[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, [email protected].
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]