[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2591, ``MODERNIZING THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUND FOR TOMORROW'S
NEEDS ACT OF 2017''; H.R. 4429, ``CORMORANT CONTROL ACT''; H.R. 4609,
``WEST FORK FIRE STATION ACT OF 2017''; H.R. 4647, ``RECOVERING
AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT''; AND H.R. 4851, ``KENNEDY-KING ESTABLISHMENT
ACT OF 2018''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 15, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-684 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Jack Bergman, MI Vacancy
Liz Cheney, WY Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, February 15, 2018...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bergman, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Carson, Hon. Andre, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 6
Claramunt, Randy, Lake Huron Basin Coordinator, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Bay City, Michigan........ 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Cook, Hon. Floyd, County Commissioner, Dolores County,
Colorado................................................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Fortenberry, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska.......................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Porter, Hon. Gregory, Indiana State Representative, Kennedy-
King Memorial Initiative, Chair, Indianapolis, Indiana..... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 14
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Ziehmer, Bob, Senior Director of Conservation, Bass Pro
Shops, Springfield, Missouri............................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife, February 13, 2018
Letter addressed to Members of Federal Lands Subcommittee
on H.R. 4647............................................... 67
American Woodcock Society and group of other wildlife
enthusiasts and conservationists, November 6, 2017 Letter
addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva on
H.R. 2591.................................................. 15
American Woodcock Society and group of other outdoor
enthusiasts, February 14, 2018 Letter addressed to Chairman
Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva on H.R. 4647............ 69
Bass Pro Shops, December 7, 2017 Letter addressed to Chairman
Bishop on H.R. 2591........................................ 17
Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Statement for the Record on H.R. 4609.............. 57
Dolores County, Colorado, Board of County Commissioners,
November 13, 2017 Letter addressed to Members of the Senate
and House of Representatives on H.R. 4609.................. 56
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, December 4, 2017
Letter addressed to Rep. Austin Scott on H.R. 2591......... 17
Hogsett, Hon. Joe, Mayor of Indianapolis, Indiana, Statement
for the Record on H.R. 4851................................ 6
Kennedy, Robert F., Speech delivered in Indianapolis, Indiana
on April 4, 1968 following the assassination of Martin
Luther King Jr............................................. 7
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 73
National Park Service, Statement for the Record on H.R. 4851. 70
National Wild Turkey Federation, February 13, 2018 Letter
addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva on
H.R. 2591.................................................. 18
National Wildlife Federation, February 15, 2018 Letter
addressed to Chairmen Bishop and McClintock and Ranking
Members Grijalva and Hanabusa on H.R. 2591 and H.R. 4647... 71
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, February 14,
2018 Letter addressed to Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa on H.R. 4647............................... 72
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, February 14,
2018 Letter addressed to Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa on H.R. 2591............................... 73
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2591, TO AMEND THE PITTMAN-
ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO MODERNIZE THE FUNDING OF
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``MODERNIZING
THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON FUND FOR TOMORROW'S NEEDS ACT OF 2017'';
H.R. 4429, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO REISSUE A
RULE RELATING TO EXTENSION OF THE EXPIRATION DATES FOR DOUBLE-
CRESTED CORMORANT DEPREDATION ORDERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``CORMORANT CONTROL ACT''; H.R. 4609, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CONVEYANCE OF A FOREST SERVICE SITE IN DOLORES COUNTY,
COLORADO, TO BE USED FOR A FIRE STATION, ``WEST FORK FIRE
STATION ACT OF 2017''; H.R. 4647, TO AMEND THE PITTMAN-
ROBERTSON WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO MAKE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OF
GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED AS DETERMINED BY STATE FISH AND
WILDLIFE AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``RECOVERING
AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT''; AND H.R. 4851, TO ESTABLISH THE
KENNEDY-KING NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``KENNEDY-KING ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF
2018''
----------
Thursday, February 15, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Thompson, Tipton,
Bergman, Bishop (ex officio), and Hanabusa.
Also Present: Representatives Austin Scott, Fortenberry,
Graves of Louisiana, Carson, and Dingell.
Mr. McClintock. The hour of 2:30 has arrived, and the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to order. We are
meeting today to consider five bills that have been submitted
to the Subcommittee.
I would ask unanimous consent that all Members on the
witness list testifying on today's panel be allowed to sit with
the Subcommittee, give their testimony, and participate in the
hearing on the dais.
I would also ask the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves,
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate in the
hearing, and that the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell,
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate for the
consideration of H.R. 4647. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
and Vice Chairman. This will allow us to hear from our
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
I would ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are continuing a parliamentary experiment here at the
request of Chairman Bishop. The Committee will consider each
bill individually, hearing all testimony on that bill. If a
witness is addressing multiple bills, I think we have one today
who is doing so, the complete testimony will be heard at one
time on the first bill to be taken up.
After all the testimony is heard on the first bill, Members
will have 5 minutes to ask questions on that bill, and we will
then hear from our witnesses on the next bill and repeat the
process.
It worked out fairly well last week. We will see if it
works out well again.
So, with that, we will begin with opening statements.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. As I said, the Subcommittee meets today to
hear five Federal Lands bills that recognize sites significant
to our national heritage, protect communities from wildfire,
promote sportsmen's access, take a hard look at how our Federal
wildlife conservation programs operate, and the impacts and
unintended consequences of conservation efforts on local
communities.
H.R. 2591, by Congressman Austin Scott, amends the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to modernize the funding for
wildlife conservation.
The legislation clarifies that in addition to providing the
funds to support the management of wildlife populations in
their habitat, one of the purposes of the Pittman-Robertson Act
is to extend financial and technical assistance to states for
the promotion of hunting and recreational shooting. After all,
the fund is dependent on hunters and recreational shooters in
the first place. It comes to us with the support of many
sportsmen and conservation organizations.
H.R. 4429, by Congressman Bergman of Michigan, directs the
Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule on double-
crested cormorant depredation orders to address conflicts
between cormorants' natural feeding habitats and challenges
they pose for the aquaculture and commercial and sportfishing
industries in the Great Lakes region of the United States.
H.R. 4609, introduced by Congressman Scott Tipton of
Colorado, would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to convey
approximately 3.61 acres of Forest Service land in Dolores
County, Colorado, to the county for the purpose of constructing
a fire station and to provide fire protection to public and
private lands in the region.
H.R. 4647, by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska,
would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and
create a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount to
support state-based wildlife conservation and management
projects.
Finally, H.R. 4851, by Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana,
would designate the site in Indianapolis, Indiana, where Robert
F. Kennedy gave his first remarks after learning of the death
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as the Kennedy-King National
Historic Site.
I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before
the Subcommittee today. I look forward to hearing their
testimony.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
In furtherance of this Subcommittee's core objectives to restore
sound management and public access to public lands, and ensure the
Federal Government is a good neighbor to public lands communities,
today the Subcommittee meets to consider five bills that recognize
sites significant to our national heritage, protect communities from
wildfire, promote sportsmen's access, and take a hard look at how our
Federal wildlife conservation programs operate, and the impacts and
unintended consequences of conservation efforts on local communities.
H.R. 2591, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia, Representative
Austin Scott, amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to
modernize the funding for wildlife conservation. The legislation
clarifies that--in addition to providing the funds to support the
management of wildlife populations and their habitat--one of the
purposes of the Pittman-Robertson Act is to extend financial and
technical assistance to states for the promotion of hunting and
recreational shooting.
H.R. 4429, introduced by a member of this Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Michigan, General Bergman, directs the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue a final rule on double-crested cormorant
depredation orders to address conflicts between cormorants' natural
feeding habits and challenges they pose for the aquaculture and
commercial and sportfishing industries in the Great Lakes region of the
United States.
H.R. 4609, introduced by the gentleman from Colorado,
Representative Scott Tipton, would authorize the U.S. Forest Service to
convey approximately 3.61 acres of Forest Service land in Dolores
County, Colorado to the county for the purposes of constructing a fire
station to provide fire protection to public and private lands in the
region.
H.R. 4647, introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska,
Representative Jeff Fortenberry, would amend the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act and create a Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Subaccount to support state-based wildlife conservation and
management projects.
Finally, H.R. 4851, introduced by Representative Andre Carson of
Indiana, would designate the site in Indianapolis, Indiana where Robert
F. Kennedy gave his first remarks after learning of the death of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. as the Kennedy-King National Historic Site.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today and look forward to hearing their testimony.
______
Mr. McClintock. I now recognize the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
These bills are focused on a wide range of issues.
First, H.R. 2591, introduced by Representative Austin Scott
of Georgia, amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act, a law that directs taxed revenue from sporting arms and
ammunitions to states for wildlife management and conservation.
This bill would increase flexibility to use funds for the
construction of public shooting ranges and enhance recruitment
for hunting and shooting sports.
While I understand the rationale for this change, these are
goals that could detract from wildlife conservation and
restoration efforts, the original intent of Pittman-Robertson.
Just this week, President Trump released a disappointing budget
proposal to cut funding for the Interior Department by 17
percent.
Second, H.R. 4429, introduced by Representative Jack
Bergman of Michigan, would require Interior Secretary Zinke to
reinstate two depredation orders for double-crested cormorants.
These orders were vacated by a Federal judge who found that the
agency had not done its due diligence to take a hard look at
the science to justify reissuing the orders.
I completely understand the importance of fisheries that
support aquatic life and the need to find a balance between
competing interests. However, I also think it is important that
we allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to get this right.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has already completed the
environmental assessment and reissued the depredation order for
impacts to aquaculture, and they are also currently engaged in
the environmental review for impacts to free-swimming fish.
Forcing a reissuance without adequately addressing the
science sets a bad precedent that this Committee should want to
avoid.
H.R. 4609, introduced by Represent Scott Tipton of
Colorado, authorizes a conveyance of about 3 acres of National
Forest System land to Dolores County, Colorado, for a fire
station and related infrastructure. The bill includes a
reversionary clause, so ownership would revert to the United
States if there are land-use changes.
Although the Forest Service is in support of the
conveyance, there is some concern about not requiring a market
value compensation for the land. I look forward to learning
more about the issue from Representative Tipton and the County
Commissioner, Floyd Cook.
The next bill is H.R. 4647, introduced by Representative
Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and Debbie Dingell of Michigan,
which increases funding to states for wildlife conservation by
directing Federal tax revenue from onshore and offshore oil and
gas activity to state fish and wildlife departments.
With multiple attacks on our Nation's conservation efforts,
I am pleased to see a bipartisan effort to support wildlife. I
look forward to learning more about this effort from
Representative Fortenberry.
The last bill we are looking at today is H.R. 4851,
introduced by Representative Andre Carson of Indiana. This bill
authorizes the National Park Service to acquire Kennedy-King
Park in Indianapolis, Indiana, and establish the Kennedy-King
National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park System.
This site is a touching tribute to Robert Kennedy's speech
made shortly after Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination. The
local community erected a memorial sculpture in honor of the
speech and now wants national recognition.
Although the support is laudable, the site has not been
evaluated by the National Park Service for designation, so it
is unclear whether the park meets the appropriate criteria.
Because of the incredible history involved in this bill's
request, I look forward to learning more about this issue from
Representative Carson and Indiana State Representative Gregory
Porter.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we meet to discuss five bills that
impact conservation, land use, and wildlife.
The bills are focused on a pretty wide range of issues, but I am
glad we are able to continue with this hearing despite the fact that
tomorrow's votes were canceled and many of our colleagues are getting
ready to head back to their districts.
First, H.R. 2591 introduced by Representative Scott of Georgia
amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, a law that
directs taxed revenue from sporting arms and ammunition to states for
wildlife management and conservation. This proposed amendment would
increase flexibility to use funds for the construction of public
shooting ranges and enhance recruitment for hunting and shooting
sports.
While I understand that rationale for this change, these are goals
that could potentially detract from wildlife conservation and
restoration efforts, the original intent of Pittman-Robertson.
Just this week, President Trump released a budget proposal to cut
funding for the Interior Department by 14 percent. Trump's dirty budget
promotes energy development over all other concerns and seriously
threatens national conservation efforts, so we should tread lightly
with plans to retool programs like Pittman-Robertson that are designed
to protect and conserve our natural areas, public lands, clean air and
water.
Second, H.R. 4429 introduced by Representative Jack Bergman of
Michigan would require the Interior Secretary Zinke to reinstate two
depredation orders for Double-Breasted Cormorants. These orders were
vacated by a Federal judge who found that the agency had not done its
due diligence to take a hard look at the science to justify reissuing
the orders.
Coming from Hawaii, I completely understand the importance of
fisheries and the need to find a balance between competing interests.
However, I also think it is important that we allow the Fish and
Wildlife Service to get this right. The agency has already completed
the Environmental Assessment and reissued the depredation order for
impacts to aquaculture, and they are currently engaged in the
environmental review for impacts to free-swimming fish.
Forcing a reissuance without adequately addressing the science sets
a bad precedent that this Committee should want to avoid.
Third, H.R. 4609 introduced by Representative Tipton of Colorado
authorizes a conveyance of about 3 acres of National Forest System land
to Dolores County, Colorado for a fire station and related
infrastructure. The bill includes a reversionary clause, so ownership
would revert to the United States if there are land-use changes.
Although the Forest Service is in support of the conveyance, there
is some concern about not requiring a market value compensation for the
land. I look forward to learning more about this issue from
Representative Tipton and County Commissioner Floyd Cook.
The next bill is H.R. 4647, introduced by Representative
Fortenberry of Nebraska and Representative Dingell of Michigan, which
would increase funding to states for wildlife conservation by directing
Federal tax revenue from onshore and offshore oil and gas activity to
state fish and wildlife departments.
With the many attacks on our Nation's conservation efforts, I am
pleased to see a bipartisan effort to do the right thing. I look
forward to learning more about this effort from Representative
Fortenberry.
The last bill we are looking at today is H.R. 4851, introduced by
Representative Carson of Indiana, which authorizes the National Park
Service to acquire Kennedy-King Park in Indianapolis, Indiana and
establishes the Kennedy-King National Historic Site as a unit of the
National Park System.
It is a touching tribute to Robert Kennedy's speech shortly after
Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination by the local community who
erected a memorial sculpture in honor of the speech and now want
national recognition. Although the support is laudable, the site has
not been evaluated by the National Park Service for designation, so it
is unclear whether the park meets the appropriate criteria.
Because of the incredible history involved in the bill's request, I
look forward to learning more about this issue from Representative
Carson and Indiana State Representative Gregory Porter.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
We will now take up H.R. 4851, by Congressman Andre Carson.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to discuss his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDRE CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa, my buddy. It is a pleasure to be here today
with you all, members of the Federal Lands Subcommittee. I
especially want to thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership and
hard work regarding this matter and Ranking Member Grijalva for
his leadership, as well, and their efforts to protect a very
special place in Indiana.
H.R. 4851 is a bipartisan and bicameral bill with the full
support of the entire Indiana congressional delegation,
including my colleague Representative Susan Brooks, who has
helped move this bill forward.
I also want to thank one of my heroes, Representative John
Lewis, and my friend, Representative Joe Kennedy, for joining
the Hoosier delegation as original co-sponsors.
Our Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett is also a strong
supporter of this bill. He wasn't able to be here today, so I
have a statement from him for the record I would like to enter.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Hon. Joe Hogsett, Mayor of Indianapolis, Indiana
Statement for the Record
As mayor of the city of Indianapolis, I strongly support H.R. 4851,
the pending legislation establishing the Kennedy-King National Historic
Site within Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Park. I'm honored to be working
with our local congressional members, Rep. Carson, Rep. Brooks, Sen.
Young and Sen. Donnelly, to highlight for the nation the history and
importance of this site.
On the evening of April 4, 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy climbed
onto the back of a flat-bed truck and delivered news to a crowd,
largely unaware, that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been
assassinated. And while across the country, communities found
themselves swept up in the winds of calamity, the city of Indianapolis
remained united; standing in solidarity, and standing in peace. Their
names--Bobby and Martin, Kennedy and King--have become cornerstones of
our country, guideposts during some our nation's darkest chapters in
the decades since.
Located on the corner of Broadway Street and East 17th Street in
the heart of our city, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Park serves as a
bedrock for the community. What was a place of near-panic almost 50
years ago, is now a place where children--regardless of race or gender
or class or religion--are now able to run and play and imagine each
day. That is Indianapolis' legacy.
As the 50th anniversary of that fateful night draws near, and given
the rich history of the park and the Landmark for Peace Memorial that
stands at its center, I believe there is no place more deserving of a
National Historic Site designation and I am proud to offer my support.
______
Mr. Carson. I am also happy to welcome a very good friend
and leader in our state and nationwide. That is Representative
Greg Porter, who traveled here from Indy to testify today.
H.R. 4851 will establish a unit of the National Park System
to preserve and protect the place where Senator Robert F.
Kennedy gave an extraordinary speech in Indianapolis in the
spring of 1968. This historic location needs to remain
available and interpreted for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Some of my colleagues might not be aware that on April 4,
1968, Robert Kennedy had scheduled a speech in Indianapolis,
Indiana, during his campaign for the Presidency of the United
States. However, just before he was to give remarks, Senator
Kennedy was told of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther
King, before the news became widely known. His adviser said he
should not speak. They suggested he should just scrub the event
in light of this terrible news.
But Robert Kennedy wanted to speak. Despite the risks of
outburst or interruptions, he had something important to say,
in person, face-to-face, to those gathered. He changed his
planned remarks on the fly, and broke the news of Dr. King's
assassination to the large crowd assembled in the local park.
He called for a nonviolent response to Dr. King's death.
Robert Kennedy's speech has been described as one of the
greatest addresses of the 20th century, as a call for unity and
nonviolence in a time of great unrest.
I would like to include the text of the speech into the
hearing record.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Senator Robert F. Kennedy
Indianapolis, Indiana
April 4, 1968
I have bad news for you, for all of our fellow citizens, and people
who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King
was shot and killed tonight.
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice for
his fellow human beings, and he died because of that effort.
In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United
States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what
direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black--
considering the evidence there evidently is that there were white
people who were responsible--you can be filled with bitterness, with
hatred, and a desire for revenge. We can move in that direction as a
country, in great polarization--black people amongst black, white
people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another.
Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand
and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of
bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand
with compassion and love.
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with
hatred and distrust at the injustice of such an act, against all white
people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of
feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a
white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have
to make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult
times.
My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He wrote: ``In our sleep, pain
which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of
God.''
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in
the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is
not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward
one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer
within our country, whether they be white or they be black.
So I shall ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the
family of Martin Luther King, that's true, but more importantly to say
a prayer for our own country, which all of us love--a prayer for
understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times; we've
had difficult times in the past; we will have difficult times in the
future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of
lawlessness; it is not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of
black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the
quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings who abide in
our land.
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years
ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this
world.
Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country
and for our people.
______
Mr. Carson. The local park was renamed the Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. Park after his death and is owned by the city
of Indianapolis. In 1994, a memorial sculpture to honor Dr.
King and Mr. Kennedy was erected on the park site. This
continues to be a vital community space, but it could be so
much more if we are successful in elevating this place to a
national historic site.
The city of Indianapolis looks forward to working with the
National Park Service to transfer the Kennedy-King speech area
to the Federal Government and arranging collaborative
agreements that will make this a win-win for everyone.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of RFK's speech, it
becomes very clear that America needs this national treasure to
be preserved and promoted beyond the residents of Indianapolis.
This powerful message of nonviolence in response to violence is
more timely now than ever.
The Smithsonian has described the 1968 speech and that year
as the year that shattered America. It was a time when
divisions were sharp and the morale of our country was low.
Many stirred up hatred and fear with venomous rhetoric, which
drove people long left out of America's bounty to the limits of
their humanity.
Many cities erupted in flames and violent riots. When other
cities expressed their pain, anger, and disenfranchisement with
destruction, Robert Kennedy's calm voice of reason changed the
hearts and minds of people who were feeling so much pain.
Indianapolis was the only major city in America that did not
burn in that season of pain and violent disruption.
JFK was assassinated. MLK was assassinated. And just 2
months after RFK's emotional speech in Indy, he was
assassinated. But in his youth and his ability to feel the pain
of others, RFK called on those who were hurting to turn away
from violence and hate and practice what MLK practiced. This
message and this special place needs to be shared with all
Americans across the country today and in the future.
I look forward to working with the Committee to report this
bill. And thank you for your time and allowing me to testify
today.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Committee is now pleased to welcome the Honorable
Gregory Porter, Indianapolis State Representative. He is the
Chairman of the Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative. He comes to
us today from Indianapolis, Indiana.
Welcome to the Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY PORTER, INDIANA STATE
REPRESENTATIVE, KENNEDY-KING MEMORIAL INITIATIVE, CHAIR,
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Mr. Porter. Thank you Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and other members of the Committee. My name is
Gregory W. Porter, and I am proud to represent House District
96 here in this great state of Indiana in the Indiana General
Assembly.
My Indianapolis district, ladies and gentleman, includes
the current local park named in honor of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., the Landmark for Peace Memorial, which includes a
memorial sculpture of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. King. This
area, surrounding the memorial sculpture, is the site we want
to preserve by establishing the Kennedy-King National
Historical Site.
In addition to my work in the Indiana General Assembly, I
also serve as the President of the National Black Caucus of
State Legislators.
I am particularly honored to serve as Chairman of the Board
of the Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative, a non-profit community
organization that builds on the historic events of April 4,
1968, to raise awareness and to inspire action to eliminate
division and injustice. Our organization is committed to
promoting the nonviolent legacy of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy
through civic engagement and courageous conversations.
The Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative is comprised of
several individuals throughout our community. We are very
honored that Congressman Carson is here to stress the
importance of recognizing and preserving this special place we
have in our city.
We are pleased with Congressman Carson's leadership, as
well as the support from the entire Indianapolis delegation,
House and Senate, for establishment of the National King-
Kennedy Historical Site, the site where Robert Kennedy broke
the news to the Indianapolis community of Dr. King's
assassination. It needs to be preserved not just for
Indianapolis, but for Indiana and for all Americans across this
country.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's historic
speech, I hope each member of this Committee can understand the
powerful words that were said that evening, the way they were
delivered, the way they were received, and their powerful
impact today. What we see today is unimaginable of what
happened years ago. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los
Angeles. Robert Kennedy's message of hope and nonviolence made
a big difference in 1968, and it can still make a difference
today as our country continues to suffer with bitter divisions.
This historical site that sits in Indianapolis, Indiana,
has a long tradition as a community gathering place. It is
surrounded by seven different neighborhoods. Today, the
location is part of a beautiful urban park maintained by the
city of Indianapolis. It attracts neighborhood residents and
other visitors for ongoing sports, recreational, and cultural
activities.
In addition to preserving this national treasure, the
establishment of the Kennedy-King Historic Site will widen
awareness of the historic events and their impact on the region
and the Nation.
Local leaders strongly support this effort because we know
that becoming a permanent part of the National Park Service
will increase the number of visitors to the Kennedy-King site
and enhance the cultural tourism and economic development of
our community.
We have been very fortunate to see impacts in other parts
of Indianapolis, including the federally funded Indianapolis
Cultural Trail, which has connected diverse communities and
increased the health and well-being of our region.
Once part of the National Park System, we envision a number
of improvements to the site, including a visitors center in an
existing building adjacent to the site, interpretive materials,
interactive exhibits, and other programming that can educate
new generations about peace, nonviolence, and the improvement
of American society for everyone.
Establishing the Kennedy-King Historic Site will be
meaningful to many people still alive today whose lives were
changed by Robert Kennedy's historic speech. With this memory
in mind, our community strongly believes that Americans of all
ages will benefit from the improved understanding of the social
and political history of the 1960s, and particularly civil
rights, peace, and nonviolence, which are the great legacies of
Dr. King and Robert Kennedy.
A significant number of people in the crowd heard the
speech that evening, those being Mr. Abie Robinson, Dorothy
Burris, Jim Trulock, and other individuals; former
Congresswoman Julia Carson, and State Representative Bill
Crawford. And of course Congressman Lewis was also there and
State Senator Theresa Lubbers.
The compelling story of what occurred in the park that
night continues to inspire individuals in our community.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Porter, Indiana State Representative
on H.R. 4851
Good Afternoon. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
Subcommittee Chairman McClintock and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal
Lands, thank you very much for inviting me to testify today in support
of H.R. 4851, the Kennedy-King Establishment Act of 2018.
My name is Gregory Porter and I'm proud to represent the 96th House
District in the Indiana General Assembly. My Indianapolis District
includes the current local park named in honor of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. and the Landmark for Peace Memorial, which includes a
memorial sculpture of Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. King. This area,
surrounding the memorial sculpture, is the site we want to preserve by
establishing the Kennedy-King National Historic Site.
In addition to my work in the Indiana General Assembly, I also
serve as the President of the National Black Caucus of State
Legislators. I am particularly honored to serve as the Chairman of the
Board of the Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative, a non-profit community
organization that builds on the historical events of April 4, 1968 to
raise awareness and inspire action to eliminate division and injustice.
Our organization is committed to promoting the non-violent legacy of
Dr. King and Robert Kennedy through civil engagement and courageous
conversations.
The Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative reached out to our
Congressman, Rep. Andre Carson, to stress the importance of recognizing
and preserving this special place. We are very pleased with Congressman
Carson's leadership, as well as support from the entire Indiana
delegation--House and Senate--for the establishment of a national
Kennedy-King Historic Site.
The site where Robert Kennedy broke the news to Indianapolis of Dr.
King's assassination is sacred to our community and our Nation. It
needs to be preserved not just for Indianapolis, but for Indiana, and
for Americans all across our country.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's historic speech, I
hope each member of this Committee can understand the power of those
words--the way they were delivered, the way they were received, and
their powerful impact today. What is still unimaginable to me is that
less than 2 months after this speech in Indianapolis, which helped
prevent another wave of violence, Robert Kennedy was assassinated in
Los Angeles. Robert Kennedy's message of hope and non-violence made a
big difference in 1968, and it can still make a difference today as our
country continues to suffer from bitter divisions.
The historic site in Indianapolis has a long tradition as a
community gathering place, which is why it was selected as the location
for presidential candidate Kennedy's campaign speech in 1968. Today,
this location is a part of a beautiful urban park maintained by the
city of Indianapolis. It attracts neighborhood residents and other
visitors for ongoing sports, recreational and cultural activities.
In addition to preserving this national treasure, the establishment
of the Kennedy-King Historic Site will widen awareness of the historic
events and their impact on the region and the Nation.
Local leaders strongly support this effort because we know that
becoming a permanent part of the National Park Service system will
increase the number of visitors to the Kennedy-King site and enhance
the cultural tourism and economic development. We have been fortunate
to see similar impacts in other parts of Indianapolis, including areas
surrounding the federally funded Indianapolis Cultural Trail, which has
connected diverse communities and increased the health and well-being
of our region.
Once part of the National Park System, we envision a number of
improvements to the site, including a visitors center in an existing
building adjacent to the site, interpretive materials, interactive
exhibits and other programming that can educate new generations about
peace, non-violence and the improvement of American society for
everyone.
Establishing the Kennedy-King Historic Site will be meaningful to
many people who are still alive today and whose lives were changed by
Robert Kennedy's historic speech. With this memory in mind, our
community strongly believes that Americans of all ages would benefit
from an improved understanding of the social and political history of
the 1960s--and in particular civil rights, racial equality, peace and
non-violence, which are the great legacy of Dr. King and Robert F.
Kennedy.
A significant number of people in the crowd who heard the speech
went on to pursue lives of public service through elected office and
community service. This includes great Hoosiers community leaders like
Mr. Abie Robinson, Amos Brown, and Mrs. Simon, plus elected officials
of both parties like Congressman Lewis, Congresswoman Julia Carson, and
State Senator Theresa Lubbers.
The compelling story of what occurred in the park that night
continues to inspire people today and the establishment of a National
Historic Site will help further highlight an incredible moment in
American history.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward
to answering your questions.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Representative Porter.
That concludes our testimony on the bill. We will now
proceed to questions. I just have a couple very briefly.
Representative Porter, one of the problems we are dealing
with is we have about $12 billion deferred maintenance on our
current National Park Service responsibilities. We are trying
to avoid taking on new responsibilities until we can adequately
address those that we have already acquired.
My question is, has the Kennedy-King Memorial Initiative
commissioned any cost estimates on the annual operating costs
of the proposed national historic site, maintenance, staffing,
signage, or legal compliance?
Mr. Porter. We are in the process of fundraising those
dollars right now.We are looking at maybe less than a million
dollars a year in regards to maintaining the park. It is a 14-
acre park, and the building that we are looking at is to the
southern end of that. It is maybe about an acre or so.
Mr. McClintock. So, you are anticipating maintenance and
ongoing costs being raised privately?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, we are working on that, yes, sir.
We are working with the city of Indianapolis, who currently
owns the park, along with other business leaders that are
committed to working with us to maintain the park.
Mr. McClintock. Have you also looked at any alternatives
like national historic site designation, placing on the
National Register of Historic Places?
Mr. Porter. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have looked at those
other two options, also.
Mr. McClintock. Very good.
Well, I am old enough to remember that terrible day and
having watched the broadcast of Robert Kennedy live on our old
black and white television, and it is an important moment in
the Nation's history.
With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Porter, the typical process for establishing
a new unit of the National Park System involves a
congressionally authorized special resource study. This process
allows the National Park Service to evaluate the suitability of
a given site and determine the most appropriate management
options. There are several pending studies that this Committee
has even approved over the last year or so.
Would you support a special resource study for the Kennedy-
King Park?
Mr. Porter. Madam Chairman, yes, I would, being
straightforward, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. Your testimony mentions that the National
Park Service management would include construction of new
facilities. Do you have a cost estimate for the visitor center
and other facilities?
Mr. Porter. The visitor center that we are doing
renovations on right now, we are looking at about $500,000 in
regards to the visitor center and the work that we have done.
We have about $200,000 that we have fundraised thus far in
regards to the visitor center and some of the surrounding
properties of the area.
Ms. Hanabusa. Is $500,000 the total cost that you
anticipate for the construction of the visitor center plus
other facilities?
Mr. Porter. No, Madam Chairman. We are phasing in the whole
building, so we are looking at $500,000 right now, and then
continuing to phase in the property where we want to have our
visitor center and interactive area.
Ms. Hanabusa. And from what you testified to earlier, it
seems like you believe that the community will be able to raise
this through private funding?
Mr. Porter. Yes, ma'am. As a matter of fact, on this
Tuesday we are having another meeting with about 25 or 30
business people that we are continuing to work on this.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Are there any other questions on H.R. 4851?
Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Carson, maybe let me address this to you.
The speech that was given was on April 4?
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So, this April 4 this will be the 50th
anniversary?
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So, the real goal here is whatever designation
becomes established would be helpful if it was done by April 4?
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir. That would be extremely helpful. In
fact, John Lewis is scheduled to speak. It is going to be a
huge event obviously for great reason. And I think during these
times for a Democrat to work across the aisle with great folks
like you and Susan Brooks, it means so much. It has symbolic
and substantive value, yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Not if you have to give me a Valentine's card
for it.
Mr. Carson. Oh, I missed it, goodness. Fifty percent off at
CVS. I will take care of you.
Mr. Bishop. I will tell you who my Valentine was later.
Mr. Carson. All right.
Mr. Bishop. It hasn't been up and running yet, but we
created by law a civil rights network. This would be an ideal
part of that civil rights network regardless of where the
control actually is, as being a part of that, being able to be
part of the brand. We are going to work with you to see what we
can do by April 4.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. The city of Indianapolis is already
committed to the maintenance of the park. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Here is the most important thing, though. Is
there a baseball field in that park? You put a baseball field
in it, you have a done deal.
Mr. Carson. I know. That is right.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, we have 14 acres. Anything is
possible.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I take that as a commitment. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Further questions on this measure?
General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you.
Representative Porter, inclusion of a site in the National
Park System means activities at or near the site are subject to
compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy
Act.
Are the neighboring landowners, community developers, and
the city of Indianapolis all aware of and prepared for the
hurdles or potential restrictions on what they can do with
their property if such a designation is issued?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, absolutely. We have had this
conversation over the last several months in regards to the
pros or the cons, as one would say. So, the landowners around
the area are aware it is going to be a revitalization area,
very, very big and very robust. As I said, we have $200,000
that has gone into that we have set aside to work on the park
right now.
So, the short answer is, yes, we are very familiar with
that. But we will embrace any conclusions that we can come to
as a community. This is a community effort. It is not just a
small group of individuals.
Mr. Bergman. But the adjacent landowners know, everybody
knows what could potentially----
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bergman. OK.
Mr. Porter. In my other job, I work for a health and
hospital corporation, and we own two buildings adjacent to the
park.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Any further questions? Seeing
none, that concludes the hearing on H.R. 4851.
Representative Porter, Congressman Carson, you are
certainly welcome to stay, but you are also free to go.
Mr. Carson. It is tempting. But thank you, Chairman and
Ranking Member.
Mr. Porter. Thank you very much.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
We will next take up H.R. 2591, by Congressman Austin
Scott, and recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. AUSTIN SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen
of the Committee.
I want to thank you for hosting me and for allowing me to
speak at today's hearing.
As a lifelong outdoorsman and current Vice Chair of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am honored to be here today
to discuss H.R. 2591, the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson
Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of 2017.
If enacted, H.R. 2591 would provide national, broad-based
support to state fish and wildlife agencies to develop, guide,
and enhance collective efforts to recruit hunters and
recreational shooters, all while continuing to protect the
natural resources we enjoy.
As you all are aware, through a system of user-paid public
benefits, Pittman-Robertson is the foundation of wildlife
conservation funding in the United States. Since it was first
enacted in 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Fund has collected over $8 billion from hunters and
recreational shooters to be used by states to fund wildlife
conservation efforts, habitat acquisition and management,
public access to lands, hunter education, and shooting ranges
affiliated with hunter safety programs.
These funds are collected from an excise tax on firearms,
ammunition, and archery equipment, and are matched by the state
with funds from licenses paid by both hunters and recreational
shooters.
Effectively, Pittman-Robertson creates a direct link
between those that hunt and participate in sportsmen activities
and the health of the resources needed to expand and enhance
those opportunities.
However, in recent years the increasing urbanization and
suburbanization of our population has made it more difficult
for the public to participate in hunting and recreational
shooting. Correspondingly, the average age of Americans
purchasing hunting licenses is steadily rising.
This has a significant ripple effect not only on the key
Federal funding models that support conservation of fish and
wildlife, but also on the base of our public lands and on
thoughtful natural resources policy.
With no Federal mandate or any increase in existing user
fees or taxes, H.R. 2591 will preserve the current user-paid
public benefit funding of wildlife conservation for generations
to come while further expanding the flexibility of the states
to make decisions that are best fit for them.
Specifically, H.R. 2591 would clarify that a purpose of the
Pittman-Robertson Fund is to extend public relations assistance
to the states for the promotion of hunting and recreational
shooting. However, to ensure that traditional wildlife
conservation remains the primary focus of Pittman-Robertson,
H.R. 2591 puts a cap on the PR funds that can be used for
public relations.
Finally, H.R. 2591 would expand the Multistate Conservation
Grant Program by providing an additional $5 million per year
for making hunter and recreational recruitment project grants
that promote a national hunting and shooting sport recruitment
program. This legislation simply provides the authority for
existing funds to be used on programs that will help ensure
participation in hunting and recreational shooting, thus
securing the funding base long into the future.
It is important to note that H.R. 2591 does not mandate how
Pittman-Robertson funds must be spent. The discretion to
determine the amount of any wildlife restoration fund spent on
hunter recruitment and recreational shooter recruitment
activities would remain entirely with the state fish and
wildlife agency.
Conservation organizations and state wildlife agencies
alike have long advocated for increased flexibility in Pittman-
Robertson Fund spending. I have received letters from numerous
state agencies and conservation organizations that advocate in
favor of this legislation, H.R. 2591. Mr. Chairman, if
possible, I would like to ask for unanimous consent that these
letters be entered into the record.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
November 6, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
Our organizations represent millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife
enthusiasts, and other conservationists. We strongly support The
Pittman-Robertson Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 2591, which will
authorize the use of certain Pittman-Robertson (P-R) funds for state
fish and wildlife agencies to recruit, retain and reactivate hunters
and recreational shooters. The Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act
provides this authorization for recruitment, retention and reactivation
of anglers and boaters, and it is past time that the P-R Act does
likewise. We respectfully urge that you schedule a hearing on H.R. 2591
so that it can be expeditiously reported to the House floor.
Hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and boating provide vital
and foundational funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies to
deliver the conservation of fish, wildlife and its habitat on the
ground, and to sustainably manage fish and wildlife for not only
hunters and anglers but for all of our citizens who enjoy our natural
resources and the outdoors. State hunting and angling licenses are
matched with federal excise taxes on sporting arms and ammunition, and
fishing tackle respectively, and apportioned to the states for the
conservation of fish, wildlife and its habitat, and providing hunting,
angling, recreational shooting, and boating opportunities. These funds
provide the vast majority of the budget for state fish and wildlife
agencies to conserve all species of fish and wildlife for all of our
citizens, and future generations.
H.R. 2591 would define recruitment, retention and reactivation as
it relates to hunters and recreational shooters, and remove existing
statutory prohibitions against the use of P-R funds for these purposes.
It also clarifies that P-R funds can be used on the development,
construction, and maintenance of public shooting ranges that aren't
explicitly used for hunter education programs. Absent the sanction of
these uses of P-R funds for these purposes, we face the reality that
hunters may continue to decline, thus threatening funding for the
conservation of fish, wildlife and its habitat by the states, which
have principal authority for fish and wildlife within their borders,
including on federal lands. While the number of recreational shooters
is on the increase, we must also accommodate the needs of this growing
sport, and H.R. 2591 would allow the states to do that.
H.R. 2591 is very complementary to the Target Practice and
Marksmanship Training Support Act which is Title II of H.R. 3668
(SHARE), which we also support. We defer (in lieu of section 4(a)(B) of
H.R. 2591) to the provisions in H.R. 3668 section 203 of Title II which
provides that a state may use up to 10% of its P-R section 4(b) funds,
matched at a 90:10 federal:state match, to develop, construct and
maintain shooting ranges on public lands. The other provisions of both
bills are complementary.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request, and we
are committed to working with you to successfully move H.R. 2591 to the
House floor.
Sincerely,
American Woodcock Society National Wild Turkey Federation
Archery Trade Association North American Grouse Partnership
Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies Pheasants Forever
Camp Fire Club of America Quail Forever
Catch-A-Dream Foundation Quality Deer Management Assoc.
Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Conservation Force Ruffed Grouse Society
Council to Advance Hunting
and the Shooting Sports Sportsmen's Alliance
Delta Waterfowl Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership
Ducks Unlimited Whitetails Unlimited
Houston Safari Club Wild Sheep Foundation
Izaak Walton League Wildlife Forever
Mule Deer Foundation Wildlife Management Institute
Bass Pro Shops,
Springfield, Missouri
December 7, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop:
I respectfully urge you to schedule a hearing for H.R. 2591, the
Pittman-Robertson Modernization Act of 2017. H.R. 2591 has widespread
and bipartisan support, and with your help, can advance out of the
House Natural Resources Committee for floor action before the end of
2017.
All state fish and wildlife agencies and numerous hunting and
shooting non-governmental organizations (i.e., Ducks Unlimited,
Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
Boone and Crockett Club, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership)
openly support passage of H.R. 2591.
Bass Pro Shops supports H.R. 2591 and requests your assistance in
ensuring a Committee Hearing is scheduled to discuss this important
legislation. Thank you for your interest and support. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
John L. Morris,
Founder.
______
Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Wildlife Resources Division,
Social Circle, Georgia
December 4, 2017
Hon. Austin Scott
U.S. House of Representatives
2417 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Scott:
I am writing today on behalf of the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) of which all 50 State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies are members, to respectfully request that you co-sponsor H.R.
2591, the ``Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs
Act of 2017''. This legislation is important to ensure continued hunter
supported funding for wildlife conservation, hunter education, and
shooting sports, and will ensure the future of our American sportsmen's
and sportswomen's heritage. Wildlife Resources Division and my
colleague state fish and wildlife agencies enthusiastically support and
will work for passage of H.R. 2591. Attached is a House ``Dear
Colleague'' letter with further information.
Since first enacted in 1937, over $8 billion has been collected,
through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund, from hunters
and recreational shooters, and awarded to states to fund wildlife
conservation, habitat acquisition and management, public access, hunter
education and safety, and shooting ranges affiliated with hunter safety
programs. These funds are collected from an excise tax on firearms,
ammunition and archery equipment, and are matched by the states with
funds from hunting licenses, paid by both hunters and recreational
shooters.
The increasing urbanization and suburbanization of our population
has made it more difficult for the public to participate in hunting and
recreational shooting. The average age of Americans purchasing hunting
licenses is steadily rising. To prevent the imminent decline in revenue
for the Wildlife Restoration Fund, it is necessary to update the
provisions of the Pittman-Robertson Act. H.R. 2591 will provide state
and territorial wildlife agencies the tools needed to recruit, retain
and reactivate hunters and recreational shooters. This will ensure that
funding for wildlife conservation will keep pace with the demands of
our growing national population.
Without a federal mandate or any increase in user rees or taxes,
H.R. 2591 will preserve the current user pay/public benefit funding of
wildlife conservation for generations to come. This legislation simply
provides the authority for the existing funds to be used on programs
that will help ensure participation in hunting and recreational
shooting, thus securing the funding base long into the future. In
keeping with Congress' intent in 1937 to dedicate the majority of the
funds to wildlife management and habitat conservation, the use of funds
for hunter and recreational shooter recruitment, retention and
reactivation are capped at no more than 25%. All decisions regarding
the use of the funds remain at the discretion of the State Fish and
Wildlife Director.
Again we ask that you co-sponsor H.R. 2591. This is important
legislation to ensure the future conservation of America's wildlife and
our hunting heritage. Please contact me should you have any questions
and thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
Rusty Garrison,
Director.
______
National Wild Turkey Federation,
Edgefield, South Carolina
February 13, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the 230,000 members and volunteers of the National
Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), I write to express strong support for
H.R. 2591, the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's
Needs Act of 2017. Thank you for scheduling a hearing; we urge you to
follow this with an expeditious mark-up and we stand ready to assist
you in your efforts.
Founded in 1973, the NWTF is a national non-profit wildlife
conservation organization dedicated to the conservation of the wild
turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage. With the successful
restoration of the wild turkey complete, the NWTF has focused its
efforts on our ``Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt.'' initiative, which
connects both parts of our mission by recognizing the importance of
quality habitat for wild life conservation and its significance to our
hunting tradition. Through this initiative, our goal is to conserve or
enhance 4 million acres of wildlife habitat for turkeys and other
wildlife, provide access to 500,000 additional acres for hunters and
other wildlife enthusiasts, and grow the hunting population by 1.5
million individuals. The NWTF doesn't just advocate for the
recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters, we deliver by
actively engaging potential and lapsed hunters in activities to
introduce them to hunting and the shooting sports and by providing
mentored hunting opportunities. In large part, these activities are
done in partnership with state wildlife agencies and other non-profit
organizations. The success of our partners through adequate funding is
essential to the NWTF reaching our goals.
When the Pittman-Robertson Act was enacted in 1937, hunting and
shooting was widely accepted and commonplace in our nation's society.
At the time, it was inconceivable to the authors of the legislation
that the percentage of hunters in the U.S. would drop to the current
level. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2016 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, there
are approximately 11.5 million hunters in the United States, a decline
of 16 percent since 2011. In addition, it is unlikely the authors
anticipated that the funds generated from the tax would, more than 80
years later, continue to be the primary source of funding for the
states to conserve and manage all wildlife resources.
While we look for other opportunities to more robustly fund
conservation in this country, the Pittman-Robertson Modernization Act
provides a much needed update to the original legislation to allow the
funds to be used to provide additional infrastructure and opportunities
for recreational shooters and to use the funds to actively recruit
people to hunting and the shooting sports.
We support the provisions of the Pittman-Robertson Modernization
Act that would authorize the states to use funds explicitly for the
purpose of promoting hunting and recreational shooting. As an example,
states are currently limited on the amount of funding they can use for
shooting ranges that are not associated with hunter education and
safety programs. As the recreational shooting community continues to
grow, there is more demand for safe places for them to shoot. The
states need the ability to be responsive to their needs, as they pay a
greater proportion of the excise taxes. Without the ability to meet the
needs of this segment of users, support for the excise tax may erode,
thus leading to a further erosion in funding for the state agencies. We
also support provisions that will allow the states to use Pittman-
Robertson funding for marketing and other efforts to recruit and retain
hunters.
The NWTF is also supportive of the provision that will make up to
$5 million in federal grants available annually for national level
efforts to promote hunting and the shooting sports. We need only to
point to the ``Take Me Fishing'' campaign and its success in recruiting
people to the sport to highlight the value of such an effort.
Presently, funding for such an effort is unavailable. However, it is
needed to bolster the efforts of the states and to help guide
consistent efforts for maximum effectiveness.
The NWTF thanks you for your expeditious consideration the
Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of
2017. The future of our hunting tradition is at a critical juncture.
States must have the funding to actively recruit hunters and
recreational shooters. In addition, the recruitment of more hunters and
recreational shooters is essential to perpetuate the current funding
model that the state wildlife agencies rely upon. This legislation will
provide essential funding to ensure hunter and recreational shooter
numbers remain strong and that funding for wildlife conservation
continues. The NWTF sincerely appreciates your leadership on this
conservation and outdoor recreation bill and stands ready to assist you
in its ultimate enactment.
Sincerely,
Rebecca A. Humphries,
Chief Executive Officer.
______
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member, Subcommittee
members, it is now more important than ever to provide state
and territorial wildlife agencies the flexibility and tools
they need to recruit, retain, and reactivate hunters and
recreational shooters.
In doing so, not only will we create a sustainable base of
sportsmen and women in our future generations, but we will
ensure that funding for wildlife conservation will keep pace
with the demands of our increasingly urbanized national
population.
Again, I would like to extend my sincerest thank you to all
of the Subcommittee for allowing me to speak today on behalf of
this legislation. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mr. Bob Ziehmer, who is the Senior
Director of Conservation for Bass Pro Shops, coming to us today
from Springfield, Missouri. He will be testifying in his 5
minutes on both this measure, H.R. 2591, and also the next
measure, H.R. 4647.
Mr. Ziehmer, welcome to the Committee. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. BOB ZIEHMER, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION,
BASS PRO SHOPS, SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
Mr. Ziehmer. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2591
and H.R. 4647. These bipartisan bills are of significant
importance to our Nation, providing benefits to virtually all
Americans.
For the record, my name is Bob Ziehmer. As Director of
Conservation at Bass Pro Shops, I am privileged to work to
advance conservation under the mission to inspire everyone to
enjoy, love, and conserve the great outdoors.
Prior to joining Bass Pro Shops, I served over 25 years
with the Missouri Department of Conservation, the last 6\1/2\
years as the Agency Director. Over the years, I have seen
firsthand that conservation investments, ensuring wise
management of habitats and fish and wildlife resources, play a
significant role in America's quality of life and economic
prosperity.
The fact is, healthy fish and wildlife resources and the
habitat supporting them are the base of our Nation's outdoor
recreational industry, an industry that is supporting 7.6
million U.S. jobs, attracting more than 140 million
participants each year, and generating a positive business
revenue of over $887 billion annually.
My passion for the outdoors was instilled at an early age
by my parents. Today, an avid hunter and angler, I spend as
much time afield as possible with family and friends. There is
just something special about watching a sunrise over a frost-
covered field, hearing the sound of a wild turkey gobble, a
hike across vast grasslands, and the feel of cold water in a
clear mountain stream.
As I testify in support of these bills, my thoughts reflect
back to the conditions of wildlife in the early 1900s. After
years of operating under the belief that fish and wildlife were
so abundant they would last forever, our country was at a
critical point. In my home state of Missouri, there were less
than 2,000 white-tailed deer. Turkey were rarely seen. Elk,
bear, and many other animals were gone. Similar stories were
playing out across the Nation.
Passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937, redirecting
an existing excise tax being collected on firearms and
ammunitions to state agencies for wildlife management, provided
critical funding, setting the stage for landmark achievements
over the past 80 years.
It is important to note, investments in wildlife have
provided significant side benefits, including clean water,
improved air quality, erosion control, and increased outdoor
recreational opportunities.
As we look to the future, there are conservation
challenges, challenges that are diverse, from invasive species
to ensuring the balanced needs of rare and abundant wildlife,
ensuring public access to the resources, all the while
remaining open and encouraging public input.
H.R. 2591 provides flexibility for a limited amount of
existing Pittman-Robertson funds to be used by states on
services and outreach efforts that help ensure strong
participation numbers in hunting and recreational shooting.
Since 1937, hunters and recreational shooters have
contributed directly to wildlife management through paying the
excise tax collected on firearms and ammunition.
In addition, strong hunter numbers play an essential role
in managing abundant wildlife population levels.
H.R. 4647 advances a recommendation from the national Blue
Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife
Resources. United by a shared vision of addressing growing
threats to our fish and wildlife resources, members of the
panel call for passage of this legislation.
It is time for a more complete funding model, enabling
state agencies to deliver conservation actions for all fish and
wildlife, both game and non-game species.
Today, one-third of our fish and wildlife species across
the Nation are considered at risk of continuing population
declines. The best way to recover these species is to replicate
the conservation model that has produced remarkable success for
game species.
H.R. 4647 builds upon fish and wildlife conservation and
outdoor recreational services through redirecting a portion of
existing energy and mineral revenues being collected. These
funds will be invested to ensure the future of a diverse fish
and wildlife population.
This nonregulatory, collaborative approach is a superior
means of recovering species, while at the same time reducing
the need for more expensive measures and avoiding regulation
and litigation.
In closing, now is the time to act to address the growing
threats to fish and wildlife resources.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support
of H.R. 2591 and H.R. 4647.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ziehmer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Ziehmer, Senior Director of Conservation,
Bass Pro Shops on H.R. 2591 and H.R. 4647
Good afternoon Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and
members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. I am Bob Ziehmer, the
Senior Director of Conservation for Bass Pro Shops. Previously, I was
the Director of the Missouri Department of Conservation where I worked
alongside trained fish and wildlife professionals who are highly
devoted to the conservation, restoration, and management of our
Nation's fish and wildlife and the habitats on which they depend for
the benefit of all current and future citizens. Thank you for the
opportunity and privilege to testify before you today on the
``Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of
2017'' (H.R. 2591) and the ``Recovering America's Wildlife Act'' (H.R.
4647). The first will help stabilize one of the critical existing
cornerstones of state fish and wildlife agencies' conservation and
management efforts and the second provides an opportunity to build upon
our wildlife conservation success and secure the future of America's
rich diversity of fish and wildlife across our great Nation.
I am very fortunate to work for a company that measures our
investment by our long-term impact on conservation. Bass Pro Shops is
North America's premier outdoor recreation and conservation company.
Founded in 1972, when avid young angler Johnny Morris began selling
tackle out of his father's liquor store in Springfield, Missouri, today
the company provides customers with unmatched offerings spanning
premier destination retail, outdoor equipment manufacturing, world-
class resort destinations, and more. In 2017, Bass Pro Shops acquired
Cabela's to create a ``best-of-the-best'' experience with superior
products, dynamic locations and outstanding customer service. Under the
visionary conservation leadership of Johnny Morris, Bass Pro Shops is
made up of individuals who are dedicated to inspiring people,
especially youth and families, to enjoy, love and conserve the great
outdoors. Bass Pro Shops' giving over the course of many decades has
positioned us as the outdoor industry's conservation leader. The
company is known as a national leader in protecting habitat and
connecting families to the outdoors and has been named by Forbes as
``one of America's Most Reputable Companies'' and ``one of America's
Best Employers.''
modernizing pittman-robertson fund for tomorrow's needs act, h.r. 2591
At the beginning of my testimony I first referenced the
``Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of
2017.'' I am very pleased to say that this bill neither seeks a new
source of Federal funding nor imparts a Federal mandate of any kind.
Rather, this bill simply gives state fish and wildlife agencies (state
agencies) the flexibility they need to address today's priority
problems using existing funds from the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Fund.
Since 1937, sportsmen and women have been the driving force for
conservation funding in the United States. Over $10 billion have been
collected through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund (P-R)
from hunters and recreational shooters, and awarded to state agencies
to fund wildlife conservation, habitat acquisition and management,
public access, hunter education and safety, and shooting ranges
affiliated with hunter safety programs. This funding program has
unquestionably served as the lifeblood for wildlife conservation in
this Nation for more than 80 years. In spite of P-R's magnanimous
success, the allowable uses for funding under this program must be
updated to accommodate modern challenges unimaginable in 1937, if we
are to adequately secure our hunting and recreational shooting future.
For the past several decades, the number of licensed hunters across
the United States has been on a steady and precipitous decline. More
recently, the preliminary results of the 2016 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation released by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicate that hunting has declined
by 16 percent since 2011. This equates to a reduction of 2.2 million
hunters over the 5-year period. Previously, over the period from 1980
to 2011, a decline of 3.7 million hunters occurred. These numbers
indicate that there are now approximately 11.5 million active hunters
in the United States. Additionally, the average age of Americans
purchasing hunting licenses is steadily rising thus further detailing
the lack of recruitment and retention.
This recent accelerated decline is alarming and should be viewed as
a wake-up call to not only state agencies, industry, and conservation
groups, but sportsmen and women everywhere. Outdoor recreation remains
a huge contributor to our Nation's economy, and according to a report
by the Outdoor Industry Association, expenditures by hunters and other
outdoor recreation participants in 2017 topped $887 billion. While
there are many contributing factors to the participation decline noted
above, urbanization and suburbanization are chief among them. These
over-arching impacts on our human population have made it more
difficult for the public to participate in hunting and recreational
target shooting as public access, time, and available resources are all
strained.
The ``Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs
Act of 2017'' will provide state and territorial wildlife agencies the
tools needed to recruit, retain, and reactivate (R3) hunters and
recreational shooters by clarifying that one of the purposes of the P-R
is to extend financial and technical assistance to state agencies for
the promotion of hunting and recreational target shooting. This will
ensure that funding for wildlife conservation will keep pace with the
demands of our growing and changing national population.
This legislation specifically seeks to define ``hunter
recruitment'' and ``recreational shooter recruitment'' activities and
projects and makes it clear that funds under section 4(b), 4(c) and 10
may be used for hunter recruitment and recreational shooter
recruitment. Currently, the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund, which is a similar statute
supporting the fishing and boating constituency from related user-based
taxes, allows state agencies to use those funds for recruitment as well
as education, outreach and promotion of fishing programs to the public.
These expanded uses of excise tax funds generated from fishing and
boating have helped to stimulate an 8 percent growth in participation
during the same 5-year period when hunting participation declined
significantly. Our belief is that these expanded uses in P-R funding
would have similar positive impacts for hunting and recreational
shooting participation, helping to stabilize the funding cornerstone
that state agencies depend on for successful wildlife conservation and
management.
H.R. 2591 also would expand the Multistate Conservation Grant
Program (Section 11) by providing for an additional $5 million per
year, specifically from archery related excise tax collections, to be
used for nationally and regionally specific communication and outreach
related to hunter and recreational shooter programs that will encourage
collaboration and drive innovation. Currently, the $3 million allocated
to this program is inadequate to meet the large and growing demand for
state agencies' multistate and national wildlife conservation
priorities as well as exceptional recruitment, retention and
reactivation projects, especially when these activities represent only
one of a handful of national priorities competing for these dollars.
H.R. 2591 allows state agencies to acquire lands and develop public
target ranges in strategic support of meeting the needs of hunters and
recreational shooters in their respective states, and eliminates the
required nexus of building target ranges only as part of a hunter
education program. Currently, Section 4(c) and Section 10 funds are not
always sufficient to meet the state agency's need to fund both land
acquisition and development costs associated with target range
constructions. H.R. 2591 would allow state agencies to use Section 4(b)
funds for target ranges. Currently, Section 4(b) funds cannot be used
for range construction or maintenance. H.R. 2591 will clarify that the
construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges under
the Basic Hunter Education funding is not restricted to target ranges
that include hunter safety programs, as the regulations now specify.
In keeping with the original intent of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, to dedicate the majority of the funds
to wildlife management and habitat conservation, the use of funds for
hunter and recreational shooter recruitment, retention, and
reactivation under the proposed legislation is capped at no more than
25 percent on a 5-year average but do not require the expenditure of
any funds for this activity. As currently practiced, all decisions
regarding the use of the funds remain at the discretion of the state
fish and wildlife agency directors.
In closing, I would also like to acknowledge the vital leadership
of Representative Austin Scott (GA) in championing this legislation.
H.R. 2591 will preserve the current user pay-public benefit funding of
wildlife conservation for generations to come without overlaying a
Federal mandate or any increase in user fees or taxes. This legislation
simply provides the authority for existing funds to be used on programs
that will help ensure participation in hunting and recreational
shooting, thus securing the funding base for state-led wildlife
conservation long into the future. Please join me, our state agencies,
industry partners, conservation organizations and concerned sportsmen
and women everywhere in supporting passage of H.R. 2591.
recovering america's wildlife act, h.r. 4647
Our Nation's fish and wildlife are among its most valuable
resources, along with clean air, water, healthy forests and
agricultural lands that support all of us. Our quality of life, outdoor
recreational pursuits and prosperity are tied to the health and
sustainability of these treasures. They occur not by accident but
through the investments, sacrifices, and sound management practices of
individual citizens, local communities, and public servants of our
natural resources. Our Nation's natural resources, including our rich
and diverse fish and wildlife, represent the health and wealth of the
country and its people.
While we have many fish and wildlife conservation success stories
to tell, there is still much to do. In fact, today, we are facing an
historic fish and wildlife challenge that could alter future Americans'
opportunities to benefit from these resources. Scientists estimate that
one-third of wildlife species in the United States are at risk of
becoming threatened or endangered unless we pursue proactive,
collaborative efforts to accelerate their recovery. The dramatic
decline of so many species of diverse wildlife and the habitats they
depend on has an adverse effect on fundamental life benefits provided
by nature such as water purification and aquifer recharge, flood
abatement, pollination, recreation and food and fiber production that
are essential to human health. These species declines threaten
Americans' quality of life, as well as our national economy and create
costly regulatory uncertainty for businesses, industries, and
communities further impacting jobs and the health and economic well-
being of our communities.
In 2014, prompted by the growing threats to our natural resources,
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies convened a Blue Ribbon
Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources,
which was co-chaired by Governor Dave Freudenthal (WY) and Bass Pro
Shops founder and CEO John L. Morris and included executives from major
corporations and leadership from the Nation's leading non-governmental
conservation organizations. I was honored to serve on this panel that
validated the serious need for a more complete funding model that
enables state agencies to more fully deliver conservation actions for
all fish and wildlife. The Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sport
Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund are essential and
successful in providing reliable and dedicated funding to state
agencies for the conservation and management of species that are hunted
and fished, respectively, and are responsible for the recovery of these
species, some of which were on the brink of extinction. There is no
concomitant, dedicated funding source to state agencies for the
conservation and management of the full array of species, many of which
are trending toward needing a safety net to assist in their
stabilization and recovery. State agencies need a dedicated funding
source commensurate with their broad conservation missions to restore,
conserve, and manage these at-risk species that comprise the lists of
species of greatest conservation need compiled by state agencies. We
need an innovative funding solution to address a nation-wide fish and
wildlife conservation crisis that has the potential to impact all
aspects of our American traditions, our economy, and our quality of
life.
To accomplish this goal, the Panel recommended a sweeping
initiative to dedicate $1.3 billion annually, an average of $26 million
per state, to the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program, an
existing subaccount under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Program, for state agencies to effectively implement State Wildlife
Action Plans. Congress requires each state and U.S. territory to
develop a State Wildlife Action Plan--a proactive, comprehensive
conservation strategy which examines species' health and recommends
actions to conserve wildlife and vital habitat before they become more
rare and in need of additional protections. These plans are unique to
each state and are developed with participation from the public.
Congress has provided a helping hand for these efforts by funding
development of State Wildlife Action Plans through the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants Program. We are grateful for this recognition of the
value of state-based conservation, but we are only able to scratch the
surface with this level of support. Without additional resources to
reverse the growing list of species declines and possible listings, it
is a growing Federal and fiscal burden on state agencies and our
communities.
The panel has since expanded into the Alliance for America's Fish
and Wildlife (Alliance), representing members from the outdoor
recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive
industries, private landowners, educational institutions, sportsmen's
and other conservation organizations, and state agencies. United by a
shared vision and a common purpose, the unprecedented Alliance stands
ready to work with Congress to enact and implement this unique solution
to the Nation's fish and wildlife crisis.
On behalf of Bass Pro Shops and the rest of the Alliance, I would
like to thank Representatives Jeff Fortenberry (NE) and Debbie Dingell
(MI) for understanding the gravity of our growing wildlife crisis and
for introducing the bipartisan, legislative solution to make a
meaningful investment in this important, state-led conservation work--
H.R. 4647, the ``Recovering America's Wildlife Act.'' This legacy
legislation is an opportunity to provide a proactive solution that
leverages public/private partnerships and brings stakeholders together
to reduce potentially costly regulatory burdens and uncertainties, and
provide economic benefits to our citizens and businesses. Additionally,
this legislation is complementary to existing natural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation programs and proposes to redirect
$1.3 billion in existing energy and mineral revenues generated from
onshore and offshore Federal lands and waters to invest in the health
and management of habitats and landscapes upon which our citizens and
all of our fish and wildlife depend.
The ``Recovering America's Wildlife Act'' would provide critical
resources to state agencies to sustainably lead proactive, voluntary,
incentive-based conservation efforts that have proven effective in
stabilizing wildlife populations to preclude the need to federally list
species. As an observation, the state agencies have shown that
addressing the life needs and habitat requirements of declining species
across their range before they reach the point where additional
protections may be needed is the more prudent, economically and
biologically sound approach to managing species trending toward
listing. It would also enable the state agencies to work with private
landowners to implement voluntary conservation and management actions
without requiring public access. Funds provided to the state agencies
through this legislation would be leveraged with non-Federal match,
creating opportunities for successful partnerships, and apportioned to
each state based 50 percent on its proportion of land area and 50
percent on its proportion of people. Territories would also receive
funding from the program.
In addition to providing critical resources to proactively manage
all fish and wildlife species, the ``Recovering America's Wildlife
Act'' also provides state agencies with the ability to communicate and
work with the public through wildlife conservation education efforts.
The Act allows the state agencies to create and implement wildlife
conservation education programs and projects, including public outreach
intended to foster natural resource stewardship, and work with the
public, industries and communities to develop local wildlife
conservation solutions. Further, the legislation advances wildlife-
associated recreation projects by allowing state agencies to use up to
10 percent of a state's apportionment to meet the growing demand for
outdoor activities associated with fish and wildlife including but not
limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography;
wildlife viewing areas, blinds, and platforms; water trails and access;
and trails, trail heads and access for such projects. Having a place to
go to recreate outdoors is one of the leading challenges to outdoor
recreational participation. Outdoor recreation is a part of our great
natural heritage--our identity as Americans, and we want to make
certain that this natural heritage exists in the same or better
condition for future Americans by nurturing a conservation ethic and
investing in our natural resources.
We know this is a substantial commitment and investment, but rest
assured that the state agencies and their conservation partners are
committed to conserving the full array of America's fish and wildlife,
and excited to report their conservation outcomes and progress to their
citizens and Congress. Investing in the ``Recovering America's Wildlife
Act'' will provide economic returns to state, local and federal
governments in the form of decreased tax payer expenditures associated
with species listings and associated regulations, increased opportunity
for wildlife-dependent recreation, growth in the outdoor recreation
economy, and increases in associated jobs.
Recent surveys document high citizen interest in conservation of
our natural resources across the country. From a poll conducted earlier
this year entitled ``Conservation in the West'' by Public Opinion
Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, 74
percent of westerners identify themselves as an outdoor recreation
enthusiast, and this transcends party lines--75 percent of republicans,
72 percent of democrats, and 76 percent of independent respondents.
Additionally, 76 percent of western voters consider themselves a
conservationist, and 7 in 10 voters polled say that outdoor recreation
is very important to the economy in their state.
Unfortunately, the essential role that our natural resources play
in American's quality of life and economic prosperity is all too often
overlooked. These resources are the lifeblood of many communities and
continue as important job and revenue generators at state and national
levels. For example, as referenced earlier from the same 2017 Outdoor
Industry Association report, every year Americans spend more on outdoor
recreation ($887 billion) than they do on pharmaceuticals and fuel,
combined ($770 billion). More Americans are employed by outdoor
recreation jobs than those in education, computer technology, insurance
and finance, and construction. The outdoor recreation economy generates
$124.5 billion in local, state and Federal tax revenues each year.
Spending on hunting alone supports more American jobs (195,000) than
the combined workforces of Apple and Microsoft (130,000). Access to
high quality recreation opportunities drives our economy and continues
to be a quality-of-life index criterion, and a key decision point for
choosing a location for many of our most productive American industries
and contributors to our GDP. As I can attest from my perspective as a
leader in this industry, all of these economic benefits would not exist
without healthy fish and wildlife and the habitats they depend on for
survival, just as we do. The ``Recovering America's Wildlife Act''
recognizes and builds a path forward for this synergy to continue to
sustain our high quality of life and our economic prosperity together
into the future.
The state agencies have a track record of successful species
restoration and conservation. Over the last few decades by stretching
limited funding, state agencies have built considerable expertise in
response to the growing need to address at-risk and imperiled species.
I offer two examples for your consideration--one from California and
the other from the southeastern United States.
First, the Tule elk was once a species of greatest conservation
need. Native only to California, the Tule elk is the smallest of all
the elk species in North America. Due to unregulated hunting and loss
of natural habitat, they were driven nearly to extinction by the turn
of the 20th century. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) created its Elk Management Program in order to maintain healthy
elk herds, re-establish elk in suitable historic ranges, provide public
educational and recreational opportunities involving elk, and to
alleviate conflicts involving elk on private property. Through this
program, CDFW personnel have safely captured and relocated more than
1,200 elk since 1975 using a variety of techniques.
California's state Tule elk population has increased from 3 herds
totaling 500 elk in 1970, to 21 herds with about 3,800 elk today. Such
an increase demonstrates the program's success and the state's native
elk species will continue to recover with continued proactive measures
and investments in their conservation.
Second, following the 2010 filing of the so-called ``mega-
petition'' and others that covered 404 aquatic species in the
southeast, state agencies comprising the Southeastern Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) developed the Southeast At-Risk
Species (SEARS) program in partnership with the FWS Southeast Regional
Office. The purpose of this program is to cooperate and coordinate
among the state agencies to address the conservation needs of the at-
risk species proposed for listing. The outcomes of this collaboration
have been remarkable: 98 species do not require protection of the
Federal ESA because of existing conservation actions, updated surveys,
and re-evaluation of threats to their survival; five species have been
down-listed from endangered to threatened; four species have been de-
listed; and five species were listed as threatened instead of
endangered because of the overall efforts. State agencies worked across
state boundaries and cooperatively with the FWS utilizing state and
Federal funds together with state agency relationships and expertise.
The bottom line is state agencies are effective at leveraging
partnerships, relationships, expertise, capacity and funding to
conserve fish and wildlife. We now have the opportunity to make
additional investments to proactively apply proven conservation
practices that will prevent the need to pursue other regulatory
approaches to wildlife conservation on a much broader scale. State
agencies are on the ground, in the communities, and on the front lines
of these challenges. State agencies have prioritized building
relationships with local communities, landowners and other stakeholders
to nurture trust and work to better serve the fish and wildlife
management needs of their constituents.
Although there have been great strides in conservation made for
important species, without much needed funding provided in this
legislation, state agencies won't be able to stay ahead of the
pressures that keep pushing our fish and wildlife further toward
becoming endangered. Today, strong bipartisan support is needed to
advance this legislation that builds upon these conservation successes
to ensure the future of our diverse fish and wildlife is secure, to
expand wildlife-associated recreation, and provide opportunities to
engage and educate Americans and local communities on important fish
and wildlife conservation issues. This will be our legacy, our gift to
our grandchildren and their children, to leave for them the
opportunities that we have had to enjoy and benefit from our natural
resources, and value them for all that they provide for us.
The fish and wildlife resources of our country are ably managed by
state fish and wildlife agencies in partnership with Federal agencies
and non-governmental partners. These two bills, that I have the
privilege of testifying on, provide enhancements or improvements to
visionary legislation dating back to 1937, that will enable state
agencies to shore up its base, if you will, through new and concerted
outreach and marketing in support of recruitment, retention, and
reactivation of hunters, and the second bill offers the hope of new
funding, new capacity for managing the full suite of fish and wildlife
species, and their habitats, in keeping with the public trust doctrine
under which fish and wildlife are a resource managed by state agencies
in trust for the public and future generations. These two bills are the
perfect package to secure the future of fish and wildlife conservation,
outdoor recreation, and complementary education.
In closing, Bass Pro Shops pledges to work with Members of Congress
to implement these solutions to our growing fish and wildlife
conservation challenges. We would ask that you enact these two pieces
of important legislation which are critical to the long-term
sustainability of our Nation's fish and wildlife. This is the
opportunity to facilitate the continuation of the significant
stewardship provided by America's sportsmen and women, and the health
and well-being of every American for generations to come.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. And we thank you for your testimony.
We will now move to questions. I have two.
Mr. Ziehmer, could you spend just a moment talking about
the importance of hunting for proper wildlife management?
Mr. Ziehmer. As we look over the past, let's just say, 80
years, as wildlife species have rebounded, we have species that
are incredible economic engines at the local, state, and
national levels. Those range from white-tailed deer, to wild
turkeys, to elk, and the list goes on.
Having hunters help state agencies manage populations at
appropriate levels not only helps individuals, it helps
habitat. And, in fact, managing for good habitat and
sustainable wildlife go together. Hunters have and continue to
play a key role in helping state agencies manage their fish and
wildlife resources.
Mr. McClintock. And preventing populations from over-
running the ability of the land to support them?
Mr. Ziehmer. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. Great.
The other question I have is basically this. Pittman-
Robertson is primarily funded by an excise tax on firearms and
ammunition, and archery equipment. It would seem to me that
encouraging a new generation of hunters, shooters, and archers
is essential in order to fulfill the purposes of the Act. Do
you have any comment on that thought?
Mr. Ziehmer. The revenues generated by the redirection of
the excise tax without a doubt have been the engine for the
past 80 years to do things that folks around the world stand in
amazement that this country has been able to do.
Many of these species were on the brink of being lost.
Through hunters buying licenses, to individuals, recreational
shooters purchasing firearms and ammunition, revenue has been
increased and over time has allowed us to fund key management
activities.
As we stand here today, one of the challenges that we see
is working to make sure hunters know the story, know their
important role both in generating funds to allow state agencies
to implement key activities, but also to know their role in
management.
And not just hunters, but being able to market and outreach
to all citizens. We live in a democracy, and it is important to
increase individuals' awareness and understanding of the model
that has proven beneficial for over 80 years.
When you look at hunters and recreational shooters, the
majority of funds coming into Pittman-Robertson have been
generated from those groups.
Recreational shooters continue to grow in number. Providing
facilities that allow safe opportunities for individuals to
engage in those activities, as well as to be able to
communicate with them key important conservation messages, will
continue to serve the Nation well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
I will yield back my time and recognize the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ziehmer, is that the correct pronunciation?
Mr. Ziehmer. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. In your testimony, you are talking about Bass
Pro Shops and the conservation efforts that it does, and at the
same time you are a retailer of firearms and ammunition. So,
can you tell me exactly what your company does to promote this
conservation work?
Mr. Ziehmer. Yes, and I hope if you have not met the
founder and CEO of Bass Pro Shops, Johnny Morris, I hope in the
near future we have the opportunity to visit.
Over the past few years, I have been blessed to get to know
Johnny and watch the commitment. If you spend any time at all
with Johnny Morris you will hear him make reference: one of the
most important things Bass Pro Shops can do for the future of
the outdoor industry is to invest in the future of
conservation.
Whether the economy has been strong in the retail world or
whether it has been weak, Bass Pro Shop's commitment to
conservation continues.
As we continue to work with state agencies and others, as a
company we have three pillars that we are building upon today:
To do all we can to ensure the health of wildlife and
habitat.
Second, to work to do as much as we can to engage new
audiences with the outdoors and not only help them understand
the role of hunters and anglers, but help them understand how
to participate in the outdoors, the responsibility they carry
as citizens to make sure we hand that on to the next
generation.
And third is to look for opportunities like this to speak
up and advocate for a system that has proven successful, and
looking at state agencies, how they use these funds, a positive
accountable track record.
The modifications and flexibility provided by H.R. 2591 is
supported by Bass Pro Shops and many others.
Ms. Hanabusa. I understand what you are saying. I guess
what I am looking for is, can you give me a specific example?
Do you hold seminars? Before anyone buys a box of ammunition do
you show them a slide?
What exactly do you do? I know what your objectives are.
But what exactly does the Bass Pro Shops do to effect the
things that you just said?
Mr. Ziehmer. In the area of hunters and shooting sports,
and thank you for the clarification, even at our retail
locations we hold a variety of seminars, special weekends, and
summer camps not only for individuals, but for families that
would want to come in and learn more about those activities.
We also are involved with a variety of activities, not the
least of which are what we call Outdoor Days, where we take
activities to citizens to give them an opportunity to have
hands-on experience, everything from kayaking, to shooting, to
catching a fish, and the list goes on.
In that role, we work with state agencies and other
volunteers to demonstrate safe firearm handling and to give
them an opportunity through BB and pellet air rifle activities
to engage.
We also work with a number of groups through funding that
carry on hunter education. In our retail locations, we offer up
and many thousands of people annually are trained at Bass Pro
Shops through hunter education.
So, we are actively involved and we are looking for
additional opportunities to engage as they are appropriate.
Ms. Hanabusa. Do you have any kind of benchmarks or data
that you collect to show how you have effectively assisted in
the wildlife conservation efforts? Do you adopt a particular
species and monitor that? Or what exactly do you do for that
conservation of wildlife issue?
Mr. Ziehmer. Right now we are working on metrics to measure
with key partners as we move forward under those three pillars
that I referenced earlier, and those pillars in the area, for
instance, in habitat management. We are looking to the experts
to provide us what metrics we should be measuring and how to
measure those as we move forward to make sure that we are
advancing meaningful conservation in a very purposeful way.
And I would be glad to visit with you and other members of
your staff if you would like to discuss that further.
Ms. Hanabusa. If you have a report that would be helpful,
if you have done it already, so we could see that.
Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I yield.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Further questions on H.R. 2591?
Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Let me ask either Austin or Mr. Ziehmer,
because you mentioned the word ``kayaking'' right there, which
piqued my interest.
So, the Pittman-Robertson Fund is being supplied for the
most part by hunters and fishermen.
Mr. Ziehmer. Correct. And the kayak term was probably taken
out of context regarding the Pittman-Robertson.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, but it does fund for conservation. The
question I had, if you put that in there, are there other
groups that benefit from the conservation and wildlife support
that are being funded by the hunters and fishermen, groups that
are not necessarily hunters and fishermen?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think that we all
benefit from an increase in wildlife and increased access to
the outdoors. The Pittman-Robertson funds, while they come from
when somebody buys certain sporting goods, all people who use
our natural resources benefit from the parks and the other
things that come about.
Mr. Bishop. There are people who will benefit from this
fund that are not necessarily hunters and fishermen. So,
climbers, hikers, kayakers, other types of species that are not
sport species will all benefit from this?
Mr. Scott. I believe that anybody who enjoys hiking, one of
the things that they enjoy the most about hiking is seeing the
wildlife in the forest. So, yes, I think they benefit from----
Mr. Bishop. Have we ever thought that as this fund is
coming from one particular group, from hunters and fishermen,
and we certainly don't want to discourage that, but a whole
bigger area are benefiting from that. As we start looking at
revenue sources, have we ever started thinking, well, maybe
some of those others who benefit from this program should also
help in the funding of this particular program, which would
expand the fund at the same time so you could actually do more
recreation opportunities and more conservation habitat renewals
that may not necessarily directly affect or directly relate to
the hunters and the fishermen?
Mr. Ziehmer. The simple answer is yes. In fact, later
today, when we have discussions and hopefully questions on H.R.
4647, you will see how that dovetails in.
And I would reference the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act that was passed in the 1950s that also provides
revenue and an excise tax on fishing equipment, and that ties
together.
So, in answer to your question, yes, that has been thought
of, and, in fact, H.R. 4647 is a solution to that.
Mr. Bishop. All right. You have triggered that question in
my mind that maybe one of the things we should be looking at is
if we can expand this program and expand the good by also going
after those who benefit from it without actually paying into it
directly.
I mean, the sportsmen, the hunters, and the fishermen are
doing a great job here in funding a program. There are a whole
lot of other people that benefit from that and maybe they
should be asked to help support that at the same time. It is an
idea I think we should maybe explore at some particular time.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Further questions on H.R. 2591?
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, before I ask Bob a question, Ms. Hanabusa, you
asked about direct impacts from Bass Pro Shops. I can tell you,
when I was 18 years old I remember quite well getting a sticker
that said Free the Fighter that came from an order that I
placed with Bass Pro Shops.
And it was really Johnny Morris and Bass Pro Shops and a
small group of people that started promoting Free the Fighter,
that was effectively the start of catch and release
approximately 30 years ago.
And I think that there has been a change in the mindset of
sportsmen today from where it was many years ago, and I think a
lot of that originally started with that Free the Fighter in
fishing, and it has carried itself into the hunting area, as
well. And that is one of the reasons we see so many more fish
and so much more, better game, if you will.
I do want to ask one question, if I may, Bob. Some groups
have opposed the legislation that I have presented, H.R. 2591,
because they feel it could redirect funds away from Section
4(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Fund. Can you speak to why this
really should not be an issue?
Mr. Ziehmer. When we look at H.R. 2591, it provides
flexibilities for states to utilize these dollars if they see
it as a priority. It is a flexibility put in the bill.
As we look at Pittman-Robertson and all that has been
accomplished over 80 years, and we recognize where a large
portion of those resources are coming from, they are coming
from hunters and recreational shooters.
As we stand here and we look at challenges that we have in
those two areas and maintaining those numbers for hunters, the
flexibility to mirror what was put into the Dingell-Johnson
Sport Fish Restoration Act that allows funds to be used for
outreach, and recruitment, retention, reactivation efforts has
proved important. As we watch hunter numbers continue to slide,
we see the angler numbers continue to rise.
Part of that is having the ability to communicate to
hunters the importance of what they are doing, communicating to
citizens that may not hunt today the importance of hunters,
hoping they will become hunters, but if not, they will have a
full understanding and appreciate the role that hunters play.
On the recreational shooter side, it is a sport that
continues to grow. Having facilities that allow recreational
shooters to conduct their sport in a safe way and in a way that
would also allow state agencies and volunteers to communicate
to that important group the role they have in wildlife
management in this great country can only produce benefits.
Again, I would say that with that flexibility it is up to
the state agency to decide whether those dollars would be
utilized or not, and there is a limit and an average over 5
years. Some states no doubt need this to do those activities
for hunters and recreational shooters. Some states may not be
in a position to use them today. Some states will aggressively
use them off and on.
But as we look long-term, if we want to maintain Pittman-
Robertson and continue the forward progress for what it has
accomplished in wildlife management, H.R. 2591 is essential.
Mr. Scott. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with
this. We are trying to mirror what worked with fishing.
Mrs. Dingell. It might have been my husband's father.
Mr. Scott. We are trying to mirror what Congresswoman
Dingell did for fishing with the hunting funds.
And with that, I would like to thank you for allowing me to
present the bill, and I think it is a good piece of
legislation, as I think the next piece of legislation is.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Further questions on H.R. 2591? Seeing none, that will
conclude our hearing on that bill.
Mr. Ziehmer, we would ask that you remain for the next
hearing, which is on H.R. 4647.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fortenberry for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the
opportunity to be here.
Ranking Member Hanabusa, thank you as well.
Chairman Bishop, always a pleasure to see you and work with
you.
I want to first acknowledge my collaborative partner,
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, for her extraordinary leadership
in this initiative. We are working very hard to create a
bipartisan spirit around this bill because we think it is
essential to our country's well-being. And I am grateful for
the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Chairman, last fall I stepped onto a boat on the
Missouri River, which is at the foot of the Great Plains. It is
among the Missouri River bottoms, about 50 miles north of
Omaha, and this is where the vast expanse of our country really
does begin.
The reason I did that is we were there to look at a Corps
of Engineers project. The Corps of Engineers about 100 years
ago took on making the Missouri River navigable, and they made
a series of calculations using the velocity of the water to
actually create the conditions in which the channel would
remain navigable.
Over time, they did such a good job with their
calculations, the river levels have dropped and the land along
the sides of the river which hosted a number of species and
habitats has diminished. So, now the Corps of Engineers is
being forced to recreate the conditions for the spawning
grounds of the pallid sturgeon.
I went to look at this area, which is on the Iowa side of
the river, and as we got a little bit closer to the weirs and
rock barriers that were built in order to create shallow water
for the pallid sturgeon, we ran aground in the sandy bottom.
There was a little yellow sign in the distance on one of the
sandbars, and I asked, ``What is that?'' Somebody had already
gone out into this area of the river and claimed that spot for
a duck hunting blind.
The reason that I am telling you all this is that by a
holistic approach to restoration of wildlife habitat, by
creating the conditions in which not only species can thrive,
we create the conditions for tremendous recreational
opportunity, hunting, fishing, and community well-being. And
that fundamentally is the purpose of the bill here today,
Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
Mr. Chairman, I want to move from a system which is based
on regulation and litigation to one that is based on
collaboration.
As you are quite aware, the Federal Government mandates
that each state have a state wildlife management plan, and yet,
we do not adequately fund those. At the same time, we have
about 8,000 species in America nearing an endangered status.
When the endangered species law is invoked, we move into the
realm of not only regulation but litigation, and who benefits?
It takes years to come up with suitable plans. It takes
multiple levels of lawsuits and government engagement and a
waste of time and money for this country.
There is a better way to do this, to create a proactive
environment in which we at the Federal level are collaborating
with the states, funding not a fully funded mandate, and moving
funds from resource extraction into resource recovery for the
benefit of wildlife, for the benefit of hunters, for the
benefit of fishermen, and for the benefit of community. That is
at its core what this bill is seeking to do.
This has created a wave of excitement which excites me
among the sportsmen's community, among the conservation
community, among state administrators of wildlife agencies, who
now see the possibility for a continuity of habitat through
voluntary agreements like we do in Nebraska and other places
like Wyoming. I don't know exactly how it works in California.
It might be a little different, so I am trying to be sensitive
to this.
But at the same time, there are options here to use
collaboration and partnership with landowners, farmers, and
others to create the conditions for, again, continuity of
habitat.
Not only did I want to present today the options of the
ideas in this bill, but I also wanted to thank you, because it
helps by having a platform to get appropriate feedback, some of
which has come from my good friend Congressman Garret Graves,
who has a very valid concern that oil and gas revenues
substantially come from Louisiana and a very meager portion
returns back to a very serious complex ecological conservation
that he has in his backyard involving coastal erosion.
I have stood on the remnant of shores in Louisiana looking
at the rock piles erected by the community of Grand Isle in
order to try to stop the pressures from the Gulf from further
eroding their land and their wildlife habitat.
I think he has brought up a reasonable concern in this
regard. And I think as we move forward we are actually looking
for ways in which we could accomplish multiple objectives in
this regard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fortenberry follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Nebraska on H.R. 4647
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. I
appreciate having the opportunity to express my strong support for the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced with
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell late last year. I respectfully urge prompt
approval of this measure.
I'd like to begin my remarks with a story from a trip I took last
fall along the Missouri River. The boat trip was organized by Nebraska
Game and Parks for a review of a project to restore fishery habitat
along the channel. Out on the water, there was a peculiar site--a
triangular yellow sign planted on a newly formed sandbar about 50 yards
from shore. I couldn't quite read it. It was too far from where our
boat could navigate. I learned what it meant though. Someone had staked
a claim for duck hunting rights on what is likely to be an opportune
spot!
By creating continuity of habitat for wildlife, and effectively
integrating multiple use opportunity, we are hoping to achieve a wiser,
cost-effective state-led governmental approach. According to the
National Wildlife Federation, ``State fish and wildlife agencies have
identified roughly 8,000 species in need of proactive conservation
efforts in the United States, and the number of species petitioned for
listing under the Endangered Species Act has increased by 1,000 percent
in less than a decade.'' When a species officially becomes
``endangered,'' it triggers a host of costly regulations and other
Federal responses, many of which involve the court system. This can tie
up the political space for years and inhibit beneficial uses of the
habitat for hikers, hunters, anglers, and more. We can be smarter about
this.
This bill, H.R. 4647, is an important and creative initiative to
conserve at-risk wildlife species in every state. It builds on a new
model of support through proactive, collaborative, and voluntary
constructive partnerships at the state level. The bill provides
resources so states can make smart upstream investments to avoid
triggering the `emergency room procedures' of the Endangered Species
Act. H.R. 4647 will also prove to be a powerful new tool to connect
resource extraction policy with prudent resource recovery.
As this bill moves forward, I would like to work with the Chairman
and members of the Committee to address specific concerns that have
been raised so that we can make the bill even stronger. For example, we
should help ensure that coastal states, particularly those that
generate substantial revenue, are treated equitably with regard to the
distribution of funds, especially those with unique conservation
challenges.
Another important consideration is that this bill creates a new
balance that can prevent Federal Government over-reach as states
address their wildlife and habitat challenges. The states have an
obligation to implement their wildlife management plans and this
legislation provides the necessary resources to reach their goals.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the
important work that Members such as Congresswoman Cheney and
Congressman Lowenthal have initiated in their to states to create a
collaborative environment that can lead to successful outcomes.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act will authorize the
distribution of some funds from existing royalties collected annually
from the development of energy and mineral resources on Federal lands
and waters. H.R. 4647 will provide a direct return on investment with
all states receiving a share of $1.3 billion annually to implement
their Wildlife Action Plans.
Successful past efforts have saved species on the brink, including
striped bass, white-tailed deer, elk, turkey, and our national symbol,
the bald eagle. These are all amazing conservation success stories and
we can continue to build on these accomplishments.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I
strongly encourage support for this important legislative initiative.
______
Mr. McClintock. The gentlemen's time has expired, but I
will pick up on that very thread to begin.
This sets up a subaccount that is drawn from OCS and mining
lease funds that right now are supporting the Federal Treasury.
We have a projected deficit next year of well over $900
billion. This is about 1 percent of that deficit. Is this the
right time to put a further strain on the Treasury?
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, if you would let me, I want
to just read a paragraph that addresses the underlying funding
question so I get the numbers precisely right, then go to the
more philosophical point that you are raising.
This Act would direct a portion of revenues from oil and
gas and mineral extraction for wildlife conservation in what is
called the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program. Half of
the funds, $650 million, would come from existing revenues from
energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf and the other
$650 million would come from existing revenues from mineral
development on Federal lands.
And we do know that these are expanding. I have had this
conversation with Secretary Zinke, who is also looking for a
constructive way to dedicate some of those funds toward his own
backlog of maintenance in the National Park System.
But while we are doing this, and to the point
philosophically, what a more constructive Powell Initiative
does, in my mind, is take the resource recovery, the trusts
that we are gaining from resource extraction, and moving it
back into resource recovery, again for the benefit of
community.
Mr. McClintock. It is not philosophy. It is simple
accounting. This is 1 percent of the entire deficit we will be
carrying.
Mr. Fortenberry. You can look at that way, too, but I am
trying to be a little more graceful.
So, again, approaching the idea that we control these
funds, and I am interested in good public policy, and the
potential cost savings that come from the prevention of
invoking of the Endangered Species is tremendous, along with
the potential opportunity that these gentlemen have been
talking about, about increased recreational hunting and
sportsmen activity.
Mr. McClintock. Let me raise one other concern, and that is
there is a provision in the bill that basically provides these
funds even if no public access is allowed to these public
lands. That may not be a concern in Nebraska, but in a state
like California that treats hunters and fishermen as second-
class citizens, that is a huge problem.
One of the principal objectives of this Subcommittee is to
restore public access to the public lands. Providing funding to
states from this source to the states that have cut off access
to the public lands is a concern. Could you address that?
Mr. Fortenberry. Not to the specifics of the situation in
California. I know from my own experience in Nebraska we
approach this in a collaborative manner. We are looking for
voluntary landowner agreements. We are looking to meet the
multiple objectives of both species and habitat preservation,
but also increasing the opportunities for appropriate
harvesting and recreational land use.
Sometimes those things, because of the delicate nature of
the ecosystem, do conflict. A lot of the times they may not.
Again, I cannot speak to the specifics of your state, but
the ethos where I live, and I think in a lot of places, I
think, is to look at this holistically.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you.
That concludes my questions.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my 5 minutes to
Representative Dingell, if she has anything to add. Thank you.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you very much.
I want to thank both Chairman McClintock and Chairman
Bishop for having this hearing and my colleague for being here
and yielding to me.
I think that maybe one of the points that we do want to
reaffirm again is that this is, we think, a common-sense
solution to help ensure that at-risk species are never put on
the endangered species list. I think you and I all share that
we don't want that to happen. And there are close to 1,800
species right now that are nearing that list, including the
monarch butterfly. We use different examples. I use the monarch
butterfly, which has lost 90 percent of its population in the
last 20 years.
So, having said that, I want to thank you for testifying.
People think of John Dingell, but I fish a lot too. Can you
tell me why it is important to get the states more involved in
this up-front conservation work?
Mr. Ziehmer. As we look at H.R. 4647, my mind goes back to
the congressional mandate that states prepare a state wildlife
action plan. States have assessed the habitat and species
conditions in their state, they have documented the threats,
and they have created a path forward along with partners. And
they have done this in collaboration with their public and a
variety of organizations.
States are ready to implement on-the-ground activities to
help wildlife. By helping wildlife through improving habitat,
whether you are working to improve, as an example, a three-toed
box turtle or a prairie chicken. If you are looking at the
habitat, other things, like mule deer. In different parts of
the world, caribou are going to benefit.
When we look at how we are proposing to make this the third
leg of the stool, if we are talking about Pittman-Robertson
today, Dingell-Johnson that followed about 15 years after
Pittman-Robertson, today the country is ready to take the next
step, recognizing that as citizens it is our responsibility to
manage this incredible resource and hand it off to the next
generation not only in a condition that they can enjoy, but in
a condition that positions them for success. Enhanced quality
of life, the economy, the jobs, and the list goes on.
State agencies are positioned. State agencies have a track
record of success. State agencies have staff with the
knowledge. State agencies have proven accountability and the
expertise to get this done in a way that is collaborative with
a variety of stakeholders in their state.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Let me also ask you about your history. You have a strong
knowledge of conservation programs. Do they work best when
there is a dedicated source of funding?
Mr. Ziehmer. As we look at many of these challenges, and
states, as they put together their state wildlife management
action plan, have kind of ordered the approach that they would
move forward.
Do they work better having dedicated funds? Without a
doubt, absolutely. While nothing is immune from an economic
downturn, having the ability to strategically look at a
situation and move forward managing wildlife successfully,
truthfully, takes decades. But we can make significant
advancements.
H.R. 4647 provides or would provide state agencies carrying
the responsibility for fish and wildlife the ability to
strategically manage and then carry out in partnership with
their public.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
In the remaining seconds, can you talk about which species
might benefit the most from this bill?
Mr. Ziehmer. This bill provides states much needed revenue.
And while it is quick and it will benefit individual species, I
would say the funds, as we work, are going to benefit the
habitat. And the habitat and the landscape that supports many
species are going to benefit. As we move together, whether it
is streams, rivers, prairies, timberland, tundra, habitats are
going to benefit, wildlife is going to benefit, citizens are
going to benefit.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Further questions on H.R. 4647?
Yes, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend Mr.
Fortenberry and Mrs. Dingell for introducing this legislation,
the objectives of which I could not be more supportive of. I
want to thank you for pushing this and for your efforts to
educate the Committee.
Mr. Fortenberry, in regard to your comments about how this
is actually a proactive effort, this is an effort to prevent
regulation, to prevent litigation, getting on the front end,
preventing endangered species, ensuring sustainability of
habitat--I think it is very important.
I do have concerns, as you noted. And before I get into
those, Mrs. Dingell, I worked with your husband and a number of
other people, including many that I am looking at in this room,
in the mid-1990s and late 1990s, on the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, where there was a very similar title in that
legislation, Title III, that largely achieved, or was designed
to achieve, the goals of your bill.
And many of us in this room spent, I don't think we could
quantify it in hours, weeks, or months, but, candidly, years
working and did pass that legislation through the House of
Representatives with incredible bipartisan support between
George Miller and Don Young. I don't know that that ever
happened again.
So, I want to be clear that I am very supportive of the
objectives.
Here is where I have strong concerns. One half of the
source of revenues from offshore energy revenue streams from
Outer Continental Shelf energy production. The state of
Louisiana, as Mr. Fortenberry noted, produces in some years up
to 88 percent of all the offshore energy in Federal waters in
the OCS.
The very area where this production is occurring, we are
losing, by some estimates, one football field of land per hour.
Coastal wetlands, some of the most productive habitat in the
North American continent, largest wintering habitat for
migratory waterfowl, some of the most productive fishing
grounds in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, not just in the Gulf of
Mexico but in the United States. We produce more commercial
fisheries than anywhere in the continental United States.
So, a very, very productive area. But we are losing it. We
are losing that habitat for migratory waterfowl. We are losing
that habitat for the fish and many other species that live in
that area. And we are losing the habitat for really important
species that we call people.
We have lost 2,000 square miles. How big is that? If that
were Rhode Island, the state would not exist. We would have 49
states today. So, this whole concept of diverting money out of
this area and putting it toward any other programs in any other
areas is concerning.
The other revenue stream that you tap is the Mineral
Leasing Act. The Mineral Leasing Act currently shares 50
percent of all the revenues with the states that host set
production. In the case of the OCS, it is only 37.5 percent of
production that was post-December of 2006. It ends up coming
out to a fraction of a percent since 2006 each year, a fraction
of a percent of the revenue generated.
Let me put this in perspective, Mr. Chairman. We have
generated about $200 billion for the U.S. Treasury from our
Outer Continental Shelf activities. I said this the other day,
I will say it again: we have to protect the goose that laid the
golden egg. We cannot continue to have this extraordinary
revenue stream by not reinvesting in the sustainability of the
area.
Mr. Fortenberry brought up a point that I think perhaps was
not captured, and I want to reiterate that. He noted that under
the draft 5-year plan that is proposed right now for offshore
energy production, there is a proposal to expand that
production into new areas. Those new areas, as you know from an
appropriator, are not included in the budget baseline, which
means that is new money.
Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps expanding energy production
could address some of your concerns, and mine and many other
people's, in regard to deficit reduction by introducing new
revenue streams to the Federal Government.
It would also give us the ability to look at directing some
of those revenues to the sustainability of species, reinvesting
them in conservation activities.
It could also perhaps address more robust revenue sharing
to ensure that we have a sustainable area, a sustainable
revenue stream for some of these activities in the future.
So, I think there is a deal in there somewhere, and I
pledge to work with all of you, because I am supportive of the
goal. But I do want to highlight the concerns that I have
representing south Louisiana and I think some other areas of
the Gulf Coast.
In my remaining 17 seconds, can I get an ``amen'' from
anybody?
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Further questions?
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Ziehmer, I want to thank you for testifying before the
Subcommittee in support of the Recovering America's Wildlife
Act. As you know, this bill will help directly fund wildlife
conservation at the state level, which will create more
homegrown solutions to conservation and restoration programs.
In your opinion, how would these additional funds help
states manage the resources in a climate where existing
wildlife conservation programs are spread thin at this point?
Mr. Ziehmer. I appreciate that question, as we look at the
state wildlife management plans, the action plans that have
been put together will allow states to move those forward. And,
again, those plans, as you pointed out, were put together in
partnership as the states work to engage the public and as they
put those plans together.
Having the resources to fund and address habitat issues,
research needs, and on-the-ground projects will be essential.
Mr. Thompson. I don't know if this would fall in with that
category or not. Right now, our numbers for white-tailed deer
with chronic wasting disease are kind of exploding in certain
places within the state. Is that the type of research? Or is
that a different pot of money?
Mr. Ziehmer. No, these funds could be applicable, as I see
it, to wildlife disease, which really is a front-burner issue
for state fish and wildlife agencies. Wildlife diseases, as you
know, are varied. In the fisheries world, it could be whirling
disease or other things. In the mammal world, chronic wasting
disease.
When you look at invasive species, it will allow states to
address things like plants impacting grasslands, invasive
species impacting waterways, and the list goes on.
Also, you reference white-tailed deer. As we work to
balance and manage habitat and many of the diversity species
that might be in that habitat, just finding the need and using
funds to make sure that we are balancing both abundant wildlife
and rare wildlife, working to ensure that not only are we
looking at good habitat, but we are doing it on a landscape-
scale approach, having the resources so states can cooperate
with one another to reach an end goal.
Mr. Thompson. The previous 6 years, I chaired the
Conservation Subcommittee in Agriculture. I know how important,
actually, conservation education is. And specifically this bill
will allow states to invest in wildlife conservation education
efforts.
How do you envision how the states will work with other
public and private entities to leverage those initial moneys
that we would invest to teach our youth the importance of
environmental stewardship?
Mr. Ziehmer. As we look at this--and I was quick during the
testimony to stress that these funds will enable states to
manage all wildlife, both game and non-game--an important
component that will come with this funding is the opportunity
for states to serve all citizens. Regardless of where you
reside, you will likely benefit from these resources.
Education is key, in the public school system and others,
helping them understand the importance of the precious
resources, their role, how they can participate in these. And
whether it is walking trails, whether it is access to these,
those are all key components, and no doubt are key cogs for
long-term sustainable conservation in this country.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, as I have observed other conservation
dollars that we invest, specifically through the farm bill, we
see for every dollar a leverage of $7 that comes from non-
profits, NGOs, and the private sector. Are we thinking that
that would be sort of the same type of energy with this
investment?
Mr. Ziehmer. This investment does call for a 25 percent
non-Federal match. By and large, these dollars will be put on
the landscape without matching them through the license fees of
hunters or anglers.
Looking for new partners, new ways to put those out on the
street, and, again, as history has shown, investing in
conservation is a great investment for the country in so many
ways.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, a tremendous return on investment.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Further questions?
Seeing none, that concludes our consideration of H.R. 4647.
Mr. Ziehmer, your work here is done, and ably so. You are
certainly welcome to stay if you have an interest in the other
bills. Otherwise you are free to go.
The Committee will now consider H.R. 4429, by Congressman
Bergman.
Congressman Bergman is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK BERGMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
Committee for holding the hearing today to consider my bill,
H.R. 4429, the Cormorant Control Act, to address a growing
problem in the Great Lakes region that ultimately has serious
negative downstream effects all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
For those of you who may not be aware of what a double-
crested cormorant is, it is a large water bird that spends most
of its day either resting or eating. In fact, when they do eat,
they tend to hunt. Very organized. They can consume several
pounds of fish per day, and my district in Michigan is one of
their largest breeding sites and where this species spends the
majority of its time during the spring, summer, and early fall.
Cormorants are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. While Fish
and Wildlife gives states the authority to control cormorant
populations through a Federal depredation order, a May 2016
court order stopped my state, among others, from being able to
effectively manage these bird populations.
This has ultimately led to a troubling situation for our
fish populations in the Great Lakes. Without the ability to
effectively manage cormorant populations, the livelihood of our
recreational and commercial fishing industries is threatened,
which is a critical threat to our local economies.
Since coming to Congress, I have heard from stakeholders
throughout my district on this issue. In fact, one of my very
first meetings regarding the cormorants was back in the
district shortly after being sworn in with a group led by a
gentleman by the name of Gary Gorniak and several other members
of the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen's Alliance.
Everyone from Captain Ed of Trout Scout Charters in Alpena,
Michigan, and business owners in the Les Cheneaux or Drummond
Islands, to biologists throughout the state have shared similar
sentiments about the negative impact this court order is
having.
While the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working
diligently to bring some relief to certain aquaculture
facilities, it is clear that its hands are tied when it comes
to free-swimming fish areas.
For this reason, I introduced the Cormorant Control Act to
rescind the court order and reinstate the double-crested
cormorant depredation orders.
Effective cormorant management is truly a joint effort with
Federal, state and local input, and the state of Michigan has
been an excellent example of ``how to'' in this process. There
can be a balance between protecting one species without doing
severe harm to another. We can balance scientific fact with
basic economic consequences.
I support the underlying basis of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, and I understand there is value in protecting this
species. But right now, we are doing nothing. And doing nothing
is threatening our fisheries, a $7 billion, with a ``b,'' $7
billion-a-year industry critical for Michigan.
In Michigan's First District, we pride ourselves on being
responsible stewards of all our natural resources. Our
heritage, our economies, and our special way of life depend on
that stewardship. And this issue is critical to our state and
the 23 other states that now no longer have management plans in
place.
H.R. 4429 recognizes how important it is for states to have
proper management plans for controlling this bird population,
which is why it simply allows for the order that had been
previously successful in protecting our fish populations
without threatening cormorant population levels.
Again, I want to thank the Committee for holding this
hearing today, and for Mr. Randy Claramunt from Michigan's
Department of Natural Resources, who is here today testifying
on the Cormorant Control Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jack Bergman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan on H.R. 4429
I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee for holding this
hearing today to consider my bill--H.R. 4429, the Cormorant Control
Act--to address a growing problem in the Great Lakes region.
For those of you who might not be aware of what a double crested
cormorant is, it's a large water bird that spends most of its day
either resting or eating. They can consume several pounds of fish per
day, and my district in Michigan is where one of their largest breeding
populations likes to spend its time during certain parts of the year.
Cormorants are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. While Fish and Wildlife gives
states the authority to control cormorant populations through a Federal
Depredation Order, a May 2016 court order stopped my state of
Michigan--among others--from being able to effectively manage these
bird populations.
This has ultimately led to a troubling situation for our fish
populations in the Great Lakes. Without the ability to effectively
manage cormorant populations, the livelihood of our recreational and
commercial fishing industries is threatened--which is critical to our
local economies.
Since coming to Congress, I've heard from stakeholders throughout
my district on this issue. One of my very first meetings back in the
district after being sworn in was with a gentleman named Gary Gorniak
and several other members of the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen's Alliance
regarding this very issue.
Everyone from Captain Ed of Trout Scout Charters in Alpena,
Michigan and business owners in the Les Cheneaux or Drummond islands,
to biologists throughout the state have shared similar sentiments about
the negative impact this court order is having.
And while the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working diligently
to bring some relief to certain aquaculture facilities, it is clear
that its hands are tied when it comes to free-swimming fish areas.
For this reason, I introduced the Cormorant Control Act, to rescind
the court order and reinstate the double-crested cormorant depredation
orders.
Effective cormorant management is truly a joint effort with
Federal, state and local input--and the state of Michigan has been an
excellent example of ``how to.'' There can be a balance between
protecting one species, without doing severe harm to another. We can
balance scientific fact with basic economic consequences.
I support the underlying basis of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
and I understand there is a value in protecting this species. But right
now we are doing nothing, and that is threatening our fisheries--a $7
billion dollar a year industry which is critical for Michigan.
In Michigan's First District, we pride ourselves on being
responsible stewards of all our natural resources. Our heritage, our
economies, and our special way of life depends on it. And this issue is
critical to our state and the 23 other states that now no longer have
management plans in place.
H.R. 4429 recognizes how important it is for states to have proper
management plans for controlling this bird population, which is why it
simply allows for the order that had been previously successful in
protecting our fish populations without threatening cormorant
population levels.
Again, I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing
today, and for Mr. Randy Claramunt from Michigan's Department of
Natural Resources who is here testifying on the Cormorant Control Act.
______
I am going to do a quick intro of Mr. Claramunt, if I
could.
I am pleased to introduced Randy, who is a Basin
Coordinator with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
He serves as the Fisheries Division's lead for the Lake Huron
fisheries management and is the Division's lead for cormorant
management in Michigan.
He is also a representative of the Council of Lake
Committees for the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. Mr.
Claramunt has worked on the Great Lakes since the 1990s and is
recognized as an expert in management of Great Lakes salmon and
their prey.
He has also published numerous scientific articles and
technical reports and has been recognized for his
accomplishments, including Biologist of the Year awarded by the
Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for
unparalleled initiative toward the better understanding of fish
and their conservation.
Again, unparalleled initiative. I am proud to welcome him
here today. And I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. RANDY CLARAMUNT, LAKE HURON BASIN COORDINATOR,
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN
Mr. Claramunt. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of Keith Creagh, Director of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, thank you for inviting us to testify
regarding H.R. 4429, the proposed Cormorant Control Act,
introduced by our Representative of Michigan's First
Congressional District, Congressman Bergman.
I am Randy Claramunt, the Lake Huron Basin Coordinator of
MDNR Fish Division. Also joining me today is Dr. David Fielder,
one of our Great Lakes biologists.
We are especially appreciative of Congressman Bergman for
his response to our stakeholder concerns regarding cormorant
impacts on Great Lakes fisheries. His district is built on
communities that are tightly linked with the health of the
water, the wildlife, and the fisheries.
We share the concerns of the stakeholders that reinstating
cormorant management is critically needed to maintain a
sustainable balance between fisheries and wildlife populations
in the Great Lakes region and across the United States.
From a Great Lakes perspective, the history of cormorants
is very complex in their impacts on fish. But we can summarize
it into three main themes. First, cormorant numbers in northern
nesting areas have risen well beyond historic levels. Second,
cormorants are having direct impact on valuable and sensitive
fish populations. And last, without appropriate and shared
management, cormorant impacts on fish populations can cause
harm to fisheries and communities.
The Great Lakes support several important fisheries,
including commercial, recreational, and tribal, which are
collectively valued at more than $7 billion annually and
support more than 75,000 jobs. These are highly valued, shared
resources, and jointly managed through comprehensive efforts by
all levels of government. Cormorant management is also needed
and should be applied in the same way.
Cormorants are a migratory bird, and they nest in northern
latitudes of the largest nesting colony in the Great Lakes
where they appear to have numbered 6,000 birds historically.
Several invasions of non-native fish species in the Great Lakes
contributed to cormorants expanding to numbers never before
seen by fish and wildlife experts and have substantial impacts
on fish populations.
The diet of a cormorant is almost exclusively fish. An
adult cormorant can eat over a pound and a half of fish each
day, and one nest requires 70 pounds of fish a year.
In the Great Lakes, cormorants increased steadily to
115,000 breeding pairs, almost a quarter million birds, by the
year 2000, resulting in 77 million pounds of fish being
consumed annually.
These impacts are well described by Mark Engle, a local
resident in the Les Cheneaux Islands of northern Lake Huron
whose family owns and operates a local camping resort. By the
year 2000, his business was losing vacationers every week
because it was well-known that cormorants were having direct
impacts on local native fish populations.
He recalled an Ohio family coming to visit his resort and
saying to him that it was hard to believe that there was all
this water and no fish. His community had a 40 percent drop in
the local workforce when the fishing collapsed.
In response to stakeholder concerns, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service developed a public resource depredation order
in 2003 to provide joint management of cormorants in 24 states,
including the Great Lakes. These depredation orders allowed
states and other management agencies to share in the management
of cormorants. Through the collaborative efforts of multiple
agencies and volunteer networks across the Great Lakes,
protection of free-swimming fish and enhancement to local
communities were realized.
However, in May of 2016, these depredation orders were
rescinded. The removal of the Federal authority and the ability
of the state to co-manage cormorants at the local level has had
an immediate and significant impact on Michigan's natural
resources.
The Michigan DNR and other Great Lakes management agencies
stand ready to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the
management of cormorants, which will be possible through the
passage of this bill. This is an urgent matter, and we greatly
appreciate Congressman Bergman and the Committee for support of
this bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Claramunt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randall M. Claramunt, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources on H.R. 4429
managing double-crested cormorants, great lakes fish, and sustainable
fisheries
To Chairman McClintock and Congressman Bergman, and on behalf of
Keith Creagh, Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), I would like to thank you for the invitation to discuss
cormorant management from a Great Lakes perspective. I am Randy
Claramunt, the Lake Huron Basin Coordinator for the Fisheries Division
of the MDNR. Also joining me today from is Dr. David Fielder, one of
our Great Lakes fisheries biologists. This testimony was written by me
and David Fielder with input from James Dexter, MDNR Fisheries Chief.
We are especially appreciative of Congressman Bergman for his
response to our stakeholder concerns regarding cormorant impacts on
Great Lakes fisheries. Congressman Bergman's district has hundreds of
miles of Great Lakes coastline and his district is built on communities
that are tightly linked with the health of the water, the wildlife, and
the fisheries. We share the concerns of his stakeholders, not only
within Congressman Bergman's district, but across the Great Lakes,
because cormorant numbers in northern nesting areas have risen well
beyond historic levels and they are having direct impacts on valuable
and sensitive fish populations. In combination with invasive species
and habitat destruction, these threats not only disrupt the fragile
balance of the Great Lakes ecosystem, but also the people, their
livelihoods, and the communities upon which they support.
The Great Lakes supports several important fisheries including
commercial, recreational, and tribal which are collectively valued at
more than $7 billion annually \1\ and support more than 75,000 jobs.
From a Great Lakes perspective, these highly valued resources are
jointly managed through comprehensive efforts by all levels of
government. Through support of H.R. 4429, the state of Michigan is
supportive of reinstating effective cormorant management, applied in
the same collaborative way that we use to protect our natural resources
and people, to maintain a sustainable balance between fisheries and
wildlife populations in the Great Lakes region and across the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASA. 2013. Today's angler: a statistical profile of anglers,
their targeted species and expenditures. Alexandria, Va. American
Sportfishing Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The History and Background on Cormorant Populations
Double-crested cormorants (hereafter referred to as `cormorants')
are a migratory, colonial nesting, water bird native to North America.
There are five geographically distinct breeding populations within
North America, stretching from coast to coast. The largest is that of
the Mississippi flyway including the Great Lakes region. Cormorant
numbers in the Great Lakes were documented beginning in the early 1900s
and at their peak in the 1940s, cormorants appeared to have numbered
around 6,000 birds. However, region-specific numbers were not
documented until the early 1970s, which at that time it was estimated
that about 2,000 cormorants inhabited the Great Lakes region. By the
mid-1970s, there was concern over the declines of most migratory water
birds due to the effects of contamination (i.e., DDT) in the
environment. During that time, cormorant numbers were at their lowest
and were estimated to be less than 100 birds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2Wires, L.R. 2013. The double-crested cormorant: plight of a
feathered pariah. Yale University Press. 368p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cormorants are migratory and they nest in northern latitudes,
spending the spring, summer, and fall on the breeding grounds and then
they migrate south to the Gulf of Mexico over winter. Cormorants nest
on uninhabited islands, often along with other colonial water birds
such as gulls, terns, and herons (Figure 1). The diet of cormorants is
almost exclusively fish and they depend on the surrounding waters to
sustain both breeding adults and to feed their young once they hatch.
Cormorants are not very selective in the fish they consume and adult
birds have been documented to consume fish as long as 20 inches, albeit
most cormorants tend to feed on smaller fishes (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The black birds are double-crested cormorants and include
both mature nesting and immature birds co-habiting a nesting colony
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsFigure 2. Typical consumption of game fish by cormorants as
determined by stomach analysis. These specimens are from Saginaw Bay,
Lake Huron
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsIn the Great Lakes, cormorant predation on fish will occur
during the spring and fall migration, and most importantly, during the
cormorant breeding season. Nesting colonies in the northern regions,
especially for critical islands and coastal habitats in the Great
Lakes, will tend to concentrate cormorants. But, adult birds are
limited in their foraging excursions so as not to spend too much time
away from the nest, whether incubating eggs or tending to newly hatched
fledglings. Consequently, their feeding pressure will be most intense
in island and coastal habitats, which are also critical fisheries
habitats and important in sustaining fisheries populations.
An adult cormorant will consume about 1.3 pounds of fish each
day.\3\ Each adult is typically on the breeding grounds for about 150
days each year. In addition, a successful cormorant nest requires about
70 pounds of fish to sustain the nest over the breeding season. As an
example, a cormorant rookery of just 100 nests would result in the
consumption of about 46,000 pounds of fish over the breeding season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Seelfelt, N.E. 2005. Foraging ecology, bioenergetics and
predatory impact of breeding double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax
auritus) in the Beaver Archipelago, Northern Lake Michigan. A
Dissertation. Michigan State University, Department of Zoology. East
Lansing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cormorant populations would be sustainable if the numbers of birds
and their respective breeding colonies recovered to the levels measured
historically. Using the example above, however, a typical nesting
colony in the Great Lakes today is 1,000 cormorants with some rookeries
exceeding 10,000 cormorants in size. The distance cormorants will fly
to find food is proportional to the number of other cormorants nesting
on the same islands. Their feeding is concentrated in a radius from the
island to be known as Ashmole's Halo (named for Philip Ashmole who did
seminal research on the phenomenon in 1963; Figure 3).\4\ A colony of
1,000 breeding pairs would have a halo radius of about 10 miles or an
area of about 193,000 acres. The impacts scaled up in the 1990s and
2000s when cormorant numbers rose across the Great Lakes and much of
the rest of North America. In the Great Lakes alone, cormorants
increased steadily, peaking at about 115,000 breeding pairs around the
year 2000. At these levels, fish consumption in the Great Lakes
amounted to an estimated 77 million pounds each year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ashmole, N.P. 1963. The regulation of number of tropical
oceanic birds. Ibis 103, 481 458-473.
\5\ Bence, J.R. and N.E. Dobiesz. 2000. Estimating forage fish
consumption in Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Project
Completion Report. 86p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3. Areas of cormorant predation influence, based on 2005 peak
abundances. Circles are known as Ashmole's halos of predation effect
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThe substantial expansion of nesting colonies in the Great
Lakes has raised concerns over impacts from their predation on fish,
especially in sensitive island and coastal habitats as these also tend
to be the same areas that the support local communities and their
fisheries. But, there are additional concerns including competition
with threatened and endangered co-nesting species, destruction of
vegetation (including rare forms) on the islands, and fouling of aids
to navigation that will not be covered in this testimony.
Why Have Cormorants in the Great Lakes Region Expanded Beyond Historic
Levels?
Once released from the limiting effects of DDT, which was banned in
1972, cormorants began to reproduce and grew in capacity to the
available food resources and nesting habitat. During the latter half of
the 20th century in both the Great Lakes and Gulf states, food
resources for cormorants increased substantially. In the southern
United States, fish from the easily accessible pond-reared aquaculture
facilities increased the over-winter survival of the birds and in the
northern region, there was a growing abundance of near-shore invasive
prey fish in the Great Lakes, namely alewives and rainbow smelt.
Alewives and smelt invaded the Great Lakes and reached extremely high
levels in the 1970s and 1980s because predator fish populations had
been decimated by the invasion of sea lamprey a decade earlier. The
alewives and smelt provided a new high-energy, easily accessible food
resource for cormorants that was not available historically. Under
these conditions, cormorants expanded to numbers never before seen by
fish and wildlife experts and to levels that were not sustainable for
the Great Lakes.
During the same period of the rapid expansion of cormorants in the
Great Lakes, state, federal, and tribal fisheries managers instituted
extensive fish stocking programs to restore a better balance in the
food web through restoration of native lake trout populations and
stocking of Pacific salmonines.\6\ The goals were to control alewife
and smelt populations while restoring Great Lakes fisheries. During the
late 1970s and through the 1980s, predator fish populations and
cormorant populations expanded substantially and concurrently, but were
headed for a collision course. In addition to record high salmon and
trout levels, by the early 2000s every uninhabited island had some
level of nesting cormorants and even many man-made structures, such as
navigation buoys and break walls, also hosted nests. As cormorants
reached all-time high levels in the Great Lakes, a new threat occurred
through the invasion of zebra and quagga mussels thereby limiting the
production of the Great Lakes food web through their high filtering
rates. Fish stocking levels have been reduced to try to bring fish
predation in balance with prey fish production. In most of the Great
Lakes, alewife and smelt populations are now at very low levels, salmon
and trout fisheries are severely reduced, and cormorant predation on
fish is an exacerbating stressor on Great Lakes fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Claramunt, R.M., C.P. Madenjian, and D.F. Clapp. 2013. Pacific
salmonines in the Great Lakes basin. In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy
and Management. Edited by N.J. Leonard, C.P. Ferreri, and W.W. Taylor.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. Pages 609-650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Impacts of Cormorants on Great Lakes Fisheries
Cormorants certainly have direct impacts on fisheries resources
because they consume fish, but there has not been agreement on the
relative impact of their predation or, most importantly, what level of
fish consumption constitutes an acceptable level. One of the initial
attempts to evaluate the level of cormorant predation on fish took
place in the mid-1990s in a region of Lake Huron called Les Cheneaux
Islands. It is a 36 island archipelago in the northern most portion of
Lake Huron. The channels and embayments of this region form pristine
aquatic habitat and is home to multiple small towns and communities
that are dependent on important fisheries, of which yellow perch are
the centerpiece. The study, led by researchers from the University of
Michigan, estimated cormorant consumption of yellow perch and compared
it to numbers that were being harvested by anglers.\7\ Although they
estimated as many as 470,000 yellow perch were consumed by cormorants
in 1995, the researchers believed this to be a small fraction of the
overall perch population and therefore likely inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Belyea, G.Y. 1997. The impact of cormorant predation on yellow
perch in the Les Cheneaux Islands, Lake Huron. Pages 42-46 in J.S.
Diana, G.Y. Belyea, and R.D. Clark Jr. editors. History, status, and
trends in populations of yellow perch and double-crested cormorants in
Les Cheneaux Islands, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Special Report 17, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But to Mr. Mark Engle, a local resident whose family owns and
operates rental cabins and a local camping resort, he noticed the
impacts of cormorants and his family suffered direct consequences. His
family business is located between Cedarville and Hessel in the Eastern
Upper Peninsula of Michigan along the northern shore of Lake Huron. The
Engle family is part of a community that is nestled in the protected
waters of the Les Cheneaux Islands, facing Marquette Island which is
the largest of the 36 islands an island complex that spans 12 miles of
shoreline along the M-134 Scenic By-Way.
His family purchased Les Cheneaux Landing in 1982 on the hope to
continue a business that is centered on family vacations and on
sportfishing based on the prominent native species, the yellow perch.
The Engle family took pride in being able to cater to families, fishing
in small boats sheltered by the Les Cheneaux Islands. By the mid-1980s,
however, Mr. Engle notices a marked increase in the numbers of
cormorants. According to Mr. Engle, he recalled seeing the clear water
being stirred up as cormorants chased schools of yellow perch in front
of his resort in 1986 and asking himself how the perch populations
could sustain that level of predation. He also claimed that by 1995, he
witnessed an explosion of cormorants and personally witnessed it
describing that the small Goose Island, being just over 40 acres, now
embodied a large cormorant rookery numbering in the thousands of
nesting birds, not including juveniles and individuals.
The observations by the Engle family were supported by scientific
data collected by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The
perch population and fishery of the Les Cheneaux Islands collapsed
within just 5 years after the University of Michigan concluded that
cormorant populations wouldn't impact the populations. The perch
collapse prompted further research by state and Federal partners using
an innovative approach of modeling metrics of perch population trends
as explained by trends in cormorant abundance.\8\ Those modeling
metrics firmly established that cormorant predation was the major
explanatory factor in the perch declines.\9\ During the same period
where cormorants were linked with perch declines in the Les Cheneaux
Islands, other studies emerged from around the Great Lakes establishing
connections between cormorant abundance and declines of game fishes and
fisheries.\10\,\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fielder, D.G. 2008. Examination of factors contributing to the
decline of the yellow perch population and fishery in Les Cheneaux
Islands, Lake Huron, with emphasis on the role of double-crested
cormorants. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 34:506-523.
\9\ Fielder, D.G. 2010. Response of yellow perch in Les Cheneaux
Islands, Lake Huron to declining numbers of double-crested cormorants
stemming from control activities. Journal of Great Lakes Research.
36:207-214.
\10\ Lantry, B.F., Eckert, T.H., Schneider, C.P. 1999. The
relationship between abundance of smallmouth bass and double-crested
cormorants in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. New York Department of
Environment and Conservation. Special Report. 9 pp.
\11\ Rudstam, L.G., VanDeValk, A.J., Adams, C.M., Coleman, J.T.,
Forney, J.L., & Richmond, M.E. 2004. Cormorant predation and the
population dynamics of walleye and yellow perch in Oneida Lake.
Ecological Applications, 14:149-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the studies looked at the feeding patterns of cormorant and
they proved insightful but they are not very indicative of population
level impacts. Often cormorant diets are dominated by small forage
fishes, because of their abundance, and game fishes constitute only a
minority of the consumption. Because cormorants tend to consume
smaller, younger fish, their feeding will appear to mimic declines in
fish reproduction. A number of research projects have documented this
impact by cormorant predation on yellow perch, walleye and smallmouth
bass. Even so, this impact is difficult to document because of the
latent effect of cormorant predation are hard to detect until years
later in the fish populations.
According to Mr. Engle, by the year 2000, his business was losing
vacationing anglers every week because it was well known that
cormorants had severely impacted the local, native fish populations. He
recalled an Ohio family visiting his resort and saying to him that was
hard to believe that ``there is all this water and no fish.'' The Engle
family experienced a sharp drop in their customer base. Fishing
families, who had been coming to stay at the Engle resort for many
years and even renting the same cabin for the same week, reported that
they were not catching any keeper yellow perch during their stay and
subsequently did not make reservations for the following year. The
local community felt a 40 percent drop in the local work force,
especially including youth and families, because of the direct impacts
from a loss of tourism and fishing. Community bait shops and resorts
closed and almost every service-based industry struggled financially.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources also documented that the
harvest of yellow perch had declined from a high of 375,000 to just 695
fish by the year 2000.
The Management of Cormorants in the Great Lakes
The concept that predators like cormorants can be allowed to
fluctuate naturally is based on the idea that they will not likely
cause the collapse of a fish population. The basis for this
understanding is the classic predator/prey dynamic which has often been
interpreted as linking the abundance of a predator with the abundance
of its prey; so the decline of the predator is expected with the
depletion of its prey.\12\ The Great Lakes, however, have very complex
food webs, often undergoing severe disruptions, and have changed the
way predators interact with prey. Cormorants have caused some prey fish
to decline, especially ones favored by them or at a disadvantage
because of the food web changes (e.g., mussel filtering the water
thereby increase water clarity). When cormorant abundance increased
because of a newly available and highly abundant prey fish such as
alewives and smelt, then that caused a secondary impact on other prey
and sport fish such as yellow perch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries
Stock Assessment. Springer US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the complexity of Great Lakes food webs, we recognize that
assessing cormorant impacts is also complex and requires long-term
data, targeted surveys, and assessments. While this has been
implemented in some locations across Michigan, Ontario, New York, and
Minnesota, it is not conducted in all locations where cormorants occur
in abundance. Consequently, policy makers have had to rely on the more
detailed studies to reveal relationships and then apply those lessons
to similar locations across the Great Lakes. But one fact is certain,
we need to manage cormorant populations using the same multi-
jurisdictional approach that agencies use on other critical issues such
as invasive species. The sea lamprey program is a great example of a
multi-jurisdictional and international effort to combat the impacts of
this parasitic, non-native species.
Successful Cormorant Management in the Great Lakes: A Thing of the
Past?
In response to growing concern by anglers, the aquaculture
industry, and natural resource professionals, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed an Aquatic Depredation Order (AQDO)
in 1998 to provide for state level management of cormorants to benefit
the Aquaculture Industry (13 southern states \13\) and in 2003, a
Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) to provide for state level
management for the benefit of free-swimming fishes (in 24 northern
states \14\). These authorities were necessary because cormorants are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which held management
authority at the Federal level. The PRDO empowered the northern states,
federally recognized Native American tribes, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Wildlife Services Division to work with the USFWS on
appropriate management of cormorants in the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ AQDO States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
\14\ PRDO States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan DNR supported the collaborative management and worked
with its partners and with the USDA's Wildlife Services to set
cormorant population targets and exercise the PRDO. Under the authority
of the PRDO, management agencies and stakeholders worked to reduce, not
to eliminate, cormorants in key locations to better balance bird
numbers with sensitive fish populations and rebuild important
fisheries.
One of the first locations to implement cormorant management was
the Les Cheneaux Islands because it was well-studied, cormorant numbers
had swelled to over 11,000 birds, and fisheries impacts were clearly
evident. The effort was organized as an adaptive management experiment
which intended to provide both benefits to the resource and to
facilitate a further understanding of how to reach a better balance
between birds, fish, and people. The PRDO provided for this opportunity
via control methods to prevent reproduction in the islands by specific
targets set annually. Within 9 years, cormorant abundance was reduced
by 90 percent and sustained at agreed upon target levels in balance
with the ecosystem, and in support of management plans to restore the
fisheries. All the yellow perch monitoring metrics had reversed
direction after cormorant management under the PRDO was implemented and
the fisheries reached recovery targets for the first time in
decades.8,\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Dorr, B.S., Aderman, T., Butchko, P.H., & Barras, S.C. 2010.
Management effects on breeding and foraging numbers and movements of
double-crested cormorants in the Les Cheneaux Islands, Lake Huron,
Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36:224-231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mr. Engle, as a result of the coordinated cormorant
management in the Les Cheneaux Islands, the yellow perch and other game
fish populations began to rebound and the local economy began to
recover less than 10 years after the PRDO. Many fishermen and tourists
returned to the area and the Engle family observed the first noticeable
improvement in their business in years. In fact, the economic impact of
the collapse of the yellow perch population and fishery was estimated
to have cost the two local communities of Cedarville and Hessel,
Michigan, approximately $5.3 million in yearly economic activity
(expenditure in 2001 dollars).\16\ The restoration of the fishery is
believed to have restored much of that loss. By contrast, the cost of
annual cormorant management by the USDA Wildlife Services was
approximately $2,400 for the Les Cheneaux site with agencies and
volunteers contributing other indirect costs for cormorant
management.\17\ Most importantly, however, was the quality of life and
local heritage that was restored, for both the residents and visitors,
through cormorant management and restoring ecosystem balance between
birds, fish, and people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ridgeway, M.S. and D.G. Fielder. 2013, Double-Crested
Cormorants in the Laurentian Great Lakes: Issues and Ecosystems. Pages
733-764 In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management, second edition,
W.W. Taylor, A.J. Lynch and N.J. Leonard, editors. Michigan State
University Press, East Lansing.
\17\ Tsehaye, I., M.J. Jones, B.J. Irwin, D.G. Fielder, J.E. Breck,
and D.R. Luukkonen. 2015. A predictive model to inform adaptive
management of double-crested cormorants and fisheries in Michigan.
Natural Resource Modeling 28:348-376.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Michigan, Native American tribal governments, the
USFWS, and many stakeholder groups expanded the work with the USDA
Wildlife Services for intensive cormorant management at four more key
locations between Lakes Huron and Michigan to realize benefits for a
variety of important fish species to our shared fisheries. At the
request of the Michigan DNR, we also asked USDA Wildlife Services and
our stakeholders to employ innovative measures to protect newly stocked
hatchery fish because they are particularly vulnerable immediately
after stocking and until they disperse. A complex volunteer network was
developed involving hundreds of volunteers and agency professionals to
develop harassment methods reinforced by limited lethal take to
disperse feeding cormorants from fish stocking sites.
Through all of these activities, the Les Cheneaux Islands emerged
as one of the Nation's most well-documented areas showing the
interactions between cormorants, important fisheries, and the
communities impacted by an initial failure to manage, followed by a
successful case where cormorants can be managed in balance with
fisheries goals and local communities and businesses. This was followed
by similar approaches to managing cormorants at other locations in the
Great Lakes region to realize a better balance of cormorants and Great
Lakes fish populations. We believe strongly that cormorant management
for the benefit of all fish, including aquaculture, newly stocked fish,
and free-swimming fishes, has been widely deemed a management success
up to the point of the legal challenge of the Federal depredation
orders.
The Federal Court Case
Because cormorants are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, ultimate management authority rests with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The depredation orders allowed states and other
management agencies to share in the management of cormorants to better
protect fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats across the country.
However, in May of 2016, these depredation orders were rescinded by the
U.S. District Court until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can
reissue an Environmental Assessment that more adequately takes in to
account the effects of the depredation orders on the cormorant
populations.
Despite oversight by the USFWS, cormorant management under the
depredation orders utilized lethal control, along with other non-lethal
measures, to manage cormorant numbers. The lethal control was
controversial with some groups because they objected to the suppression
of one species for the benefit of another. This is, however, a common
practice in wildlife management and agra-science. For example,
agricultural pests are controlled for the benefit of crops. In the
Great Lakes, sea lamprey are controlled through several lethal control
techniques including the primary approach where juveniles are annually
poisoned in the wild with oversight by state, tribal, and U.S. Federal
and Canadian Federal Governments under the structure of the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission. Lethal measures are necessary to suppress sea
lamprey numbers and prevent excessive parasitic predation on important
game species.
We understand that objections can become more visceral or emotional
when control is elevated to a warm blooded animal that is a native
species even if population numbers are excessive and out of balance. As
stated by the USFWS in their original Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of the original depredation orders, the purpose was to ``(1)
reduce resource conflicts associated with DCCOs in the contiguous
United States; (2) enhance the flexibility of natural resource agencies
in dealing with DCCO-related resource conflicts; and (3) ensure the
long-term conservation of DCCO populations.'' Some critics sought to
address the policies at the state and Federal levels while others
sought to attack the science that served as the justification for
cormorant control.
Controversy over the management of cormorants with lethal control
appears to emanate more within the natural resource profession than
with the general public. There are two schools of philosophy over the
idea of population manipulation of one species for the benefit of
another.\18\ Proponents see the role of the Natural Resource profession
and proper management as one of intervention, necessary to restore and
maintain balance in a system that is no longer responding to historic
conditions but instead an artifact of past and current man-made
perturbations. Alternatively, where ecosystems are stable, the
rationalist may view natural resource management mainly through the
understanding of nature and taking a `hands off' approach to
management. Although this may be a preferred strategy, our environment
and natural resources are becoming more disrupted with stressors
requiring active and responsible management actions for fish, wildlife,
and habitat to protect the resources and maintain a better ecosystem
balance. We believe that the opportunity to leave nature to take its
own course on the Great Lakes, in both fisheries and wildlife
management, has long since passed and that management agencies need to
take a shared responsibility in the management for sustainable fish and
wildlife for generations to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Zwart, H. 2008. Animal governance: the cormorant case. Pages
75-79 in J. Keulartz and G. Leistra, editors. Legitimacy in European
nature conservation policy: case studies in multilevel governance.
Springer, Berlin, Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That controversy took the form of the lawsuit Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) vs. USFWS in U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia in 2014 upon the renewal of the PRDO by the USFWS
with plaintiffs asserting that the Service did not sufficiently
consider full impacts of the PRDO as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in their EA. The honorable Judge John
D. Bates ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the AQDO and PRDO
vacated in May 2016 ending collaborative cormorant management. In
testimony to the court during the proceedings, the USFWS indicated that
the EA could be revised and brought into compliance within 8 months'
time laying the foundation for the restoration of the PRDO. To date,
only case-by-case permitting in support of aquaculture impacts have
been restored (November 2017) and the USFWS has publicly stated that
the restoration of the PRDO is not a priority of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service because they lack the necessary resources to undertake
the revision of the EA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ USFWS FAQ on cormorants online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently the Service has announced that they will engage
states, tribes and stakeholders to take comment on concerns but will
not commit to a renewed EA or a resultant PRDO. This proposed
legislation (Cormorant Control Act H.R. 4429) would compel the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to allocate the necessary resources to pursue
the PRDO and the EA necessary to fully restore the ability jointly
manage cormorants.
We share the response of the Engle family when they were asked
about the impact of the court order and Mark Engle responded, ``We were
shocked by the Federal Court's decision on May 26, 2016, to vacate the
depredation order.'' Their shock was followed by observing the
cormorant population increasing rapidly and concerns that it would
leave their small business as well as the entire Les Cheneaux Island
tourist area ``in great jeopardy once again.'' In addition to the
impacts that will be seen on local fisheries and the communities that
the support across the Great Lakes region, the state of Michigan and
the Les Cheneaux Island case study was never asked by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to be included in the Federal Court case. It is
unclear as to the intent to not include the vast amount of information
from non-federal governments as to the impacts of uncontrolled
cormorant populations on fish populations and the communities that they
support.
What Happens Without Restored Management Authority?
Since the depredation orders were vacated in May of 2016,
management agencies have used predictive models in an attempt to
forecast what will happen with cormorant populations in the Great Lakes
region.17 Predictions were made for both trends in cormorant
numbers as well as the responses of the fish populations for seven main
management locations in the Great Lakes. The predictions indicated that
in the absence of cormorant management nesting numbers will return to
their former peak abundance within 14 years and have the same impact on
fish by causing declines or potentially collapse of the associated fish
populations and fisheries. Unfortunately, the predictions may have
substantially underestimated the response times as cormorant nest
numbers in the Les Cheneaux Islands region, for example, have actually
increased by 85 percent in just a couple years from the last controlled
nesting level in 2015. It is highly likely that all of the progress
made from collaboratively managing cormorants will be lost well before
the 14-year prediction and will be realized within the next few years.
The Engle family and their business are an example of the economic and
job loss to many communities that cannot afford them. For them, their
way of life and heritage is at risk without Federal agencies taking
responsibility for cormorant management.
conclusion
Fishery impacts from cormorant proliferation and predation occur at
localized levels but collectively have broad implications across the
states. The range of management ability is set by the Federal
Government through the USFWS as a result of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. States like Michigan seek the restoration of flexibility to manage
hyperabundant cormorant populations to achieve our fishery management
targets. The first PRDO proved successful in allowing for cormorants to
be reduced in abundance in problem areas while the overall cormorant
population statewide remained abundant and viable. We recognize that
the redevelopment of the EA in support of the PRDO is not a small
undertaking. The Michigan DNR and other Great Lakes management agencies
stand ready to assist the USFWS in work on the EA. However, this is an
urgent matter and more than 2 years have passed since the court order
without progress. We greatly appreciate Congressman Bergman and the
House Natural Resource Committee's leadership on this issue in
providing the USFWS guidance and priority setting to provide the states
the necessarily relief. The service has made overtures of intent to
pursue this issue. If they are genuine in this intent, then they should
welcome this legislation as congressional support for their mutual
goal.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you.
That concludes our testimony on H.R. 4429. We will now
proceed to questions.
I just have one quick one. Mr. Claramunt, is there a dollar
estimate on the value of the fish that are being consumed by
the excess cormorant population? How much is this costing a
local fishery?
Mr. Claramunt. Absolutely. There are estimates of $5 to $7
million annually being lost in fisheries' direct impacts in the
Great Lakes. But those are probably----
Mr. McClintock. And you said the overall industry is about
$70 million, so this is about 10 percent.
Mr. Claramunt. And I was going to follow up that comment
with this. That is probably an underestimate because it is
based strictly in a particular area of northern Lake Huron, so
we have really good scientific data that ties the impacts of
cormorant predations to the loss of fisheries and those costs.
Mr. McClintock. And you said that the cormorant population
was well above historic levels. How far above?
Mr. Claramunt. Historically there were estimated to be
6,000 birds, and we have had estimates currently of 250,000
birds.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you.
Ranking Member.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Claramunt, the reason why I guess we are here is that
there was a Federal court intervention. The Federal court said
that the science was not done properly, so the depredation
orders had to be redone.
Did you participate or did your agency participate in that
proceeding?
Mr. Claramunt. Thank you for asking that question.
When we looked at the management of cormorants and the
impact, we understood that we have one of the best data sets.
Michigan prides itself in scientific management of natural
resources, data that includes long-term fishery monitoring for
decades and also the impacts of cormorants on those fisheries.
So, we were perplexed when we were not consulted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service during that court case. We also were
perplexed with the Judge's ruling that an environmental
assessment would occur within 8 months of the ruling. We are
now going on 3 years without an environmental assessment on
cormorants in the Great Lakes and no management.
Ms. Hanabusa. Have you either intervened in the action, or
has the state of Michigan intervened in the action, or asked
for reconsideration based on what you just said?
Mr. Claramunt. As far as I understand it, and, again, I am
not a legal expert, but our hands were tied at the state level.
And really it requires something at the Federal level to be
acted upon before we could have standing in the Federal case.
We really were relying on our Fish and Wildlife partners to
draw on their expertise to work with all the Great Lakes states
during the court case. Again, we are not sure why that didn't
occur and also why there isn't movement to date.
Ms. Hanabusa. What other Great Lakes states are involved
besides Michigan?
Mr. Claramunt. A lot of the concerns that I share today are
expressed from Minnesota all the way to New York. All the Great
Lakes states want whole management of these birds, not
necessarily entirely through depredation orders or lethal
controls, but setting population targets, managing for those
population targets, and, most importantly, balancing the birds
with the fisheries and the communities.
Ms. Hanabusa. There was a 2016 study from the Journal of
Great Lakes, and it said 80 to 90 percent of the fish eaten by
the cormorants are invasive species.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Mr. Claramunt. I absolutely agree with that. And I think it
is also nuance that adds to why the cormorants are more
abundant than they would be historically. The invasive species
allowed a mechanism for the birds to become overpopulated.
But the birds prefer nesting habitats that are close to
critical fisheries, so the 10 percent that they will eat that
are not invasive species are yellow perch, walleye, northern
pike, critical species that support recreational, commercial,
and tribal fisheries.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, it is 10 percent of what they eat that
are what you would consider to be the species that you would
wish to protect, because you don't want to protect the invasive
species.
Mr. Claramunt. And I would also say, we manage the invasive
species to sustain both birds, but also important sport fish in
the Great Lakes. So, species like alewife and rainbow smelt
that are not native, we manage those and balance with all the
predator demands. We are not going to try to protect those
invasive species, but instead reach a balance between all of
those needs and the fisheries.
Ms. Hanabusa. Isn't one of the major invasive species in
the Great Lakes the carp?
Mr. Claramunt. Hopefully not. We are hoping to prevent
Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes, especially black and
silver. There are populations of grass carp, although they are
not as detrimental. But our hope is that we are not going to
have Asian carp in the Great Lakes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Isn't the environmental assessment necessary
to determine whether there are ways to manage the cormorants
nonlethally, including habitat modification, some kind of
scarecrows, overhead wire, something along those lines?
Mr. Claramunt. Absolutely. The environmental impact
statement, also the management of cormorants, should include
comprehensive strategies, both nonlethal and lethal. We have
had volunteer networks that have helped us with the nonlethal
methods, harassing birds away from fish stocking sites or
critical harbors or areas where there is deforestation from
near shore coastal habitats and islands.
So, yes, it should include all those things. And, again, we
stand ready to assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in
developing those environmental impact statements and EAs.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, what you are saying is that the Fish and
Wildlife Service just isn't doing what it is supposed to do?
Mr. Claramunt. That could be inferred, yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Further questions?
General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for your testimony. Very articulate.
My bill focuses on going back to the original rules
established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Can you describe
in more depth the general process that was in place with the
previous depredation orders and what the original rules
entailed for the Michigan DNR?
Mr. Claramunt. Yes, even though there may have been
shortcomings in the environmental impact statement, the rules
allowed us to co-manage cormorants at the local level. We did
this through a number of mechanisms. The PRDO helped us set
parameters and develop options, both lethal and nonlethal. We
also worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service to set annual
targets. A good management plan says what should the range of a
given species be and how do you draw actions to get there.
We also partnered with the USDA Wildlife Services for
lethal control methods. And, again, we work with North American
tribes to help in the co-management of cormorants, so the
framework that was in place was robust and was meeting the
needs of all the partners.
Mr. Bergman. What is the state of Michigan doing right now
when it comes to managing the cormorant population?
Mr. Claramunt. Really, our hands are tied.
Mr. Bergman. So, the short answer would be pretty close to
nothing?
Mr. Claramunt. That is correct.
Mr. Bergman. OK.
What are the trickle-down effects of doing nothing, both in
the short-term and long-term, for the Great Lakes?
Mr. Claramunt. In the short-term, I would characterize the
effects as we are quickly erasing the progress that we have
made in the co-management of cormorants and their impacts on
fish populations.
What I mean by quickly erasing, in the last 2 years, going
on 3 years, since the court order that rescinded the control,
we have seen a 40 to 50 percent increase in the cormorants in
critical areas where we had managed them down to levels that
were sustainable.
In the long-term, this is going to be very disruptive, not
only to the fisheries but to the ecosystem, both aquatic and
terrestrial. We are expecting a loss of economic activity,
collapse of fisheries in sensitive areas, and overall lowering
of the quality of life of the Great Lakes residents beyond.
Mr. Bergman. OK. Has Michigan DNR heard from other states
in the Great Lakes region, or throughout the country, for that
matter, about what they might be experiencing with cormorants?
Mr. Claramunt. Yes. Absolutely.
One of my roles is I serve on the Council of Lake
Committees, which is made up of all of the state, Federal, and
tribal partners, and we share these concerns. Again, I have
heard prior to this hearing comments from State Representatives
from Minnesota all the way to New York about their interest in
managing cormorant populations and their impacts on fish, not
just reissuing the depredation orders.
Mr. Bergman. Our focus as a Committee has been
understanding what is going on within the local communities and
having local stakeholder input.
What have you been seeing and hearing from the local
communities around our state?
Mr. Claramunt. It was appreciative that I could use Mark
Engle, a local business owner, his family is very tied to the
Les Cheneaux islands, and witnessed firsthand the impacts of
cormorants on his business and his family and his community.
He is not unique. We have heard comments from stakeholders
in the Saginaw Bay region, in Green Bay, in the Beaver Island.
And the stories are very much like Mark Engle's repeated over
and again about the impacts of cormorants on fish populations
and the need of agencies to co-manage the birds and balance
with the fish and the people.
Mr. Bergman. And, as we had talked about earlier, the
downstream literally is a migratory bird population that
travels south in the winter.
Any comments from folks in Arkansas or that area? Are they
having any issues?
Mr. Claramunt. Yes, absolutely. The Gulf states have a
parallel bill to deal with the exact same thing, and they are
supportive of our efforts to try to co-manage. I spoke a lot of
the Great Lakes, but this is really a U.S. issue. The Great
Lakes has the biggest nesting colony, but those birds fly
south, and the effects on the aquaculture industry is impacted
similarly.
So, they share our concerns, and they are supportive of
these efforts, again, to manage across the landscape.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Great.
Further questions?
Seeing none, Mr. Claramunt, we thank you very much for your
testimony today. This concludes our consideration of H.R. 4429.
The final bill we will be taking up is H.R. 4609 by
Congressman Scott Tipton of Colorado. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
convening the hearing today and bringing my bill, the West Fork
Fire Station Act of 2017, up for consideration.
I would also like to be able to thank Dolores County
Commissioner Floyd Cook for traveling to Washington to testify
in support of this bill, and would also like to recognize a
good friend and the person who actually happens to be the Fire
Chief and President of the local fire district, Tom Johnson,
being here as well in support.
Emergency fire work and response is a real challenge in the
part of the county that we are referencing, because the closest
fire station is currently 26 miles away. The West Fork Fire
Station Act conveys approximately 3.6 acres of National Forest
System land to Dolores County for the strict purpose of
building and operating a fire station in the West Fork area.
In addition to creating emergency and fire response
challenges, the lack of a dedicated fire station has created
insurance challenges for homeowners in West Fork. In an area
surrounded by National Forest land, it is critical to have fire
insurance for your home and other structures on your property.
With no fire station in the reasonable proximity to the area,
it is nearly impossible for homeowners to obtain fire insurance
in West Fork. My bill would help change that.
I would also like to note that the West Fork fire station
will be operated by a volunteer fire department, men and women
who dedicate their time, talent, and often put the safety of
their community and neighbors ahead of their own. I greatly
appreciate their service to the county.
I would also commend Dolores County for working with local
property owners and the surrounding fire districts to obtain
necessary firefighting equipment for the volunteers who would
serve at the West Fork fire station.
My team and I have engaged the Board of County
Commissioners, as well as my Colorado colleagues in the U.S.
Senate, to develop a conveyance. The county, Colorado U.S.
Senators Gardner and Bennet, and the Forest Service support the
proposal.
At this time, I would like to be able to enter into the
record a letter from Dolores County Commissioners Julie Kibel,
Steve Garchar, and Floyd Cook outlining their support of the
West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
DOLORES COUNTY, COLORADO
Board of County Commissioners
Dove Creek, Colorado
November 13, 2017
Re: West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017
Dear Honorable Senate and House of Representative Members:
The Dolores County Board of County Commissioners (DCBOCC) has been
working diligently with the staff members of Senator Bennett and
Representative Tipton, the U.S. Forest Service, the Dolores Fire
Protection District, and constituents from Dolores County to secure
land for a fire station and the development of a fire department in the
remote West Fork area of Dolores County. Dolores County, the citizens
of the area, as well as surrounding emergency services providers, all
recognize the immediate need for the fire station.
Historically, the Dolores Fire Protection District located in
Montezuma County, has responded out of their service area to emergency
calls in the West Fork area. The District firefighters as well as the
tax payers of the Dolores Fire Protection District have shouldered the
ever-increasing financial and logistic burden of those responses. While
fire departments often provide service outside of district boundaries,
they typically do so under the authority of a mutual aid agreement. The
creation of a West Fork fire department and construction of a facility
will allow for meaningful mutual aid in the area.
In addition to the benefits of meaningful mutual aid, the addition
of the fire station will address insurability issues currently facing
land owners in the area. Without local fire protection, some home
owners are unable to secure insurance for their homes or even sell
their property.
The DCBOCC has worked diligently with property owners and
surrounding Fire Districts to procure necessary firefighting equipment.
Additionally, surrounding fire districts have trained individuals
living in the West Fork area to operate as firefighters. The West Fork
Volunteer Fire Department, now with equipment and firefighters, need a
fire station. With that need, the DCBOCC approached the Forest Service
and their District Officer seeking a land conveyance to join the
existing Road and Bridge Shop at Fish Creek in the West Fork area. The
existing acreage at the site is not big enough to build a shop to house
fire equipment and safely provide ingress and egress for emergency
vehicles. The addition of the 4.43 acres of Forest Service land will
provide the ability to build, improve the driveway for safety purposes,
and clear up disputes the Forest Service has had over the years with
existing mail boxes and driveway structures.
The West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017 will benefit the home owners
of the West Fork by reducing response time from the Dolores Fire
Station, which is 26 miles away, give the home owners the ability to
purchase fire insurance for their property and structures.
Additionally, the facility will provide for a Forest Service staging
area for response to forest fires, as well as equipment and trained
fire fighters to be first responders in a very remote area. The
structure to house equipment on site will benefit the citizens of West
Fork, the Forest Service and surrounding fire districts.
Due to a gracious donation from an individual connected with Dunton
Hot Springs Area of $100,000.00, the construction costs of the fire
station will be met. Dolores County will provide in kind contributions
of heavy equipment and operators to prepare the building site, as well
as construction of a new driveway with culverts and signage. The County
is further prepared to pay processing and transactions costs, as well
as restrict the use of this land conveyance for a fire station, related
infrastructure, and roads to facilitate access to and through the
parcel.
We appreciate your support in this endeavor and kindly ask that you
will pass the ``West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017'' to make this
planning become a reality.
Sincerely,
Julie R. Kibel,
Chair
Steve Garchar
Floyd Cook
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to be able to submit for the record
recent testimony that was given by Forest Service Associate
Deputy Chief Glenn Casamassa before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands during a hearing
on the Senate companion bill.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining
Concerning S. 2218--West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017
February 7, 2018
Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S. 2218--West Fork Fire
Station Act of 2017. I am Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief for
the National Forest System (NFS), USDA Forest Service.
S. 2218 would convey, without consideration, all right, title, and
interest in approximately 3.61 acres of National Forest System land on
the San Juan National Forest to Dolores County, Colorado for
construction and operation of a fire station, associated
infrastructure, and access roads.
USDA supports Dolores County in their efforts to provide improved
emergency services to county residents and visitors. We agree that the
parcel of land in question is in a practical location to provide these
services and that there are not similarly situated non-Federal lands of
limited acreage available that provide the same locational benefits.
However, we do note that Section 3(a) is inconsistent with longstanding
federal policy that market value consideration should be paid to the
United States for conveyance of federal lands owned by all Americans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this bill and I
look forward to your questions at the appropriate time.
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in his testimony Mr. Casamassa said, ``The
USDA supports Dolores County in their efforts to provide
improved emergency service to county residents and visitors. We
agree that the parcel of land in question is a practical
location to provide these services and that there are not
similarly situated non-Federal lands of limited acreage
available to provide the same locational benefits.''
Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and my thanks to
my friends out of southwest Colorado for traveling the distance
to be able to testify on a very important issue for us.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Scott R. Tipton, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado on H.R. 4609
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and bringing my
bill, H.R. 4609, the West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017, up for
consideration. I also want to thank Dolores County Commissioner Floyd
Cook for traveling to DC to testify in support of this bill.
West Fork is in a remote part of Dolores County, Colorado,
surrounded by the San Juan National Forest. Emergency and fire response
is a challenge in this part of the county, because the closest fire
station is currently 26 miles away.
The West Fork Fire Station Act conveys approximately 3.6 acres of
National Forest System land to Dolores County for the strict purpose of
building and operating a fire station in the West Fork area.
In addition to creating emergency and fire response challenges, the
lack of a dedicated fire station has created insurance challenges for
homeowners in West Fork. In an area surrounded by National Forest land,
it is critical to have fire insurance for your home and other
structures on your property. With no fire station in a reasonable
proximity to the area, it is near impossible for homeowners to obtain
fire insurance in West Fork. My bill would help change that.
I would also like to note that the West Fork Fire Station will be
operated by a volunteer fire department--men and women who dedicate
their time, talent, and often put the safety of their community and
neighbors ahead of their own. I greatly appreciate their service to the
county.
I also commend Dolores County for working with local property
owners and the surrounding fire districts to obtain necessary
firefighting equipment for the volunteers that would serve at the West
Fork Fire Station.
My team and I have engaged with the Board of County Commissioners,
as well as with my Colorado colleagues in the U.S. Senate, to develop
the proposed land exchange. The county, Colorado U.S. Senators Gardner
and Bennet, and the Forest Service support the proposal.
At this time I would like to enter into the record a letter from
Dolores County Commissioners Julie Kibel, Steve Garchar, and Floyd Cook
outlining their support for the West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017. I
would also like to submit for the record recent testimony that was
given by U.S. Forest Service Associate Deputy Chief, Glenn Casamassa,
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public
Lands during a hearing on the Senate companion of this bill. In his
testimony, Mr. Casamassa said, ``USDA supports Dolores County in their
efforts to provide improved emergency service to county residents and
visitors. We agree that the parcel of land in question is in a
practical location to provide these services and that there are not
similarly situated non-Federal lands of limited acreage available to
provide the same locational benefits.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions
you may have about this bill and yield back.
______
Mr. McClintock. Do you want to introduce?
Mr. Tipton. You bet.
Mr. McClintock. I will defer to the gentleman to introduce
our final witness.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had referenced this in my testimony on the bill, but I
would like to be able to introduce Commissioner Floyd Cook, and
want to commend him for traveling to Washington to testify in
support of H.R. 4609.
Commissioner Cook was elected to serve on the Dolores
County Board of County Commissioners in November of 2016. Our
team in Washington, DC, as well as our field staff in southwest
Colorado do greatly appreciate his commitment to serving the
residents of Dolores County. I look forward to his testimony
today and our continued work together in the future.
Commissioner Cook, thank you for being here.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FLOYD COOK, COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
DOLORES COUNTY, COLORADO, DOVE CREEK, CO
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Tipton.
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and
distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on Federal
Lands, thank you for hearing me today. I am one of three County
Commissioners from Dolores County, Colorado. I am here to ask
you to pass H.R. 4609 to provide Dolores County with the
construction of a fire station.
The conveyance of the Forest Service parcel, approximately
3.61 acres, would provide the final piece to a cooperative
effort of our citizens, local, state, and Federal Government,
to bring a fire station to a beautiful portion of the county
called the West Fork.
To provide some background, Dolores County consists of
1,640 square miles with approximately 2,200 residents. The
topography of the county is agricultural in the western third
with the remaining two-thirds being heavily forested and rough.
Based upon the low population and mostly rugged landmass,
emergency services in the county have been a challenge, and the
threat of wildfires is consistent.
The West Fork is especially isolated and rugged, consisting
of small patches of private residents surrounded by vast areas
of National Forest. In addition to the more than 100 residents,
the West Fork holds numerous recreational opportunities,
including Forest Service trail heads, Forest Service
campgrounds, and privately owned outdoor retreats. Visitors
come to enjoy the extensive trail systems and world-class
fishing opportunities.
The need for a fire department in West Fork has been
obvious for a long time. Residents have had no ability to
purchase fire insurance for their homes. The surrounding fire
districts have provided emergency services when they are
available, and they have become overburdened. Additionally, the
more than 26-mile response distance to most calls was just
simply unacceptable.
Approximately 2 years ago, in an effort to address the
need, Dolores County began assisting a group of West Fork
property owners with the creation of a volunteer fire
department. The effort quickly spread, promoting involvement by
all types of citizens and levels of government.
The U.S. Forest Service has been extremely supportive of
the entire process. The West Fork Volunteer Fire Department has
now reached a point where they are ready to provide services
once a fire station is constructed.
The last step in the process will be the main facility
located on the subject parcel adjacent to the county road
department at a location known as Fish Creek. The parcel is
ideally located and suited for use as a fire station.
In addition, the parcel holds no other real value. It is
essentially a treeless, sloping sliver of land between Dolores
County Road 38 and the Fish Creek site.
The parcel is, however, perfect for the location for the
fire station. It has immediate access to the only main road and
will be serviced by the county road department. The fire
station will house vehicles and equipment and serve as a
staging area for the West Fork firefighters as well as the
surrounding mutual aid providers.
The location of the facility will also make it an ideal
staging for the U.S. Forest Service firefighting operations and
will provide immediate boots on the ground in the middle of the
National Forest to allow quicker responses to forest fires.
The Forest Service agrees that the parcel and land in
question is in a practical location to provide emergency
management services and there are not similar non-Federal lands
of limited acreage available to provide the same locational
benefit.
As stated, the conveyance of this parcel is the last piece
to providing fire protection in the West Fork area, potentially
saving lives, loss of property, and to help protect our
forests.
We have four vehicles, including a pumper truck, a tender,
and two brush trucks. We have firefighters trained by
surrounding districts ready to go. We have equipment for the
firefighters. We have over $100,000 raised for the construction
of the fire station. All we need now is conveyance of the
parcel and construction can begin.
Dolores County will provide contributions of heavy
equipment and operators to prepare the building site as well as
construction of a new driveway. With your help, we can have a
fully operational facility assisting with mutual aid to
surrounding districts and the Forest Service this summer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
Prepared Statement of Floyd Cook, County Commissioner of Dolores
County, Colorado on H.R. 4609
introduction
Thank you for holding today' s hearing on H.R. 4609, to provide for
the conveyance of a Forest Service site in Dolores County, Colorado, to
be used for a fire station. My name is Floyd Cook, and I am one of
three county commissioners in the County. The conveyance of the Forest
Service parcel of approximately 3.61 acres would provide the final
piece to a cooperative effort of citizens, local, state and Federal
Government to bring a fire station to the West Fork area of Dolores
County.
background
Dolores County overall consists of approximately one-third
relatively flat farmland in the western portion of the County, with the
remainder consisting of mostly forested rugged terrain. See Exhibit A.
The West Fork area is an especially rugged and isolated forested area
following the west fork of the Dolores River. The area consists of
small patches of private residences surrounded by vast areas of
National Forest. See Exhibit B. The area holds numerous recreational
opportunities, including Forest Service trailheads, Forest Service
campgrounds, and privately owned outdoor retreats. See Exhibit C.
Visitors are attracted by the extensive trail system and world class
fishing opportunities.
Exhibit A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit B
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit C
[
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Historically, Dolores Fire Protection District located in
Montezuma County to the south has responded out of its service area to
any emergency calls in the West Fork area. However, the distance for
those calls is approximately 26 miles one way. See Exhibit D. The
vision of the West Fork Volunteer Fire Department began in earnest due
in large part to the increasing burden being placed upon the
surrounding districts responding to calls in the West Fork area. Those
distant responses financially burden the taxpayers of those outside
districts, and divert resources in firefighters and equipment. While
fire departments often provide service outside of district boundaries,
they typically do so under the authority of a mutual aid agreement.
Without the ability to provide mutual aid, the residents and users of
the West Fork area are wholly dependent upon gratuitous services,
contingent upon availability.
Exhibit D
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
organizational efforts
Two years ago, the Board of County Commissioners of Dolores County
began assisting a group of West Fork property owners with the creation
of a volunteer fire department. The wide-spread and unanimous
recognition of the need for such emergency services quickly prompted
involvement on all levels. While the County continued to provide
financial and administrative assistance to the development of the fire
department, surrounding fire districts provided generous donations of
vehicles and equipment. Operational grants have been received by both
state and private funding organizations, as well as individuals.
The West Fork Volunteer Fire Department has developed into an
organization fully capable of functioning in providing emergency
services once a fire station is constructed. Four emergency vehicles
have been obtained and prepared for service, but are currently held in
storage. Volunteer firefighters have been recruited and trained through
opportunities provided by surrounding fire districts. The final step in
the creation of a fully functional fire department will be the
construction of a main facility located adjacent to a County parcel at
a location known as ``Fish Creek.'' See Exhibit E.
Exhibit E
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
the subject parcel
The proposed parcel initially consisted of 4.43 acres. The current
configuration of 3.61 acres was a result of compromises that will still
result in a highly useful and appropriate facility. The subject parcel
is ideal for the proposed use. It is essentially a treeless sloping
sliver of land between Dolores County Road 38 and a Dolores County road
and bridge site. The site holds no recreational opportunity. The parcel
is, however, perfect for the siting of a fire station. It has immediate
access to the only main road, and will be serviceable by the County
road and bridge department. The fire station will house vehicles and
equipment, and serve as a staging area for the West Fork firefighters,
as well as the surrounding mutual aid providers. The location of the
facility will also make it ideal for the staging of U.S. Forest Service
firefighting operations.
Dolores County explored other options in locating the facility,
however, the subject parcel was simply ideal for the above stated
reasons. The County explored housing the facility on the road and
bridge parcel, but size restrictions and problems with the current
potentially dangerous access point, simply made that choice
impractical. Surrounding property owners were also contacted, but
unwilling to provide suitable property.
the facility
Due to the extremely generous donation of $100,000.00 from a
private citizen, the construction costs of the fire station will be
met. Immediately following conveyance of the site pursuant to H.R.
4609, construction could commence. Dolores County will provide in kind
contributions of heavy equipment and operators to prepare the building
site, as well as construction of a new driveway with culverts and
signage. We hope to have a fully operational facility, providing fire
protection to the West Fork area, and assisting with mutual aid to
surrounding districts and the Forest Service this summer. Given the dry
winter in our area, we unfortunately expect a busy year.
closing
Bringing emergency services to the West Fork area has truly been a
multilevel group effort. From private citizens, to multiple special
districts, County government, state government and up to the Federal
level, all parties have seen the need and participated in making the
vision a reality. The U.S. Forest Service testified on February 7, 2018
before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining on the Senate
companion, S. 2218. The U.S. Forest Service ``supports Dolores County
in their efforts to provide improved emergency services to county
residents and visitors.'' The Forest Service ``agrees that the parcel
of land in question is in a practical location to provide'' emergency
management services and ``there are not similarly situated non-Federal
lands of limited acreage available that provide the same locational
benefits.''
We appreciate your support in this endeavor and kindly ask that you
will pass the ``West Fork Fire Station Act of2017'' to make this
cooperative effort to bring fire protection to the West Fork area a
reality.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much very much for
your testimony, sir.
Are there any questions?
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. I just wanted to clarify something that I
said in my opening statement. You said that the Forest Service
is very supportive of the conveyance, which is also my
understanding, but there was some concern about not requiring a
market value compensation for the land.
Did they raise any of that with you, the Forest Service?
Mr. Cook. The local Forest Service did bring that up. And
during our conversations, the way we looked at it, and I
believe he was in agreement, having a local volunteer fire
department in that area is a benefit to the Forest Service.
They will be the first responders when and if there is a fire.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, you believe that you have resolved it,
that the volunteer fire department will be there to assist, so
the Forest Service is OK with it now?
Mr. Cook. I believe so, yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Further questions from Mr. Tipton?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly appreciate the Ranking Member pointing that
out. That is actually a result of Federal policy.
That being said, that is actually addressed in Section 3(d)
of the bill. If the land is used for any other purpose, the
conveyance returns the land back. So, it does have very strict
perimeters for it to be able to work off of. And with the
letter that we have submitted for the record from the Associate
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System endorsing it,
obviously I think that we do have an agreement of the necessity
of that.
Commissioner Cook, I would like to be able to visit with
you just a little bit. I think that you gave a great
description of the land. And it is probably like many of the
areas that we all live in, nobody knows it better than the
people who actually live there.
One other thing that I know we are all so acutely aware of
is, we have had low snow pack during this season. The fire
season is approaching. You noted that you have been able to
have $100,000 to be able to build this facility.
How quickly, given the imminent threat that we are seeing
from the approaching fire season, can the facility be built?
Mr. Cook. Just as soon as we get approval and the weather
cooperates we would begin on it.
Mr. Tipton. Great, and I think you and I probably remember
and had an opportunity to be able to discuss when the Weber
Canyon fire broke out. One of the other volunteer fire
departments in the area out of Mancos, the Federal Government,
BLM, Forest Service people on the ground called them their
stealth firefighting department. They were the first on the
scene in the event of a threat on public lands.
So, the benefit of that, not to mention for the individual
landowners that are around there and the opportunity for them
to be able to do the sensible thing, to be able to have
insurance, I think is certainly admirable.
Commissioner Cook, in your testimony you did mention that
the county went through the process of trying to identify non-
Federal parcels of lands that could serve for the site for the
fire station.
Could you maybe once again just give us a quick overview of
that process so that we do have that certainty that you had
exhausted all other viable opportunities and this was going to
be the best solution not only for the residents and the county,
but also for the Federal Government?
Mr. Cook. Yes. The West Fork Canyon is very narrow in
areas. This is one of the wider areas within the canyon. And it
is, like I described, a very small sliver of a piece of land
that would suit the purpose.
The other problem is that the other areas, people are not
willing to sell. There is nothing available other than this
parcel. It is centrally located in the canyon. It is an
excellent area to stage from. We have road access right there.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Well, I appreciate that. I certainly
applaud all of the efforts. We have actually talked about this
for several years, the importance of this, literally for our
communities.
And, again, I am very grateful to have Tommy Johnson here,
a great example in our rural communities where we don't have
the resources to be able to have hired full-time fire
departments, we have people that are willing to separate from
their jobs, climb out of bed at night to be able to go out and
to be able to protect our communities, to be able to protect
our property. And I am really grateful for that effort and
proud to come from the area that we live in.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. And thank you
for being here.
And thank you again, Ranking Member, for helping me clarify
that point.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Are there any further questions of the witness?
The Chair wants to thank Commissioner Cook and all of our
witnesses for their expert testimony today.
Members of the Committee may have some additional
questions, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit
witness questions within 3 business days following the hearing
by 5 p.m., and the hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife
February 13, 2018
Dear Members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal
Lands:
Healthy fish and wildlife populations and their habitats are
essential to the quality of life of every American. Yet today, we are
facing an historic fish and wildlife challenge that could alter future
Americans' opportunities to benefit from these resources. Scientists
estimate that one-third of wildlife species in the United States are at
risk of becoming threatened or endangered unless we pursue proactive,
collaborative efforts to accelerate their recovery. The dramatic
decline of so many species of wildlife and the habitats they depend on
has an adverse effect on fundamental life benefits provided by nature
such as water purification and aquifer recharge, flood abatement,
pollination, recreation and food and fiber production that are
essential to human health. These species declines threaten Americans'
quality of life, as well as our national economy and create regulatory
uncertainty for businesses and industries, further impacting jobs and
the health of our communities. Fortunately, proven solutions exist to
reverse this decline and bolster our economy.
We write today to offer our strong support for the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act (H.R. 4647) recently introduced by
Representatives Fortenberry (R-NE-01) and Dingell (D-MI-12). We believe
this legislation represents a critical solution toward addressing the
imminent challenges facing America's wildlife. Many of us came together
to serve on the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish
& Wildlife Resources, consisting of members representing the outdoor
recreation, retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive
industries, private landowners, educational institutions, sportsmen's
and other conservation groups, and state and federal fish and wildlife
agencies. Together, our industries represent more than a trillion
dollars of economic impact, millions of non-exportable jobs, and tens
of millions of members and consumers across the country, all who rely
on healthy fish and wildlife populations.
As proposed in H.R. 4647, our Panel recommended for Congress to
dedicate $1.3 billion annually to the existing Wildlife Conservation
Restoration Program for state-led, proactive, collaborative-based
wildlife conservation before ``emergency room'' federal measures are
necessary. This concept has struck a chord among a diverse group of
Americans, and in response, the Panel has rapidly expanded into the
Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife which represents additional
diverse interests aligned in support of increased fish and wildlife
conservation funding, which complements existing natural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation programs. Together, we stand united
to help secure passage of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
We applaud the leadership of Congressman Fortenberry and
Congresswoman Dingell, and urge you to support this vital legislation.
Rather than investing in less expensive, preventative measures, we
often wait to take action until there is a crisis, which then requires
costly measures and, too often, onerous regulations that can create
economic uncertainty for businesses and our communities. H.R. 4647
changes this approach by focusing proven, proactive, science-driven
conservation measures, which will help recover thousands of species,
while saving taxpayers billions of dollars and leveraging additional
funds through innovative public/private partnerships. This proactive
and voluntary approach is better for wildlife, taxpayers, businesses,
and local communities.
Not since enactment of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
Acts, which provided critical funding for fish and wildlife in steep
decline, have we had an opportunity to pass legislation of such
importance to protecting what is every American's birthright--our great
natural heritage. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act has the
potential to be the most important conservation legislation in
generations.
We appreciate your consideration of our request for your support of
this important legislation. There is a lot at stake, and a lot to be
gained from the passage of this innovative solution to a growing
problem. We want to offer future generations of Americans the same
opportunities that we have had in our lifetimes to enjoy our treasured
natural resources. Together we can build a brighter economic future
that includes conservation of our fish and wildlife and helps sustain
our communities.
Sincerely,
Virgil Moore, President Dale Hall, CEO
Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies Ducks Unlimited
Jeff Crane, President Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO
Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership
Collin O'Mara, President
and CEO Amy Roberts, Executive Director
National Wildlife
Federation Outdoor Industry Association
John L. Morris, CEO Rebecca Humphries, CEO
Bass Pro Shops National Wild Turkey Federation
White River Marine Group
Steve Sanetti, President David Yarnold, President and CEO
National Shooting Sports
Foundation National Audubon Society
John E. McDonald, Jr.,
President John W. Fitzpatrick, Director
The Wildlife Society Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Margaret O'Gorman,
President Mike Nussman, President and CEO
Wildlife Habitat Council American Sportfishing Association
Steve McMullin, Ph.D.,
President Greg Hill, President, COO
American Fisheries Society Hess Corporation
Steve Williams, President Scott Kovarovics, Executive
Director
Wildlife Management
Institute Izaak Walton League of America
February 14, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the millions of hunters, anglers, shooters, and
outdoor enthusiasts that our organizations represent, we write to
express our strong support for the bipartisan Recovering America's
Wildlife Act (H.R. 4647), sponsored by Representatives Jeff Fortenberry
and Debbie Dingell.
We believe that collaborative conservation is the most effective
way to recover wildlife populations--an approach embodied in H.R. 4647.
Time and time again, proactive, collaborative, and voluntary
conservation efforts have allowed our nation to recover wildlife
species, from deer and elk to wild turkeys and a range of waterfowl and
fish, through habitat restoration projects and other strategies. These
collaborative efforts have largely been funded by our members and
sportsmen and women across America, who pay license fees and the excise
taxes collected under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson.
While collaborative conservation has spurred countless on-the-
ground successes, today more than 12,000 wildlife species across our
nation are considered ``species of greatest conservation need,'' as
identified by State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. A Blue Ribbon Panel on
Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources, comprised of
industry and conservation leaders, was empaneled with the express
purpose of developing recommendations to solve this challenge. They
recommended--and we agree--that the best way to recover these species
of concern is to build upon the conservation model that has produced
the remarkable successes for game species by investing a portion of
existing energy revenues in proactive, collaborative, voluntary efforts
at the state-level through the existing Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Program, as proposed in H.R. 4647. This non-regulatory,
collaborative approach is a superior means of recovering species and
leverages additional funds through innovative public/private
partnerships, while reducing the need for more expensive ``emergency
room'' measures and avoiding tens of billions of dollars in economic
uncertainty from potential regulation and litigation.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act will drive measurable
conservation outcomes by providing the resources necessary to implement
Congressionally required State Wildlife Action Plans through which each
state and territory develops a clear state-level strategy with local
stakeholders for how best to recover species of greatest conservation
need in their state.
Further, and in addition to other conservation and recreation
programs, H.R. 4647 will strengthen local communities and the national
economy by both bolstering the outdoor recreation industry, which
generates more than $887 billion in annual economic benefit, supports
7.1 million jobs, and attracts more than 140 million participants
(including nearly 40 million hunters and anglers), while creating more
regulatory certainty for numerous industries. More specifically, funds
from H.R. 4647 will be used to enhance wildlife-associated recreation.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is good for conservation,
good for sportsmen, good for the economy, and good for taxpayers. We
encourage your strong support and look forward to working with you to
move this bill through the legislative process.
Thank you for your commitment to conservation.
Sincerely,
American Woodcock Society National Wild Turkey Federation
Archery Trade Association National Wildlife Federation
Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies North American Grouse Partnership
Boone and Crockett Club Pheasants Forever
Camp Fire Club of America Professional Outfitters and
Guides of America
Catch-A-Dream Foundation Quail Forever
Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Quality Deer Management
Association
Conservation Force Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Council to Advance Hunting
and the Shooting Sports Ruffed Grouse Society
Dallas Safari Club Texas Wildlife Association
Delta Waterfowl Foundation The Conservation Fund
Ducks Unlimited The Wildlife Society
Houston Safari Club Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership
Izaak Walton League of
America Whitetails Unlimited
Masters of Foxhounds
Association Wild Sheep Foundation
Mule Deer Foundation Wildlife Forever
National Association of
Forest Service Retirees Wildlife Management Institute
National Bobwhite
Conservation Initiative Wildlife Mississippi
National Shooting Sports
Foundation
______
Rep. McClintock Submission
National Park Service, Department of the Interior
Statement for the Record on H.R. 4851, the Kennedy-King Establishment
Act of 2018
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 4851, a bill to establish
the Kennedy-King National Historic Site in the State of Indiana, and
for other purposes.
The Department would like to help provide greater recognition to
the site proposed for designation in H.R. 4851. However, the National
Park Service has no basis for knowing whether the proposed site meets
the criteria for inclusion in the National Park System, as a special
resource study has not been completed for the site.
In addition, the National Park Service has a deferred maintenance
backlog of over $11 billion. The Administration's focus is to reduce
this backlog and to address other critical national park needs. For
this reason, funding for new units to the national park system is not a
priority in the Administration's FY2019 budget.
H.R. 4851 commemorates the location where Robert F. Kennedy was to
deliver a presidential campaign speech on April 4, 1968. Kennedy did
not deliver his campaign speech; instead he gave an impromptu speech
about the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that had
occurred that day just prior to his arrival. In his remarks, he called
for unity, prayers, and a non-violent response to the news. The site is
marked by the Landmark for Peace Memorial which was dedicated in 1994
to honor Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Department would be happy to discuss with the sponsor and the
committee other alternatives to increase public recognition of the
site.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement.
______
Rep. Hanabusa Submissions
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
February 15, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Federal Lands Subcommittee,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman McClintock,
Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the Committee:
The undersigned hunting, fishing and conservation organizations
write to share our perspective on H.R. 2591, Modernizing the Pittman-
Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act.
Our organizations work together as the National Wildlife
Federation, founded in 1936 by hunters, anglers, and fellow
conservationists. Our first major achievement was helping to lead the
coalition supporting passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Act, better known as Pittman-Robertson (P-R), which since 1937 has
funded professional wildlife management by state agencies through
excise taxes on guns and ammunition purchased by the primary
beneficiaries--hunters.
The commitment of hunters and other purchasers of guns and
ammunition to pay for the management of the wildlife we rely on has
played an important role in supporting the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation for more than 80 years. The recovery of whitetail
deer, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, wild turkey, and a
range of waterfowl are all directly attributed in part to this funding
source. Despite these many success, many wildlife populations are
struggling and we urge Congress to provide more funding to state
wildlife management--which is why we all support the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act (H.R. 4647).
This hunter (and angler) funding mechanism is unique among wildlife
and natural resource stakeholders, and exemplifies the commitment of
hunters (and anglers) to restoring and conserving wildlife. This
funding model is, however, threatened by declining participation in
hunting, and projected future declines as many current hunters age out
of the sport. It has, on the other hand, been bolstered by a major
increase in recreational shooting.
The decline in hunters is a motivating purpose behind H.R. 2591.
While we understand and support the goals of the legislation, we
encourage the committee to make three specific changes to the bill:
1. Remove the reference to ``range construction''--shooting ranges
are already addressed more comprehensively by H.R. 788, the
Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, a
bill that would fund range construction, expansion, and
land acquisition.
2. Clarify that marketing and other forms of recruitment authorized
by this bill are an allowable use only from funds currently
allocated to P-R subaccounts Section 4(c) (Basic Hunter
Education); Section 10 (Enhanced Hunter Education); and
``wildlife-associated recreation'' under Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Programs.
3. Require reporting so states are tracking the effectiveness of
various recruitment and retention efforts and best
practices can be identified and replicated.
We agree that it is critically important that we address the
decline in hunters and state wildlife funding both for the future of
conservation and for our domestic economy (wildlife is a foundation of
America's $887 billion outdoor economy, which includes the $67 billion
hunting economy). We believe that the three improvements to the bill
that we've proposed will help achieve this goal, without fundamentally
changing a program that has served us so well for so long.
Sincerely,
Arizona Wildlife Federation Montana Wildlife Federation
Conservation Federation of
Missouri National Wildlife Federation
Florida Wildlife Federation New Mexico Wildlife Federation
Georgia Wildlife Federation Nevada Wildlife Federation
Idaho Wildlife Federation North Carolina Wildlife
Federation
Michigan United
Conservation Clubs Wyoming Wildlife Federation
Minnesota Conservation
Federation
______
THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
February 14, 2018
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa:
On behalf of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
(TRCP), a coalition of 56 sportsmen, conservation, and outdoor industry
organizations, I am writing in support of the bipartisan Recovering
America's Wildlife Act (H.R. 4647), introduced by Representatives Jeff
Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).
In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish
& Wildlife Resources, made up of sportsmen and women, outdoor industry
leaders, state fish and wildlife agency officials, conservation groups,
and business visionaries, joined together in developing a funding
strategy that best identifies ways to restore habitat for species of
greatest conservation need and enhance hunting and fishing
opportunities. The recommendations the panel developed were the driver
for the development of H.R. 4647, a bill that invests oil and gas
revenues to improve critical habitat for countless species.
H.R. 4647 dedicates $1.3 billion annually to the existing state-led
Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program that provides state fish and
wildlife agencies and local communities with collaborative tools to
preempt habitat decline and economic uncertainty for local businesses
that depend on the health of the outdoors. The funds will strengthen
conservation efforts and boost the outdoor recreation economy, which
generates more than $887 billion annually in America. This important
and bipartisan legislation will begin to meet the future needs of
America's unique fish and wildlife resources and will provide much
needed capacity to our state fish and wildlife agencies, who are on the
front lines of conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this written testimony,
and I urge you and your colleagues to work toward swift passage of H.R.
4647.
Sincerely,
Whit Fosburgh,
President and CEO.
______
THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
February 14, 2018
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa:
On behalf of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
(TRCP), a coalition of 56 sportsmen, conservation, and outdoor industry
organizations, I am writing in support of the bipartisan Modernizing
the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act of 2017 (H.R.
2591), introduced by Representatives Austin Scott (R-Ga.), Marc Veasey
(D-Texas), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), and Gene Green (D-Texas).
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund provides grants to
state fish and wildlife agencies for hunter education programs,
wildlife conservation efforts, and public shooting ranges. The fund
receives excise taxes from the purchase of hunting and archery
equipment, without a single dime from federal tax coffers. In order to
maintain adequate funding to meet the conservation needs of each state,
we must reverse recent trends and ensure a steadily growing population
of active hunters.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2011 and
2016, our population of hunters shrunk by 16 percent nationwide, while
hunters' total spending declined by nearly one-third. These findings,
should they become a trend, represent a threat to our nation's hunting
legacy and the wildlife on which it depends. Unfortunately, states are
currently restricted from using Pittman-Robertson funds for activities
to recruit, retain, and reactive (R3) our nation's hunters.
H.R. 2591 is a step in the right direction. This legislation
modernizes the Pittman-Robertson fund to allow promotion of hunting the
same way we utilize excise tax revenues to promote fishing and boating,
to bring hunter education and licensing systems into the 21st century,
and addresses serious threats to wildlife conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this written testimony,
and I urge you and your colleagues to work toward swift passage of H.R.
2591.
Sincerely,
Whit Fosburgh,
President and CEO.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Mr. Ziehmer Submission
--Sustaining and Connecting People to Fish and Wildlife: A
Looming Crisis Can be Avoided, A Recommendation of
the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's
Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources, Report by the
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Rep. Hanabusa Submission
--Letter from a group of wildlife defenders who support
dedicated funding to recover America's fish and
wildlife dated February 14, 2018.
Rep. Lowenthal Submission
--Letter addressed to Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa from Dr. John E. McDonald, Jr.,
President, The Wildlife Society regarding H.R. 2591
and H.R. 4647 dated February 15, 2018.
[all]