional regalia, our tools and handicrafts such as our
    masks, our garments, our jewelry, our clothing, our dance
    regalia, our fans and rattles, and hunting equipment, such as
    our spears and arrows. And for just as long as we have made
    these crafts and these tools, we have bartered them, traded
    them and sold them as Alaskan Natives in sustainable fashion.
    In fact, our protocol does not allow us to make them for
    ourselves, but we have to have someone from the opposite clan
    make them for them, and then repay them for whatever it is that
    we are purchasing, in white man's terms, purchasing from them.
        I believe there are misconceptions about the use of
    migratory bird parts and erroneous assumptions that convey a
    false impression that this amendment will facilitate an
    exponential growth in the use of migratory bird parts. In fact,
    this is just simply not true. Let me begin by sharing with you
    that our cultural values guide us on our land use and our
    resources.
        Indigenous peoples have lived in our homelands for over
    10,000 years, and our core cultural values ensure our economic
    sustainability for the future generations. Those culture values
    include Haa Aani, which speaks both to our land use and how we
    respect our land and our resources and Haa Shuka. Haa Shuka
    establishes links between us and the current generation and our
    ancestors that dictate our responsibilities and our survival of
    the future generations.
        These cultural protocols have ensured sustainability for
    thousands of years and have been in place prior to the
    unregulated commercial harvest of migratory birds that led to
    the near extinction of migratory bird populations.
        I would like to offer you some examples of our use of
    migratory bird parts and feathers. And I believe in my written
    testimony I submitted pictures for the testimony.
        But our shaakee.at is a headdress, a headdress that uses a
    few flicker feathers. And in the one that was talked about
    earlier from Congressman Don Young, the shaakee.at also had
    raven feathers, which does not, as you can well note, does not
    constitute a massive use of bird parts.
        There are less than 500 traditional artists, with less than
    fewer of those, much less than fewer of those, that actually
    produce those same kind of products or hats that we use the
    feathers. So we do not anticipate unchecked growth in the use
    of bird parts.
        I also offer you another photo, which is a rattle with
    puffin beaks. And the puffin beaks are traditionally gathered
    after the Puffins naturally shed them following their mating
    season, a sustainable use that does not threaten the
    population.
        Alaskan Natives are not looking to commercialize the use of
    feathers but rather to continue a tradition of culture that
    respects our ancient cultural values of trade and the
    principles of conservation that allows a small number of
    Alaskan Native artists, who have fashioned painstakingly with
    great skill, art, handicrafts and clothing in the footsteps of
    those who came before them.
        For us, it is really a benefit twofold: Alaskan Natives can
    revitalize a suppressed cultural practice in an art form whilst
    simultaneously allowing for the sale of these handicrafts,
    which is a vital source of modest income, which we can purchase
    a few basic human needs, such as heating fuel of the villages
    of Alaska. Our communities are economically depressed and
    suffer the highest unemployment and poverty rates in the
    country.
        All we are asking through H.R. 3109 is to be able to begin
    to help ourselves in a very small way by providing a modest
    income to the severely impoverished communities and traditions.
        So I just want to speak real quickly in closing to the
    comment that you said earlier about the Migratory Co-Management
    Council. There are 12 members of the Council, as you noted. All
    10 of the Native members agree with this. The two others were
    the Federal Government that did not support the provision. And
    I want to let you know that they have made an agreement that
    they only put forward recommendations that they unanimously
    consent to. So therefore we need this bill to move forward and
    not wait for the recommendations to come from the Migratory
    Bird Co-Management Council.
        Thank you. Gunulcheesh.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pata follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Ms. Jacqueline Pata, Vice Chair, Sealaska
                            Corporation on H.R. 3109
                                  introduction
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on a bill that has great
    significance for Alaska Natives.
        My name is Jackie Johnson Pata and my Tlingit name is Kuseen. I am
    Raven of the Lukaax.adi Sockeye clan and the Raven House in Haines,
    Alaska. I am also the Vice Chair of Sealaska Corporation that was
    created by Congress to implement the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act and that holds a portion of our aboriginal land base in Southeast
    Alaska.
        Alaska Natives have used migratory birds and bird parts, including
    feathers, for thousands of years in the making of traditional
    handicrafts such as masks, garments, jewelry, clothing and dance
    regalia (fans, hats rattles), and hunting equipment such as spears and
    arrows. For just as long, these items have been bartered, traded, and
    sold by Alaska Natives in a sustainable fashion.
        I believe that there are many misconceptions about the use of
    migratory bird parts and erroneous assumptions that convey a false
    impression that this amendment will facilitate an exponential growth in
    the use of migratory bird parts or feathers. This is simply untrue.
        First, let me begin by sharing with you our cultural values that
    guide the use of our land and resources. Indigenous Peoples have lived
    in our homeland for more than 10,000 years, and our core cultural
    values ensure cultural and economic sustainability for future
    generations. Those cultural values include Haa Aani that speaks to both
    using our land while respecting our land and resources. Haa Shuka
    establishes links between the current generation and our ancestors and
    it dictates our responsibility for the survival of future generations.
    These cultural protocols have ensured sustainability for thousands of
    years and have been in place prior to the unregulated commercial
    harvest of migratory birds that led to the near extinction of the
    migratory bird populations.
        I would like to offer you some examples of our use of migratory
    bird parts and feathers in a collection of images that I have submitted
    with my testimony. The first photo is of a shaakee.at or hat, which as
    you can see does not constitute a massive use of bird parts. With less
    than 500 traditional artists and a fewer number within our tribe who
    produce objects or hats that use feathers, we do not anticipate an
    unchecked growth in the use of bird parts. I also offer you another
    photo of a rattle with puffin beaks. Puffin beaks are traditionally
    gathered each year after the puffins naturally shed them following
    their mating season--a sustainable use that does not threaten the
    population.
        Alaska Native people are not looking to commercialize the use of
    feathers, but rather, to continue a tradition and culture that respects
    our ancient cultural values and the principles of conservation and
    allows a small number of Alaska Native artists, who have fashioned
    painstakingly and with great skill, art, handicrafts and clothing in
    the footsteps of those who came before them. For us, the benefits are
    two-fold. Alaska Natives can revitalize a suppressed cultural practice
    and art form while simultaneously allowing the sale of these
    handicrafts as a vital source of a modest income with which we can
    purchase a few of the basic human needs such as heating fuel or baby
    formula.
        Our communities are economically depressed and suffer the highest
    unemployment and poverty rates in the country. All that we are asking
    through H.R. 3109 is to be able to begin helping ourselves in a very
    small way by providing a modest income to severely impoverished
    communities through a traditional means.
        Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of a law.
    However, in reality, we were not aware that we could not sell arts with
    feathers until one of my fellow tribal members was cited for creating
    and attempting to sell two Tlingit clan hats one of which is featured
    in the photograph I've shared with you. It underscored that our culture
    and the future of our arts were in jeopardy. We then advanced language
    to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to allow for the use of
    non-edible bird products in Alaska Native handicrafts.
        It is germane to this discussion to know that this amendment
    parallels the Marine Mammal Protection Act exemption for Alaska Native
    handicrafts. The MMPA ``Native Handicraft exemption'' was previously
    supported and recognized by Congress as being ``morally bound to
    respect the traditions and lifestyle of these people'' and that by
    ``stripping these rights from them, they will face the certain fate of
    cultural extinction.''
        We find it disheartening that the MBTA and subsequent regulations
    were certain to preserve the rights under 50 CFR 20.91 to make and sell
    pillows, blankets or fishing flies:

            ``any person may possess, purchase, sell, barter, or transport
            for the making of fishing flies, bed pillows, and mattresses,
            and for similar commercial uses the feathers of migratory
            waterfowl (ducks, geese, brant, and swans) killed by hunting
            pursuant to this part, or seized and condemned by Federal or
            state game authorities . . .''

        Unfortunately, protecting Alaska Native culture and its utilization
    of migratory bird feathers and parts was less important in 1918.
        We understand that FWS proposes to delay action on this bill citing
    work with the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. I would like
    to point out that all Alaska Native members of the Council, 10 of the
    total 12 members support this amendment. The other two represent the
    Federal and state government. The Council's protocols require unanimous
    consent on any action or position which served to deter expression of a
    formal position on this amendment.
        This amendment is consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
    and with our national policies and laws that support cultural diversity
    and tribal self-determination. This bill would allow Native people to
    practice their tradition and provide a modest income without the fear
    that they will be suffering the consequences of a law that currently
    undermines their culture and livelihood.
        Let us amend this archaic and discriminatory law and allow this
    important cultural and artistic use by Alaska Native artists. We urge
    you to support this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony on this important legislation.
        Gunulcheesh Aan yatgu sani. Thank you Noble People.
                                   background
        The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) implements four
    international treaties that the United States holds with Canada,
    Russia, Japan, and Mexico. These treaties call for the conservation of
    protected species and groups of birds they cover. The MBTA prohibits
    the take of protected bird species, including, in part, to kill,
    capture, pursue, sell, transport, trade, or barter. In this way, the
    statute broadly covers the somewhat divergent requirements of the four
    treaties.
        With the exception of the treaty with Japan, the treaties have been
    interpreted to provide for regulated subsistence take of protected
    birds by Canada and Alaskan Natives. The Mexico treaty provides more
    broadly that the parties will establish ``close seasons'' for take,
    sale, and transport of protected birds. The treaty with Russia provides
    that the parties will establish laws to govern any exemption to its
    prohibitions.
        The treaty with Canada provides that seasons may be established for
    subsistence harvest of birds, eggs, and down by indigenous inhabitants
    of Alaska (meaning Alaska Natives and permanent resident non-natives
    with legitimate subsistence hunting needs living in designated
    subsistence hunting areas). The 1996 revised Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee Protocol for the treaty with Canada further states that
    ``Sale of these items is not permitted, except for limited sale of non-
    edible by-products of birds taken for nutritional purposes incorporated
    into authentic articles of handicraft. The harvest of such items must
    be consistent with `customary and traditional uses' of indigenous
    inhabitants for their `nutritional and other essential needs'.''
        The Protocols thus allow for a subsistence harvest of migratory
    birds and the limited sale of items made with their parts by Alaska
    Natives, however in implementing the treaties through the MBTA,
    Congress only allowed the subsistence hunt. Consequently, the non-
    edible parts are discarded, despite the provisions negotiated into the
    Protocols to allow their sale.
        The United States negotiated Protocols amending the Canadian and
    Mexican treaties to allow for a spring/summer subsistence harvest of
    migratory birds by Alaska Natives for their nutritional, social,
    cultural, spiritual, ecological, economic and aesthetic values. Current
    regulations governing the Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska,
    however, prohibit the sale or purchase of migratory bird parts,
    including feathers and parts of birds taken for subsistence. 50 CFR
    Sec. 92.6. Alaska Natives are allowed to harvest migratory birds for
    food, but are prohibited from using any non-edible part from these same
    birds for any other purpose, including the creation of traditional
    handicrafts, tools, or clothing. There are no exceptions to the
    prohibition on sale, not even for the use of dead birds found in the
    wilderness.
                    precedent and impact of changing the law
        There is precedent for changing the law. The Bald and Gold Eagle
    Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits killing, possessing, or selling bald
    and golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg,
    unless allowed by permit. 16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22. Native American
    Religious Purposes Permits and Native American Eagle Aviary Permits are
    available for various religious activities. Bald and gold eagles are
    also covered by the MBTA, but through the BGEPA and enacting
    regulations, Native Americans are able to continue traditional
    religious practices that use the parts of those birds.
        The BGEPA recognized the specific and important cultural needs of
    Native Americans and expressly allowed for those continued activities
    contrary to one of the four international treaties.
        Exemptions also exist in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to allow Alaska Natives to continue
    their subsistence practices and associated use of by-products for
    handicrafts and art. The ESA at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1539(e) states that it
    does not apply to the non-wasteful taking or importation of endangered
    or threatened species by Alaska Natives for subsistence, and that non-
    edible byproducts of the species taken pursuant to this section may be
    sold in interstate commerce when made into authentic Native articles of
    handicrafts and clothing. The MMPA contains much the same language in
    its exception for Alaska Natives at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1371(b).
                                   conclusion
        The creation of art, handicrafts and clothing from non-edible parts
    of migratory birds by Alaska Natives is a customary and traditional use
    of these parts. It is also an essential need for many Alaska Natives
    and incorporates indigenous knowledge, institutions and practices.
    Indeed, it is ingrained into many of our cultures not to waste any part
    of an animal.
        Providing such an exemption would have no significant impact on the
    migratory bird population because currently the feathers and bird parts
    of migratory birds taken for subsistence are discarded. The exemption
    would prevent the waste of these by-products.
        The possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipping, and transporting
    of authentic Alaskan Native articles of handicraft, clothing or art
    that contains migratory bird parts is consistent with the treaties for
    the conservation of migratory birds.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Pata. Thank you for your
    testimony. Mr. Schmidt, before I introduce you, I have some
    other introductions I want to make and then a video. I want to
    recognize my good friend, Skipper Dickson, who is here today
    from my district, a good friend of mine.
        Also his brothers, Mark and Paul live and work in our
    district. They are noted sportsmen, particularly when it comes
    to migratory fowl. They are sixth generation Dicksons that
    settled in the Shreveport area beginning as early as the early
    1800s. They are lifelong members of Ducks Unlimited. They
    operate two businesses, one of which caters to the needs of our
    Nation's sportsmen. And they are true champions of the field of
    wildlife conservation, as I said.
        And, Skipper, I appreciate your leadership on this, on this
    important issue. And I welcome you here today, although I know
    you are no stranger to Washington, DC. You are up here often to
    advocate for the important conservation issues that you and
    your brothers are so interested in.
        It is also my understanding that Mr. Schmidt has a short
    video. So why don't you go ahead and show that video, and then
    we will get back to your testimony and your introduction.
        [Video of Mr. Dale Hall, Chief Executive Officer, Ducks
    Unlimited.]
        Mr. Hall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Dale Hall, and I am the CEO of Ducks
    Unlimited. And I am pleased to lend our full support for
    passage of H.R. 5069, to increase the price of the Duck Stamp
    from $15 to $25, with the increase dedicated to the purchase of
    willing seller conservation easements.
        I want to thank Chairman Fleming for your leadership and
    the bipartisan support of cosponsors.
        The Duck Stamp was born during the Depression and the Dust
    Bowl, asked for by hundreds of conservationists to do what
    needed to be done for habitat. At that time, it was only $1 but
    a lot has been done with the Duck Stamp, a wonderful example of
    the North American Model of Wildlife Management.
        Wetlands and grasslands provide a myriad of ecosystem
    benefits, from flood damage reduction to water purification, to
    habitat for hundreds of species. The price of the Duck Stamp
    has not been increased since 1991 while land values have
    tripled. Current buying power has never been this low. Ninety-
    eight cents out of every Duck Stamp dollar go directly to on-
    the-ground conservation.
        Over 30 conservation and hunting organizations have signed
    a letter in support of this $10 increase. Ducks Unlimited is
    committed to working with Congress to pass H.R. 5069, and we
    urge expeditious and favorable committee action to report it to
    the House Floor.
        Once again, I want to thank you for your leadership and
    support of this wonderful endeavor.
        [End of video.]
        Dr. Fleming. And that is Ducks Unlimited's chief executive
    officer, the Honorable Dale Hall. And we appreciate his words
    today on that.
        So back to Commissioner Schmidt. As someone who has
    dedicated his life to wildlife conservation in both the Fish
    and Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlimited, I am pleased to
    recognize you for 5 minutes to present your testimony on H.R.
    5069.
        So you now have 5 minutes, sir.

     STATEMENT OF PAUL SCHMIDT, CHIEF CONSERVATION OFFICER, DUCKS
                               UNLIMITED

        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
    be here and see you again and other members of the committee.
    We appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 5069 today,
    the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. And we appreciate your
    leadership in sponsoring it, along with your bipartisan
    cosponsors in both the House and the Senate, a Senate version.
    We applaud both and hope for its quick passage.
        The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp has been
    a critically important tool used to benefit migratory bird
    populations over the last eight decades for habitat
    conservation on refuges. And Ducks Unlimited strongly supports
    this bill to continue the success of the program.
        Since 1934, sportsmen and women have led the way to
    conserve critical habitat through the purchase of these stamps.
    The bill will increase the price of the stamp from $15 to $25,
    and will dedicate the amount of the increase to voluntary
    conservation easements with landowners. During the 23-year
    period, the price has been flat at $15. The conservation buying
    power has diminished greatly.
        As in the past, waterfowl hunters and passionate
    conservationists are willing to take the lead. Further, in
    today's economy and increasing pressures on land use,
    conservation success will depend upon a mixture of public lands
    and private land conservation. Easements provide an invaluable
    tool that allows landowners to retain ownership, manage the
    land for their objectives but provide conservation benefits to
    the public.
        Easements are already a component of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System, and DU welcomes the opportunity to further
    facilitate the delivery of these voluntary, incentive-based
    conservation on private lands. Thus, keeping working lands
    working for the landowner and for the conservation.
        Founded by waterfowl hunters and conservationists in 1937,
    DU has more than a million members and supporters and is the
    world leader in wetlands conservation. Duck hunters and other
    conservationists rallied, urging Congress to pass the Migratory
    Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act in 1934. What this
    program has done for waterfowl and other wildlife since is one
    of the greatest success stories of this country.
        Yet, despite significant conservation achievements, we
    continue to lose wetlands at an alarming rate. The program is a
    model of conservation and public and private partnership. These
    refuges and waterfowl production areas not only benefit
    migratory birds but also hundreds of other fish and wildlife
    species. In addition, wetlands restored and protected on these
    lands provide clean water, mitigate floods, buffer storm
    surges, reduce soil erosion and a host of other benefits for
    our Nation.
        Today, the Duck Stamp program remains a vital component of
    the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, which keeps
    wildlife in the public domain while promoting responsible use,
    ethical hunting and science-based management.
        Funding for wildlife conservation in the United States is
    predicated on a user pay/user benefit model, based on receipts
    from hunting and fishing licenses and stamps. But in reality,
    the Federal Duck Stamp Program is a user pay/public benefit.
    And to me that is a great success story. So while hunters and
    wildlife enthusiasts are paying to benefit wildlife, the public
    is benefiting for goods and services derived from that
    conservation.
        For decades, DU has partnered with the Service to conserve
    and restore wetlands on refuges across the country. Many of
    these areas are crucial to the objectives of the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan. DU looks forward to bringing this
    expertise to working with landowners to further wetlands
    conservation. By leveraging these dollars with DU, they use
    private funds and public resources, such as the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act, DU and its partners were able to
    protect almost 70,000 acres in North and South Dakota last year
    alone. Today, substantial demands exist among agriculture
    producers to enroll in these voluntary conservation programs.
        Unfortunately, the buying power of the stamp has never been
    lower because its price has not been raised since 1991. This is
    the longest period in history without a price increase.
    Meanwhile, land costs have tripled and wildlife habitat needs
    have continued to increase. Many hunting and wildlife
    conservation organizations have joined with us in signing a
    letter in support of this legislation.
        We thank the Chairman and this subcommittee for their
    commitment to the wetlands and waterfowl conservation. The
    Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014 will secure vital habitat for
    generations of waterfowl hunters and wildlife enthusiasts to
    come.
        On behalf of Ducks Unlimited's more than one million
    supporters, we pledge our commitment and our support to work
    with you to enact H.R. 5069. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Paul Schmidt, Chief Conservation Officer, Ducks
                          Unlimited, Inc. on H.R. 5069
        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Paul Schmidt. I
    am the Chief Conservation Officer for Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU). Prior
    to joining DU in May 2011, I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (Service) for 33 years. For the last six of those years, I was
    the agency's Assistant Director for Migratory Birds, overseeing all
    activities related to the management of migratory birds.

        We are grateful for the opportunity to testify regarding the
    Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014 and appreciate the chairman's
    sponsorship of H.R. 5069 with several bipartisan co-sponsors. We
    applaud the introduction of a Senate bipartisan companion bill,
    reflecting broad support for this important legislation.

        The Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp has been a
    critically important tool used to benefit migratory bird populations
    over the last eight decades through the dedication of its receipts for
    habitat conservation on national wildlife refuges, and DU strongly
    supports H.R. 5069 to continue the success of this program. Since 1934,
    sportsmen and women have led the way to conserve critical migratory
    bird habitat across the country through the purchase of these stamps.

        H.R. 5069 will increase the price of the stamp to $25 from its
    current level of $15 and will dedicate the amount of the price increase
    to voluntary conservation easements with private landowners. Ducks
    Unlimited strongly endorses this long overdue price increase, which
    hasn't occurred in over 23 years. During this same period, land prices
    have tripled, our conservation buying power has diminished greatly, and
    virtually all consumer goods from a loaf of bread (70 cents to $1.38;
    97 percent increase) to a gallon of gas ($1.24 to $3.27; 163 percent
    increase) have increased dramatically. Simply stated, we need to raise
    the price of the stamp merely to keep up with the times, and waterfowl
    hunters and passionate conservationists are willing to take the lead.

        Further, in today's economy and with increasing pressures on land
    use, wildlife habitat conservation success will depend on the
    appropriate mix of public lands as national wildlife refuges in
    conjunction with conservation on private lands. Conservation easements
    provide an invaluable tool that allows landowners to retain ownership,
    continue to meet their individual land management objectives, and
    provide conservation benefits to the public. Conservation easements are
    already used appropriately as a component of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System, and DU welcomes this opportunity to further facilitate
    landowners' involvement in the delivery of voluntary incentive-based
    habitat conservation on private lands, thus keeping working lands
    working for the landowner and for conservation.

        Founded by waterfowl hunters and conservationists in 1937, DU has
    more than 1 million members and supporters and is a world leader in
    wetlands conservation. We work in all 50 states and across the
    continent to further our science-based mission of conserving,
    restoring, and managing wetlands and associated habitats for North
    America's waterfowl, as well as for the benefits these resources
    provide to other wildlife and to all Americans.

        During the early 1930s, the most devastating drought in U.S.
    history was turning vital wetlands into barren wastelands and
    decimating duck populations. It was the worst of times for ducks, and
    the bleakest of times for duck hunters and people concerned about the
    landscape. Hunters had seen duck numbers decline steadily since the
    turn of the 20th century, but the situation had never been so dire.
    Something had to be done--and fast--to save waterfowl. Duck hunters and
    their allies rallied, urging Congress to pass the Migratory Bird
    Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, popularly known as the Duck Stamp
    Act, in 1934. What this program has done for waterfowl and other
    wildlife since is one of the greatest conservation success stories of
    all time. Yet, despite significant conservation achievements, we still
    continue to lose wetlands at an alarming rate. According to a recent
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, an estimated 74,340 acres of
    wetlands were lost in the U.S. portion of the Prairie Pothole Region
    alone between 1997 and 2009--and once again, we as duck hunters and
    conservationists must stand up and do our part, and increasing the
    price of the Federal Duck Stamp is one important step.

        This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Federal Duck Stamp.
    Since its enactment, this landmark initiative has generated over 900
    million dollars--paid for and supported by waterfowl hunters, refuge
    visitors, conservationists, and stamp collectors--to conserve more than
    6 million acres of wetlands across the United States. The program is a
    model of conservation, public-private partnerships and government
    efficiency. Approximately 98 cents out of every duck stamp dollar is
    spent to acquire or lease lands for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. These refuges and waterfowl production areas not only benefit
    migratory birds but also hundreds of other fish and wildlife species.
    In addition, wetlands restored and protected on these lands provide
    clean water, mitigate floods, buffer storm surges, reduce soil erosion,
    and offer a host of other benefits for our Nation.

        Today, the Federal Duck Stamp Program remains a vital component of
    the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which keeps wildlife
    in the public domain while promoting responsible use, ethical hunting,
    and science-based management. Funding for wildlife conservation in the
    United States is predicated on a user-pay/user-benefit model based on
    receipts from hunting and fishing licenses and stamps, but in reality,
    the Federal Duck Stamp Program is a user-pay/public-benefits program.
    So while hunters and wildlife enthusiasts are paying through stamp
    purchases to benefit waterfowl and other wildlife, the public is
    benefiting from goods and services derived from wetlands conservation.

        For decades, Ducks Unlimited has partnered with the Service to
    conserve and restore wetlands on national wildlife refuges across the
    country. Many of these areas are crucial to DU's continental and
    regional conservation goals and to the objectives of the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan and other continental bird plans. Ducks
    Unlimited looks forward to bringing its expertise in working with
    private landowners through conservation easements to realizing
    opportunities provided by H.R. 5069 to further wetlands conservation
    within the refuge system.

        For example, much of DU's work with the Service is focused on the
    Prairie Pothole Region, where Federal Duck Stamp dollars are used to
    purchase or lease critical wetland and grassland easements from willing
    landowners. In Fiscal Year 2014, it is estimated that more than $53
    million in public and private partner funds will be invested in the
    Prairie Pothole Region to protect these vital waterfowl breeding areas,
    including nearly $34 million (64 percent) in Federal Duck Stamp
    funding. By leveraging these dollars with other DU private funds and
    public resources from popular programs like the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, DU and its
    partners were able to protect 68,554 acres in North Dakota and South
    Dakota last year. Since 1997, this partnership between DU and the
    Service has protected approximately 1.6 million acres of some of the
    best waterfowl breeding habitat in North America. Today, substantial
    demand exists among agricultural producers to enroll in these voluntary
    conservation programs. We understand from discussions with the Service
    that more than 1,300 farmers and ranchers (reflecting over 390,000
    potential acres) across the Dakotas are on a waiting list wanting to
    receive an easement offer from the Service. An increase in the Federal
    Duck Stamp would help address this demand and a portion of this
    substantial backlog (with an estimated value of $340 million) of
    willing landowners who want to enroll in the program.

        The Mississippi Alluvial Valley, another DU conservation priority,
    is home to a number of national wildlife refuges, including Grand Cote
    National Wildlife Refuge. Located in Avoyelles Parish near Marksville,
    Louisiana, this refuge was established with funds from the Federal Duck
    Stamp Program in 1989. Since then, DU and other partners have worked
    with the Service to restore 6,000 acres of wetlands and associated
    upland habitat on the refuge to provide important wintering habitat for
    waterfowl and recreational opportunities for duck hunters and other
    outdoor enthusiasts.

        In the Great Lakes region, DU continues to enhance and restore
    vital wetlands on a number of national wildlife refuges purchased with
    Federal Duck Stamp dollars. A prime example is Ottawa National Wildlife
    Refuge, located in northwest Ohio on the shore of Lake Erie. Ducks
    Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and the Service are leveraging Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative grants to enhance about 2,500 acres of
    coastal wetlands in this marsh complex to provide vital feeding and
    resting habitat for waterfowl during spring and fall migration.

        The duck stamp's conservation impact also extends west to the
    Pacific Flyway, where Federal funds are helping restore wetlands in the
    Central Valley of California. Located in the Sacramento Valley, Colusa
    National Wildlife Refuge comprises 5,000 acres and supports as many as
    234,000 ducks and 133,000 geese during fall and winter. Over the years,
    DU has worked closely with the Service to enhance more than half the
    refuge's wetland habitat, including 388 acres of wetlands and adjacent
    uplands recently purchased thanks to Federal Duck Stamp dollars. DU and
    the Service are also currently working on plans to restore habitat on a
    parcel of land recently acquired through the Federal Duck Stamp
    Program.

        Unfortunately, the conservation buying power of the Migratory Bird
    Hunting and Conservation Stamp has never been lower because its price
    has not been raised since 1991. This 23-year lapse is the longest in
    the program's history without a price increase to keep up with
    inflation. Meanwhile, land costs have tripled, and wildlife habitat
    needs have continued to increase, while the Federal Duck Stamp has lost
    40 percent of its conservation buying power. This decline in the
    stamp's buying power is a step backward for wetland and waterfowl
    conservation. More than 30 hunting and wildlife conservation
    organizations--ranging from Ducks Unlimited to the National Rifle
    Association--have signed a letter supporting the price increase from
    $15 to $25. This letter is attached for the committee record.

        We thank the Chairman and this committee for your commitment to
    wetlands and waterfowl conservation. The Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014
    will secure vital habitat for generations of waterfowl hunters and
    wildlife enthusiasts to come. On behalf of DU's more than 1 million
    supporters, we pledge our commitment and support to work with you to
    enact H.R. 5069.

    Attachment

                                   ATTACHMENT

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     __

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Thank you for your
    work. Mr. Cornell, you are recognized for 5 minutes to present
    your testimony on H.R. 3409 and H.R. 5069 on behalf of the
    Friends of Brazoria Wildlife Refuges.

    STATEMENT OF MARTIN CLIFFORD CORNELL III, GRANT ADMINISTRATOR,
                  FRIENDS OF BRAZORIA WILDLIFE REFUGES

        Mr. Cornell. Good morning. I am Marty Cornell, a retired
    Dow Chemical scientist and now the volunteer grant
    administrator and member of the board of the Friends of
    Brazoria Wildlife Refuges. I am here today in the latter
    capacity.
        Friends, a tax-exempt organization, acquires funds through
    grants, gifts and fundraising to support a variety of
    activities within the Texas Mid-Coast National Wildlife Refuge
    Complex, located about an hour and a half south of Houston,
    Texas.
        Over 36 percent of these funds have supported land
    acquisition discovery activities to streamline the Service's
    process of acquiring tracts of property. I very much appreciate
    the opportunity to speak to this subcommittee on the negative
    impacts that H.R. 3409 would have on our local refuges.
        Because of its unique location and ecology, along the Texas
    Gulf Coast, the Complex is home to over 100 species of resident
    birds and more than 200 species of non-resident migrating
    birds, totaling over 29 million individuals. Most of these
    birds are attracted to our area because of our old growth
    hardwood forest, known as the Columbia Bottomlands, which
    provides food, water and shelter for travel-weary migrants.
        Over 75,000 visitors enjoy the refuges each year for
    wildlife observation, photography, duck hunting and fishing.
    This activity provides an annual economic boost of over $118
    million to our local economy.
        In 1997, concern over the rapid destruction of the Columbia
    Bottomlands ecosystem led to a coordinated effort by government
    agencies, including Texas Parks and Wildlife, private
    landowners and conservation organizations, to preserve enough
    of this forest to sustain its bio-diversity on which resident
    and migratory birds depend. It is believed that 70,000 acres or
    just 10 percent of its original expanse would provide this
    insurance. Since then, more than 33,000 acres have been
    acquired by the Service from donors and willing sellers.
        Non-profit organizations, like the Trust for Public Land,
    often purchases and holds land until the Service completes due
    diligence and secures funding for acquisition. These non-
    profits provide elasticity to accommodate the timing needs of
    the seller and the funding constraints of the buyer. The result
    is a process that is steadily moving toward the goal of
    conserving a sustainable amount of forest ahead of urban
    encroachment as metropolitan Houston moves south.
        It is noteworthy that 61.1 percent of the funds for the
    acquisition of this land came from the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund, Duck Stamp money, thank you Paul--16.6
    percent of the cost of the land purchase came from private
    grants and 14.9 percent represents the appraised value of
    donated tracts of land. That totals 92.5 percent. Only 7.5
    percent of the cost of acquisition came from direct
    congressional appropriation via the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund.
        Industrial and private landowner neighbors of the Complex
    appreciate the value of our natural ecosystems. And over the
    years, many have offered to donate or sell property to the
    Service. One recent example is the 338-acre tract of
    Bottomlands Forest, appraised at $1.8 million, donated by the
    Dow Chemical Company, our county's largest employer. Today, the
    Dow Woods Unit of the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge,
    which is solely contained within the confines of the city of
    Lake Jackson, Texas, is an urban refuge. It enjoyed over 4,500
    visitors last year.
        If H.R. 3409 is enacted, expansions like the Dow Woods,
    would require a time-consuming, cumbersome and likely deal-
    killing Act of Congress.
        Currently, the Complex is working on the acquisition of
    over 21,000 additional acres, bringing us closer to our goal.
    If enacted, H.R. 3409 would essentially halt the process of
    preserving this critical hardwood wetland forest and threaten
    the dwindling population of migrating songbirds who depend on
    it.
        The bottom line is that H.R. 3409 is a blunt instrument.
    Congressional oversight is already provided by the Migratory
    Bird Conservation Act, which funds most of our refuge land
    acquisition programs. For these reasons, I respectfully request
    that H.R. 3409 be rejected by this subcommittee and by the
    House of Representatives.
        I thank you for your time.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cornell follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Martin C. Cornell, Grant Administrator, Friends
            of Brazoria Wildlife Refuges on H.R. 3409 and H.R. 5069
        Good morning. I am Marty Cornell. I retired 12 years ago after 35
    years as a scientist for The Dow Chemical Company, and since then I
    have been an active volunteer and member of the board of the Friends of
    Brazoria Wildlife Refuges (Friends).\1\ I am here today in that latter
    capacity, where I serve as Grant Administrator. In that role, I apply,
    administer, and report on a constant flow of grants and gifts to
    support three National Wildlife Refuges located along the mid-coast of
    Texas; the Brazoria, San Bernard, and Big Boggy National Wildlife
    Refuges. These three refuges are administered by the Texas Mid-coast
    National Wildlife Refuge Complex (TMCNWRC).\2\ Many of these grants and
    gifts are targeted to support the acquisition of tracts of land for the
    San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge (SBNWR). I shall be using the
    experience of the San Bernard NWR to frame our case regarding the Bill
    H.R. 3409.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.refugefriends.org/.
        \2\ http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/texasmidcoast/
    index.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to this
    subcommittee on the negative impacts that would occur to the Land
    Protection Plan of the San Bernard NWR if the Bill, H.R. 3409, known as
    the National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act of 2013, were to
    become law.
        First, some orientation is in order. Starting in 1996, the
    Department of the Interior, under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS), began acquiring land in Brazoria County, Texas, because this
    region along the Gulf coast, with our coastal shores, bays, estuaries,
    prairies, and riparian forests, is an ideal habitat for wildlife,
    especially for resident and migrating birds.
        Of special importance are the bayous, streams, and three major
    rivers in Brazoria and neighboring Matagorda County that empty into the
    Gulf of Mexico, the Brazos, San Bernard, and Colorado Rivers. These
    rivers and streams support old growth hardwood forests that provide
    shelter, food, and water for native and migrating wildlife. Named
    Austin's Woods or the Columbia Bottomlands Forest, this land is the
    southernmost riparian forest along the Gulf Coast of the United States
    (Figure 1). It is an oasis, separated from other coastal forests by
    vast expanses of prairie, farmland, and urban areas.

          Figure 1. Strategic location of the wildlife refuges of the
                Texas Mid-coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Prior to European settlement, these forests and wetlands
    consisted of about 700,000 acres. Their location and size attracted
    Nearctic and Neotropical migrating birds, and became ingrained in their
    instinctive migration routes. Today, millions of birds make this trek
    through the Columbian Bottomlands forests, many taking the 600-mile
    path from Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula over the Gulf of Mexico to the
    Columbia Bottomlands Forest, where they find safe haven (Figure 2).
    This pattern is dramatically shown on Figure 3 in the Doppler radar
    image taken in February, 2006, with massive flocks nearing our
    coastline, and other birds, having rested and refreshed, continuing
    their journey north to breeding grounds.
         Figure 2. Spring northern migration pathways pass through the
                          Columbia Bottomland Forests

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 3. Doppler radar of the northern spring migration of
        Nearctic and Neotropical birds through the Columbia Bottomland
                      forests. Dr. Sidney Gauthreaux, Jr.
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsBecause of our unique location and ecology, we are blessed to
    have over 100 species of resident birds, and in 1997 counted 237
    species of non-resident birds, totaling over 29 million individuals,
    migrating through our forests. During migration, bottomland hardwood
    forests are particularly valuable to a large variety of warblers,
    vireos, thrushes, tanagers, buntings, goatsuckers, and other forest
    birds that seek out forest resources after a long flight to recuperate
    and refuel. In Mississippi, research has demonstrated that Neotropical
    migrants using coastal forests are found in increasing abundance with
    increasing density of forest trees and increasing numbers of insects in
    forest understories.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Jeffrey J. Buler, Frank R. Moore, and Stefan Woltmann 2007. A
    Multi-Scale Examination of Stopover Habitat Use by Birds. Ecology
    88:1789-1802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-1871.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This makes southern Brazoria County and our refuges a Mecca for
    birders from all over the world. A 2011 survey by the USFWS estimated
    that one million people ventured away from home to observe wildlife in
    Texas and spent $1.8 billion in the process.\4\ Over 75,000 visitors
    enjoy our three refuges each year, including over 32,000 who cite
    wildlife observation as the attraction for touring the San Bernard and
    Brazoria National Wildlife Refuges. Additionally, 3,400 visitors hunt
    migrating waterfowl during the hunting season and an estimated 30,000
    fishermen enjoy the bays and estuaries of the complex; 70 percent of
    them by boat. Using the expenditure per person ratio from the 2011
    USFWS survey, this equates to $1,800 per person in direct and trickle
    down impact, or $118 million per year for the ecotourism on our
    refuges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau; 2011
    National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
    Recreation--Texas; https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-tx.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are also fortunate that southern Brazoria County and the
    adjoining Matagorda, Fort Bend, and Wharton counties remain largely
    rural, despite being as close as a 1-hour drive from Houston, Texas,
    the fourth largest metropolis in the United States. A great many of the
    industrial and private landowner neighbors of our refuges fully
    appreciate the value of our natural ecosystems, as opposed to urban
    sprawl, and offer property to be donated or sold to the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        A recent example of this is a 338-acre tract of bottomlands forest,
    bisected by Bastrop Bayou, and located within the extraterritorial
    jurisdiction of the city of Lake Jackson, Texas. This land, appraised
    at $1,800,000, was donated to the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
    by The Dow Chemical Company, our county's largest employer. Subsequent
    development of 2.5 miles of ADA-compliant trails and other facilities
    were made possible from over $300,000 in grants and gifts awarded to
    the Friends of Brazoria Wildlife Refuges. Today, this Dow Woods Unit of
    the San Bernard NWR is an ``urban refuge'' that was enjoyed by over
    4,500 visitors in 2013, with visitation growing as the recently
    completed trails become better known (Figure 4).
        Figure 4. ADA-compliant trail in the Dow Woods Unit of the San
                                  Bernard NWR
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsIt is noteworthy that the prevision of the proposed National
    Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act of 2013 would have required a
    time-consuming and cumbersome Act of Congress for this donated land to
    become part of our refuge system. With such a substantial negative
    impact, the question is begged, ``What would be the net gain if H.R.
    3409 were to become law? '' In our case, where only a small portion of
    discretionary Federal funds are involved, the answer would lead to a
    loss to the citizens, not a gain.
        The Dow Woods Unit is also an example of public access development
    done with private funds, such as those from our Friends organization.
        The Friends of Brazoria Wildlife Refuges was chartered in 1994 and
    became a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in 1995. One of our major
    activities is to acquire funds through grants, gifts, and fundraising
    efforts. These funds are used to develop public use facilities, support
    environmental education programs, and conduct wildlife surveys. Over 36
    percent of these funds support pre-land acquisition discovery
    activities, which streamlines the process of acquiring donated or
    purchased tracts of property, such as the Dow Woods Unit (Figure 5).
                Figure 5. Allocation of Friends Funds, 1996-2014

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In 1997, concern over the rapid destruction of prime, old-
    growth bottomland hardwood forest in the Columbia Bottomland ecosystem
    led to a coordinated effort by Federal, state, and local government
    agencies, together with landowners and conservation organizations, to
    preserve enough of this forest and adjoining prairie to sustain its
    biodiversity on which substantial populations of migratory birds
    depend. It is believed that 70,000 acres would provide this insurance
    (10 percent of the original 700,000 acres).
        As part of the resulting 1997 Decision Document of the Austin's
    Woods Conservation Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was
    authorized to purchase of up to 28,000 acres as its share of the
    70,000-acre goal of the involved conservation partners. For various
    reasons, the other partners have since been unable to execute any
    substantial land purchases. They have, however, been active in
    assisting the Service in its land-acquisition process. On June 25, 2013
    the Service authorized an increase of the acquisition cap to the full
    70,000 acres within the established acquisition boundary shown on
    Figure 6.
         Figure 6. Acquisition boundary of the Austin's Woods Unit of
                    the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Over the 16 years through the end of 2013, over 33,000 acres
    have been acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as shown on
    the map of Figure 7. Details of this plan are covered in the Texas Mid-
    coast NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
    Assessment, approved in September, 2013.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/Plan/docs/Texas/
    TMC_CCP_portfolio.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Figure 7. 33,653 acres of acquired and proposed additions to
                    the conserved Columbia Bottomland Forest
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        It is noteworthy that 61.1 percent of the funds for the
    acquisition of this land came from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
    (MBCF), paid for by Duck Stamps sold to duck hunters and aficionados of
    the stamp art. The funds are thus fees paid by appreciative users of
    wetland ecosystems, to the benefit of future generations of all
    Americans; 16.6 percent of the cost of the land purchased came from
    private grants, and 14.9 percent represents the appraised value of
    donated tracts of land. Only 7.5 percent of the cost of acquisition
    came from congressional appropriation via the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (Figure 8).
         Figure 8. Funding Sources of Columbia Bottomlands Additions,
                                   1996-2013

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        All of these 33,636 acres were obtained from willing donors and
    sellers, primarily via fee title purchase. Non-profit organizations
    like the Trust for Public Land, The Conservation Fund, and the National
    Fish and Wildlife Foundation often purchase and hold lands until the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completes due diligence and secures
    funding for acquisition. Friends, through grants from Houston
    Endowment, provides funds for pre-acquisition discovery processes.
    These non-profits provide elasticity to accommodate the timing needs of
    the seller and the funding constraints of the buyer. The result is a
    process that is steadily moving toward the goal of conserving a
    sustainable amount of Columbia Bottomland Forest ahead of urban
    encroachment as metropolitan Houston grows south.
        Currently, the TMCNWRC is working on the acquisition of 12 tracts
    of Columbia Bottomland forest, having a total of 21,805 acres, bringing
    us closer to our goal of 70,000 acres.
        The current quantity of land in conservation status is not adequate
    to protect either the ecosystem or dependent wildlife species. The
    proposed National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act of 2013
    would essentially halt the process of preserving this critical amount
    of hardwood wetland forest, and threaten the dwindling population of
    migrating songbird species, which are in significant decline.\6\ Since
    H.R. 3409 would be retroactive to January 3, 2013, the over 3,800 acres
    of land acquired since then by the San Bernard NWR would be in
    jeopardy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations: The Success of
    the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act; Compiled by American
    Bird Conservancy; May 2009; http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/
    special_reports/act_songbirds.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The bottom line is that H.R. 3409, which would stipulate that ``The
    Secretary may not expand any national wildlife refuge except as
    expressly authorized by law enacted after January 3, 2013'', is a blunt
    instrument. Congressional oversight is already provided by the
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which funds most of our refuge land
    acquisition programs. For these reasons, I respectfully request that
    H.R. 3409 be rejected by this subcommittee and the U.S. House of
    Representatives.
        I thank you for your time.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Cornell. At this point, we will
    begin Member questioning of our witnesses. To allow all Members
    to participate and ensure we will hear from our witnesses, we
    are limited to 5 minutes as before. If you have additional
    questions, if we have time, we will have another round. I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schmidt, I appreciate your years of service both in the
    Fish and Wildlife Service and with Ducks Unlimited. You have
    really had that combined experience and database of knowledge
    that is so important to this discussion. And what I think we
    all want today of course is to have more ducks. And the way to
    have more ducks is to have more habitat of course. The way to
    achieve that of course is sometimes up for discussion. And the
    reason why we went in the direction we did with H.R. 5069 is to
    say we have relative to the cost of land, we have fewer dollars
    to apply. Why not get the biggest bang for our buck, the best
    leverage, and that is, let's commit all of the new money into
    easements rather than purchases. And the reason being that,
    number one, it is probably less expensive to purchase an
    easement than fee simple. And the other is of course
    maintenance.
        You know, Mr. Southerland makes the point that we are not
    maintaining our easements as it is. And I would really disagree
    with him on that. I did not get a chance to bring that up, but
    I would love to get your comments. But that is the beauty of
    easements, it remains in the hands of the family, of certainly
    the owners where they can continue to manage it as their own
    land. They just simply cannot destroy the land. It has to
    remain habitat for birds. So I would love to get your response
    to that, and if you agree or disagree with those comments.
        Mr. Schmidt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, very wise
    remarks, frankly. We see the value of easements. And we have
    for much of our history in Ducks Unlimited, we see them as so
    valuable in terms of an instrument and a tool for conservation
    that we dedicate our own philanthropic investment to easements.
    We currently manage almost 400,000 acres ourselves through
    easements. It has nothing to do with the Federal Government,
    but it is simply our donors and our supporters have suggested
    that is a good approach as well. And we think there is a nice
    balance between public lands and private lands.
        And in terms of the cost of maintaining, as you alluded to,
    maintaining easements, they are cheaper. We find that we have
    to monitor them, yes, to make sure they are in compliance with
    the legal documents but that is typically an annual sort of
    event to simply monitor. There is not an active management, if
    you will. That is on the shoulders of the private landowner who
    is doing their work on their land.
        Dr. Fleming. Right.
        Mr. Schmidt. So we think the balance that this bill
    provides, and frankly that the Duck Stamp program has provided
    for years, is appropriate and important, particularly as you
    reference the economics of the situation.
        Dr. Fleming. If I heard you correctly in your testimony,
    you said there were about a million Ducks Unlimited members?
        Mr. Schmidt. Members and supporters, yes.
        Dr. Fleming. Is that worldwide?
        Mr. Schmidt. Yes, yes.
        Dr. Fleming. In the United States, it would be what
    approximately?
        Mr. Schmidt. Well, we have actually officially about
    650,000 members in the United States. And there are members in
    Ducks Unlimited Canada, Ducks Unlimited Mexico as well. And
    then we have supporters beyond even those members that we
    count.
        Dr. Fleming. And you have been communicating with them,
    getting feedback on the idea of an increase committed toward
    the easements. What has been the response?
        Mr. Schmidt. Very strong support for this. Ninety percent
    of our members. About 90 percent of our members are hunters,
    migratory bird hunters. And so they are going to be required to
    buy this stamp year in and year out. And so we think it is
    important to ask them and to get their feeling. While I cannot
    say that 100 percent of our members support it, the vast
    majority are in support of this because they have seen the
    results that the Duck Stamp program has produced over the
    decades that it has been there.
        Dr. Fleming. Yes, well, I certainly agree with you. Again,
    government does not get a lot right, but this is one I think
    government has historically. We have lots of history in
    evidence. And so we want to continue what we are doing well,
    and we want to continue doing it.
        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Dr. Fleming. Chairman Angius, in the remaining time that I
    have, why is the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery important
    to Mohave County, Arizona?
        Ms. Angius. Thank you. Mohave County, Arizona, obviously it
    is in the middle of the desert, surrounded by water. We have
    Lake Mohave, and the Mighty Colorado. Everything that happens
    in Mohave County basically happens on the Colorado River. Most
    people end up living in Mohave County. They have come through
    their lives, they have river homes or trailers that they come
    down, and they go to the river to recreate. That is how they
    end up there.
        So I am also right across the river from Laughlin, Nevada.
    So we are a tourist area. That is our economy. So without the
    trout propagation program fueling the ecosystem of our river,
    these fishermen are going to go away.
        We have, you know, anglers sort of get spots that they
    enjoy coming to, and they come on an annual basis. And they are
    stopping. They have read in the papers that this program is
    over, and they are going to find new places to go fish. And we
    are going to lose them forever.
        Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you. My time is expiring, but
    without fish, you do not have fishermen. Without fishermen, you
    do not have an economy in a lot of these communities.
        Ms. Angius. That is it.
        Dr. Fleming. And I now recognize Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schmidt, good
    afternoon. Sir, in your testimony you stated that conserving
    and restoring waterfowl habitat in the Mississippi River, and
    you are going to have me with this, the Alluvial Valley?
        Mr. Schmidt. Alluvial, yes.
        Mr. Sablan. Alluvial Valley, you say, level one priority
    for Ducks Unlimited?
        Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Sablan. And so this habitat is largely made up of
    seasonally flooded Bottomland hardwood forest, roughly 80
    percent of which has been destroyed according to the National
    Wildlife Federation. Why is that habitat so important?
        Mr. Schmidt. Oh, wow, that is a great question,
    Congressman. It is incredibly important for all the species
    that call that home and migrate through it. And we have lost a
    lot of that habitat over the years. And we think it is
    important to restore as much as we possibly can. Bottomland
    hardwoods are incredibly productive ecosystems that benefit
    many species and, frankly, humans first and foremost with
    mitigation of floods and clean water that can be filtered
    through those areas. We think they are invaluable for not only
    the sportsmen and women but frankly the general public.
        Mr. Sablan. So would it be safe to say, sir, that you
    support conserving more of this habitat in areas like those
    around the Lower Hatchie and Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
    in Tennessee?
        Mr. Schmidt. Yes, we think the refuge system provides a
    great public asset and would continue that with the Duck Stamp
    in lieu of H.R. 5069.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you for that. And of the 561 national
    wildlife refuges, only 60 have been established by specific
    acts of Congress. Maybe that tells you how fast Congress works
    sometimes. Only 13 of these refuges in the lower 48 states have
    ever been expanded by Congress. Instead, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has used authority Congress gave it to create and add
    to refuges, including science to help determine which land has
    the greatest conservation value. So do you think relying on
    Congress to approve every individual donation purchase or
    conservation easement, adding land to the refuge system would
    result in more conservation of waterfowl habitat or less? You
    know how Congress works, Mr. Schmidt, how fast.
        Mr. Schmidt. We value--Ducks Unlimited values the oversight
    the U.S. Congress provides.
        Mr. Sablan. But approval, I am talking about approval.
        Mr. Schmidt. And we think a good model is certainly the
    Migratory Bird Commission where the Dean of the House sat on
    for 45 years and others who have sat at this table. And we
    think that provides a great opportunity, and that is the review
    that occurs associated with the Federal Duck Stamp.
        In terms of the other bill, we do not have a particular
    position on that particular bill. And we appreciate the
    involvement in the process by the Congress and the public in
    making decisions about where we should invest resources in the
    future for refuges.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Let me go to you, Mr.
    Cornell, if I may. You testified, sir, that the Dow Chemical
    Company, the largest employer in your area I understand, not
    only supports expanding the San Bernard National Wildlife
    Refuge but also donated a 338-acre tract of land to the refuge.
    The narrative we hear, sir, from the committee Majority states
    that the national wildlife refuges are detrimental to local
    economies. Dow Chemical is not exactly, you know, it is a
    business. So do you think Dow Chemical agrees with that--with
    that statement or that thought? What has been your experience?
        Mr. Cornell. I retired 11 years ago, and at that time I can
    tell you that they did. I have no reason to suspect that they
    have changed since then. In fact, of course they are my
    neighbors.
        Mr. Sablan. They think that wildlife refuges are
    detrimental to the local economy?
        Mr. Cornell. No, no, they believe it is very much a
    positive impact on the economy. I mean I deal with a lot of
    current Dow employees. They volunteer at the refuges. It is
    certainly like you said, it offers--our refuges are a buffer.
    They are right on the coast. And we get hit with tropical
    storms and hurricanes, and this is one of our buffers, these
    lands that will not be developed. And so that is very much an
    advantage.
        And one of the things any company like Dow wants to do is
    attract top-level employees and to do that they have to provide
    a desirable environment. And certainly this type of environment
    is very desirable by those employees. And so it really does add
    to the whole wealth and well-being of our community.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Cornell. Mr. Chairman, my time
    is up.
        Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields. Dr. Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to remind
    this committee that Congress is supposed to work not fast but
    efficiently based on the facts under the rule of law. And the
    agencies are required to do the same thing, to follow the rule
    of law, and in doubt, come back to Congress to verify. And that
    is what we seem to have a huge problem with currently.
        Ms. Angius, I am going to go through a couple of things
    here real quick because once again we heard some good
    information here just a minute ago with the director.
        You testified that the Willow Beach Fish Hatchery was
    constructed in 1962 to mitigate for fish losses associated with
    the Hoover Dam's construction. This was the sole purpose,
    correct?
        Ms. Angius. Correct.
        Dr. Gosar. I recall looking at the Fish and Wildlife
    Service Web site several months ago when this issue first came
    up and it said, and I quote, ``The Willow Beach Fish Hatchery,
    National Fish Hatchery, was created for the sole purpose of
    producing rainbow trout for the sport fishing community.''
    Strange that language has been removed from the page. And that
    the Service now is referring to the hatchery as a non-
    mitigation hatchery, as you testified.
        You know about this, can you elaborate about why you think
    this is such?
        Ms. Angius. Well, I can only speculate. All that wording
    was there. It was there. In fact, I have press releases all
    over the place for the last decade that always referred to
    Willow Beach as a mitigation hatchery. But yet after November,
    after the incident where the fish died, and again that was an
    avoidable incident, after the fish died and the decision was
    made not to fix the pipe and continue the program, magically
    all the mentions of the Willow Beach being a mitigation
    hatchery disappeared. And so now what we are hearing from the
    agency is that it is not a mitigation hatchery.
        And, again, I do not think I said this in the testimony,
    the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery was established by a
    memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation,
    the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service in April of 1959 solely as a mitigation hatchery for
    the propagation of trout, to mitigate recreational losses
    resulting from Federal dam construction of Hoover Dam and to
    contribute to the overall economic development of the area and
    increase recreational facilities in the region. That is the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife's wording, not mine, not Dr. Gosar's.
    That is their wording. So here we are.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, and I find it strange that in 2006, the
    Willow Beach facility was highlighted by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service as an exemplary mitigation hatchery in a report
    describing the significant and positive impact rainbow trout
    production in the National Fish Hatchery System has on the U.S.
    economy. What a difference 8 years makes, huh? And what a
    difference it makes having no dialog with the Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        I want to go back to this aspect, because you have been
    instrumental in mitigation, this aspect along with the Arizona
    Game and Fish. When we talked about this pipe, you went about
    trying to get an independent evaluation of this pipe and the
    cost with it. Can you describe a little bit about this?
        Ms. Angius. Well, we did. Actually, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    and Arizona Game and Fish, we did come together and have a
    meeting about a month and a half ago at Willow Beach Hatchery.
    And we had all the engineers. It was very interesting to watch.
    And they sort of brainstormed to figure out what would be the
    best fix for this because we all knew that the numbers, $2.5
    million to $9 million, were wrong, just greatly exaggerated.
    And so my staff, my engineering staff, came back with a well
    put together document, which I have right here, I will put it
    in the record if you want.
        Dr. Gosar. Please.
        Ms. Angius. And there are six or seven suggestions on how
    to fix the pipe, ranging from--the water delivery system,
    ranging from $100,000 just to fix the pipe as it exists today,
    up to the highest being something like $1.3 million to dig all
    new wells to do that. But my engineering department, they
    suggest that we do a system that has to do with barges that
    would go up and down with the water because the problem--and I
    want to remind everyone, the problem at Willow Beach is it is 3
    days a year when the water levels get lower. That is all this
    is about, 3 days a year. So if we can come up with an idea, a
    way to fix that, then I will not be back here next year
    testifying and coming back and spending taxpayer's money.
        So U.S. Fish and Wildlife has agreed to look at it. But as
    of yet, we have not come up with a way.
        Mohave County has offered to help. We know that your hands
    are tied here in the Federal Government and the way you have to
    get estimates and get construction deals done. We have offered
    to help. Arizona Game and Fish has offered to help. We want to
    work together. We have always wanted to work together, but we
    are willing to put aside the sort of disrespectful way this was
    put forward to us. But we want to move on. We want to fix the
    pipe, and we want to get this program running again.
        Dr. Gosar. Just real quick indulgence. Did you find the
    estimates kind of outlandish like I did?
        Ms. Angius. Well, of course. We knew--when I testified in
    front of the Appropriations Committee a couple of months ago,
    when I was asked what were the estimates, and I said it was
    $2.5 to $9 million, they had to stop the meeting and everyone
    just laughed. Everyone laughed. And when they stopped laughing,
    I said, ``Well, we of course believe that the cost will be
    much, much lower than that.'' Honestly, you will have to ask
    them. I do not know where they came up with those numbers, but
    we believe these are firm engineering numbers, signed off by
    our chief engineers.
        Dr. Gosar. That is what I wanted to make sure. So thank
    you, empowering local solutions for local problems.
        Ms. Angius. Absolutely.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Angius. Thank you. And, Congressman, if I may----
        Dr. Gosar. Do you want to put it into the record?
        Ms. Angius. I would just want to say one more thing. I
    traveled a long way.
        Dr. Gosar. Ask the Chairman.
        Ms. Angius. One minute, may I please, Congressman?
        Dr. Fleming. Very quickly. We are running out of time.
        Ms. Angius. Very quickly. I became a supervisor because I
    wanted to make a difference in my community, and I wanted to
    keep it the free and great place I moved to. But I did not
    expect to be confronted by the Federal Government on almost a
    weekly basis with a new rule, regulation, restriction, mandate,
    land grab, water grab. In Arizona alone, we are fighting the
    EPA. They want to destroy our coal industry. We are fighting
    Endangered Species. They want to put wolves and jaguars into
    the backyards of our cattle companies. Would you want wolves in
    your backyards? Critters we have never heard of and whose names
    we can barely pronounce.
        Mr. Sablan. Are we hearing a bill here or are we hearing a
    whole slew that I can read in the newspapers all over again?
        Ms. Angius. I just wanted to say that we are at our
    breaking point in the West. And Arizona is going to do whatever
    it has to do to preserve our sovereignty.
        Mr. Sablan. Sorry to interrupt but this is--you had a
    minute.
        Ms. Angius. That is all I want to say. Thank you.
        [Gavel.]
        Dr. Fleming. Yes, well, I want to thank all of our
    witnesses here today. This was a very informative hearing.
    Members were very engaged, very important issues. Before
    closing, I would also like to thank witnesses for traveling and
    going to great effort here preparing for testimony.
        I also ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing
    record the following documents: a letter from the Association
    of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a July 10 letter from the Sport
    Fishing and Boating Partnership Council and a letter to Senator
    Vitter and I from the chief executive officer of Ducks
    Unlimited in support of H.R. 5069.

        [The letters submitted for the record by Dr. Fleming
    follow:]
                  Letter Submitted for the Record on H.R. 5026

               Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,
                                                Washington, DC,
                                                         April 1, 2014.

    Hon. Ken Calvert, Chairman,
    Hon. Jim Moran, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the
            Appropriations Committee,
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: USFWS Fish Hatchery System Report and Direction

        Dear Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member Moran:

        The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is writing to
    alert you to a significant direction change in the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Fish Hatchery Program and its
    associated programs that will have adverse effects on state fisheries
    programs and regional economies.
        Based on recent conversations and direct interactions with USFWS
    personnel, it appears that USFWS is intending to abandon fisheries
    programs that would benefit sport fishing including the production of
    key hatchery fish and the oversight of new aquaculture drugs that the
    USFWS, tribes, and states all depend upon in their hatcheries to ensure
    the efficient production of essential fish. We are particularly
    concerned as these decisions were made in absence of input from USFWS'
    long standing state partners, many whom have been close partners in
    fish production since 1870 when the U.S. Fish Commission, the
    progenitor organization of the USFWS, was first established.
        With respect to the USFWS Fish Hatchery Program, the USFWS in 2013
    developed a strategic hatchery and workforce planning report. The
    report laid out a new desired direction without any direct input from
    the any state partners who all have vested interests in the management
    and production of fish from the National Fish Hatchery System. The
    report expressly indicates that the USFWS will move away from producing
    fish that benefit of all of our Nation's sport fisheries and will focus
    on only producing fish that are federally listed, or federal trust
    species and imperiled aquatic species. This shift completely disregards
    the recent 2011 USFWS study that documents the annual economic benefit
    of approximately $3.6 billion to the Nation's economic activity from
    Federal fish hatcheries, a cost-benefit ratio of 1:26 which is unlikely
    rivaled in any Federal program. It is AFWA's opinion that the new USFWS
    Hatchery Report and its associated budget priorities and implications
    do not reflect needs of the Nation's aquatic resources or economy and
    will greatly harm our Nation's fisheries.
        Another area of deep concern to our member states is a significant
    shift in how USFWS mitigation hatcheries are operated. These Federal
    hatcheries were built to offset losses to public trust resources owned
    by states from Federal water and other infrastructure projects and are
    vital to replacing lost fisheries values. It appears to our members
    that the USFWS has little interest in continuing to meet the Federal
    obligations for mitigation unless they are completely compensated for
    the costs of operation and maintenance by the Federal agency
    responsible for these damages to state property. While our members have
    always been supportive of USFWS seeking due compensation from Federal
    project owners and operators, it does not make a difference to our
    members who in the Federal Government pays for these facilities as long
    as the mitigation for our lost fisheries resources is fully
    compensated.
        Additionally, it has been communicated to AFWA that the USFWS
    Directorate wants to use only ``native'' fish species in any type of
    mitigation hatchery work. This position completely ignores that most of
    the ``non-native'' fish produced in Federal and state hatcheries are
    essential to the management of our Nation's fisheries and are now
    naturalized species in the United States. It also assumes that our
    Nation's fish habitat can support all native species which is
    frequently incorrect as much of the Nation's aquatic habitats have been
    altered beyond the capacity of some native species to survive in them.
    Further, the states already have active long-term native fish
    management programs in place that have been developed in partnership
    with the USFWS. If the USFWS switches their aquaculture operations to
    focus primarily on Federal trust and imperiled species and then only
    native fish, it will add an unnecessary level of redundancy, require
    additional infrastructure improvements, cost billions in economic
    activity, and waste Federal funds.
        The USFWS also proposes reducing funding for the Aquatic Animal
    Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP), an associated Federal fish hatchery
    program and converting it to a completely user-pay system. The program
    is responsible for gaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)
    approval of aquaculture drugs to meet increasing fish health needs.
    This small, although highly essential, program once had an annual
    budget of $1.2 million dollars but is now funded at $800,000 with a
    loss of three full-time employees. The drugs that are researched
    through this program are essential for the production of our Nation's
    sports fish as well as imperiled native species and have saved state
    and Federal hatcheries approximately 10-30 percent of their yearly
    production costs, approximately $50 to $150 million annually. This
    unique partnership, administered by the USFWS AADAP staff, has state
    and tribal hatcheries pay an annual fee to use investigational new
    animal drugs (INAD) under USFDA permit, and then in turn provide
    essential data that allows the USFDA to ultimately register these drugs
    for use. By moving this program to strictly user-pay for the national
    INAD portion of the program, the program costs likely will exceed the
    state and outside funding sources available for the staffing and
    associated research required by USFDA, resulting in elimination of this
    amazing program. The USFDA has indicated if financial resources to
    support the INAD portion of the program are insufficient, they may
    shutter the program. The loss of this program will cost our members
    significantly and reduce the ability of our Nation's hatcheries to
    support the approximately $30 billion annually that Federal, state and
    tribal hatcheries contribute to our national economy.
        Given the importance of the USFWS Hatchery System's production of
    sports fish and national oversight of the AADAP program and the
    potential conversion of these assets to other programs, AFWA is
    requesting the assistance of the Chair and Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the
    Appropriations Committee to: (1) request the USFWS Directorate to put
    any of the proposed policy changes to the USFWS Hatchery and AADAP
    Programs in abeyance and immediately begin discussions and
    consultations with our membership on the future direction of these
    programs; (2) require the USFWS Directorate to meet all of their
    current Federal obligations for mitigation, regardless of whether they
    are successful in receiving funds from Federal project owners, with no
    concurrent reduction to other fish production; (3) stop any potential
    policy change to require USFWS hatcheries to produce only ``native''
    fish; and (4) request your support and assistance to ensure, at a
    minimum, the base funding of $800,000 continues for AADAP. We welcome
    the opportunity to discuss with you how USFWS mitigation
    responsibilities are met while not putting the sport fishing
    recreational economy at risk by underfunding fish hatchery production
    in favor of shifting USFWS priorities to Federal trust and imperiled
    species.
        We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter which has
    huge implications for our Nation's fisheries and the economies that
    depend on them.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Forster,
                                                             President.

                                     ______

                  Letter Submitted for the Record on H.R. 5026

           Sport Fishing & Boating Partnership Council,
                                                         July 10, 2014.

    Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary,
    Department of Interior,
    1849 C Street, NW,
    Washington, DC 20515.

        Dear Secretary Jewell:

        As you know, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council
    (Council) was established in 1993 to advise the Secretary of Interior,
    through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Director),
    on aquatic conservation endeavors that benefit recreational fishery
    resources and recreational boating, while encouraging partnerships
    among industry, the public, and government. It is with this charge in
    mind that the Council wishes to express our sincere concerns and
    disappointment with the recent National Fish Hatchery System--Strategic
    Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report (Report). Although the Report
    was dated March 2013, it was not released to the public until November
    15, 2013. The fact that no stakeholders, including the state agencies
    that depend on the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) as part of
    their overall fisheries management strategy, were consulted during the
    development of the Report highlights the significant and problematic
    lack of transparency in the current direction of the fisheries program
    in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Furthermore, it is
    unclear as to whether the Service fulfilled its tribal trust
    responsibility to consult with any tribes on the potential impacts to
    their nations during the Report's development. When the Report was
    released last year the Assistant Director of Fisheries stated in a
    conference call that the agency would engage the sportfishing community
    in discussions to find solutions. To date there has been no such
    process save some ad hoc discussions.
        More specifically and of the utmost concern to the Council is that
    the recent Report clearly demonstrates that not only does the Service
    have no intention of incorporating the prior recommendations of
    stakeholders, but that the overall direction of the NFHS is
    fundamentally shifting away from sport fish propagation. This cannot be
    allowed to happen, and brings into question the authority the Service
    has to abdicate statutory responsibilities under various acts,
    including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, to provide
    for recreational fishing opportunities and fulfill tribal trust
    responsibilities.
        The NFHS was established in 1871 to address seriously declining
    fish populations by building a network of Federal hatcheries to
    propagate fishery resources for future generations of Americans. Since
    that time, the NFHS has provided millions of sport fish each year for
    America's angling public, resulting in an astounding economic ripple
    effect and increased recreational opportunities. The facilities, which
    average more than 70 years old, annually produce and distribute 140
    million fish and 120 million fish eggs with a value over $5 billion. In
    addition to the more than 68,000 jobs supported by the NFHS, for every
    tax dollar invested in the system, there is a return of $28 to our
    national economy because of the sport fishing opportunities they
    provide.
        In 2000 an independent report entitled ``Saving a System in Peril''
    was released that included suggested recommendations on how to improve
    the aging and financially strapped hatchery system in addition to
    highlighting the economic, historical, and cultural significance the
    NFHS plays. However, this report also concluded, ``. . . that without a
    national vision to define regional goals and objectives designed to
    fulfill overall FWS Fisheries Program strategies, the national hatchery
    system will continue to drift and will be in peril.'' Unfortunately,
    this report, and subsequent reports with similar recommendations in the
    14 years since, has been ignored by the Service, and the System is
    indeed in peril.
        More recently, during an oversight hearing before the House Natural
    Resources Committee on March 5th, the Assistant Director of Fisheries
    for the Service testified that the agency is using its new strategic
    Report to ``engage partners and stakeholders in a discussion on its
    major findings and recommendations.'' Yet, the Director of the Service
    had already issued a Memo last September to his Regional Directors,
    relative to the Report, indicating that ``to bring our expenditures in
    line; not by mindlessly reducing our programs functions but by making
    hard decisions to close lower priority facilities.'' Under the
    Service's new strategic plan, recreational propagation programs are now
    the lowest priority. However, when determining the priorities for the
    NFHS, the economic impacts to local, state and regional economies were
    not evaluated or considered by the Service, nor were the state agencies
    consulted about the negative ramifications of the Service's new
    direction on their ability to effectively manage fish populations.
        Therefore, the Council would appreciate your consideration, in the
    near term, to keep these recreational propagation programs operating in
    FY 15 as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934.
    And, in the long-term, to consider working with the Council to develop
    draft ``organic'' legislation for the Service's Fisheries Program that
    would, in part, ensure the long-term viability and proper performance
    of the NFHS.
        We appreciate your consideration of these requests and stand ready
    to assist you and your staff in these endeavors.

                Sincerely,

                                            Thomas J. Dammrich,
                                                                 Chair.

                                     ______

            Letter Submitted for the Record in Support of H.R. 5069
                                       Ducks Unlimited,
                                                   Memphis, TN,
                                                         July 14, 2014.

    Hon. David Vitter, Chairman,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
    SD-140 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. John Calvin Fleming, Chairman,
    House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs,
    140 Cannon House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.

        Dear Chairman Vitter and Subcommittee Chairman Fleming:

        On behalf of the over one million members and supporters in all 50
    states, Ducks Unlimited applauds the Senate Chairman and House
    Subcommittee Chairman's Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014 to support the
    Federal Duck Stamp Program. As you know, we at Ducks Unlimited,
    including your great Louisiana constituents, especially appreciate the
    importance of wetlands and waterfowl conservation. These companion
    bills in the Senate and House will secure vital habitat for generations
    of waterfowl hunters and wildlife outdoor enthusiasts to come.
        The Federal Duck Stamp was enacted in 1934 during the worst
    depression and drought the United States has ever known by a group of
    dedicated waterfowl hunters who stepped forward and asked to pay a user
    fee dedicated to conserving wetland habitat. In the program's 80th
    year, the buying power of the Federal Duck Stamp has unfortunately
    never been lower.
        Since its inception, over 6 million acres of waterfowl habitat have
    been conserved through the revenues of Federal Duck Stamp sales. The
    program has been a stellar example of the North American Model of
    Wildlife Management and government efficiency. Approximately $0.98 of
    every $1 of Federal Duck Stamp receipts is spent on habitat
    conservation of wetlands. These habitats not only benefit waterfowl and
    other wildlife but also provide flood attenuation, water filtration and
    buffering of storm surges for our citizens.
        The price of the Federal Duck Stamp has not been raised since 1991,
    while the cost of land has tripled. Wildlife habitat needs have
    continued to increase and the stamp has lost 40 percent of its value.
    We pledge our commitment and support to work with you to adjust the
    price of the Federal Duck Stamp to $25 to account for inflation and
    meet growing habitat conservation needs. I also assure you there is
    great support for this across the conservation/hunting community.
        Thank you for your work on this important issue, and we at Ducks
    Unlimited stand ready to support the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014 in
    any way we can. Please call me if I can be of assistance.

                Sincerely,

                                                  H. Dale Hall,
                                                                   CEO.

                                     ______

        Dr. Fleming. I also want to thank members of the staff,
    members and staff for their contributions to this hearing.
    There being no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

           Letter Submitted for the Record in Opposition of H.R. 3409
                                The Wilderness Society,
                                                Washington, DC,
                                                         July 22, 2014.

    Hon. John Fleming, Chairman,
    Hon. Gregorio Sablan, Ranking Member,
    House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: H.R. 3409: The National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act of
            2013

        Dear Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan:

        The Wilderness Society, on behalf of our over 500,000 members and
    supporters from across the country, would like to express our views on
    the legislation being heard tomorrow in the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
    Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, and respectfully request that
    this letter be included in the July 23, 2014 hearing record for the
    subcommittee.
        If H.R. 3409 were to become law it would have a substantial and
    far-reaching impact on private land owners, willing sellers, refuge
    visitors, local communities, vulnerable wildlife populations and the
    National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole.
        The proposed National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act runs
    counter to the intent of the 1997 Refuge Enhancement Act, undermines
    established conservation mechanisms and would essentially halt the
    ongoing process of preserving critical habitat across the country.
    Furthermore, since H.R. 3409 would be retroactive to January 3, 2013,
    all land acquired since then by any national wildlife refuge would be
    in jeopardy.
        Under this legislation a time-consuming and cumbersome Act of
    Congress would be required for any land acquisition, even donated land,
    to become part of our refuge system. This adds an unnecessary and
    duplicative step in the process of protecting critical habitat.
    Congressional oversight is already provided on the Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, which
    fund a significant amount of refuge land acquisition programs.
        This legislation would also threaten public access and harm local
    economies by blocking willing sellers from using proven mechanisms like
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund to sell private inholdings.
    Acquisitions, even when completed with private funds from friends
    groups or other non-profit organizations would also be blocked.
        These mechanisms, which have been in place for decades, provide
    certainty for willing sellers, allow for increased management
    efficiency of our public lands by consolidating ownership and provide
    essential connected habitat for wildlife. Halting and potentially even
    reversing prior acquisitions undermines the certainty private land
    owners and willing sellers deserve and threatens existing and future
    habitat protections.
        The bottom line is that H.R. 3409 is a blunt and unnecessary
    instrument. For these reasons, The Wilderness Society strongly opposes
    the National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Limitation Act.

                Sincerely,

                                               Alan H. Rowsome,
                     Senior Director of Government Relations for Lands.

                                     ______

                     News Article Submitted for the Record

    WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014

    BY JULIANNE LOGAN

    CRONKITE NEWS

    HTTP://CRONKITENEWSONLINE.COM

    Arizona officials call for a halt to `devastating' hatchery changes

    WASHINGTON--Arizona officials told a House panel Wednesday that the
    federal government's decision to end a rainbow trout program at the
    Willow Beach fish hatchery could have a devastating impact on the
    state's economy.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said last year it planned to stop
    sport-fish production at the hatchery after 52 years there. Local
    officials said they rely on the hatchery for tourism dollars, and were
    never consulted on the decision to end the trout program.

    ``Once the fish are gone, the fisherman will be gone. Then we will have
    nothing,'' said Mohave County Supervisor Hildy Angius, during a
    sometimes-testy hearing before a House Natural Resources subcommittee.

    Angius and Arizona Game and Fish Commission Chairman Robert Mansell
    were in Washington to testify in support of a bill by Rep. Paul Gosar,
    R-Prescott, that would require a more-stringent review before U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service could stop hatchery programs.

    The Fish Hatchery Protection Act would require congressional approval
    before the service could close or otherwise significantly alter
    operations at a federal fish hatchery.

    Gosar said he introduced the bill after the service began making
    changes to several hatcheries last year as part of a new strategic
    plan, without first notifying state or local agencies.

    Fish and Wildlife Deputy Director Steve Guertin said the service
    ``strongly opposes'' the bill, saying it would ``jeopardize our ability
    to fulfill our ongoing legal obligations, respond to new and constantly
    evolving environmental challenges.''

    The bill would also limit the agency's ability to restore native fish
    and protect endangered species, Guertin said.

    Gosar said he understood those needs, but said the service had
    ``absolutely no right'' to make such significant changes without first
    notifying the communities that would be affected.

    ``Shame on you, absolutely shame on you,'' a visibly angry Gosar said,
    in response to what he called Guertin's ``pathetic excuses'' for the
    proposed hatchery changes.

    Mansell testified that hatcheries are ``vital to Arizona and the
    Nation's economies.'' He said Arizona relies not only on in-state
    hatcheries, but on others around the country.

    They provide ``immense economic and environmental benefits to rural
    economies . . . like Mohave County that depend on outdoor recreation
    and tourism to survive,'' he said.

    ``Over 636,000 people fish in Arizona annually, resulting in an
    estimated fishing expenditures of over $1.5 billion annually,'' Mansell
    said in his testimony.

    Mansell testified that local officials only learned about the service's
    plans for Willow Beach after 40,000 trout died at the hatchery, and the
    service said it could not afford repairs to a water pipeline that could
    have fixed the problem.

    After that news was out, Mansell said, Willow Beach became ``ground
    zero'' as other states learned about similar plans for their
    hatcheries.

    Angius said in her prepared testimony that local officials estimated
    that Willow Beach repairs could be done for as little as $300,000, not
    the $3 million to $9 million she said federal officials cited.

    ``We're at a breaking point in the West,'' she said. ``And Arizona will
    do whatever it takes to preserve its environment.''

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

    -- Mohave County Development Services, Memorandum to Mike
    Hendrix, PE, County Administrator, County Engineer from Nick
    Hont, PE, Development Services Director, Deputy County Engineer
    David West, PE, Flood Control District Engineer, dated July 15,
    2014 regarding ``Design Concept Report for the repair or
    replacement of the water delivery system at the Willow Beach
    Fish Hatchery, Mohave County, Arizona--Submitted for the record
    by Chairman Angius.

                                     [all]