[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S9238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1996

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this bill establishes wildlife 
observation, hunting, fishing, and environmental education as the 
priority public uses of the refuge system. We have found in the State 
of Florida that even wildlife observation can become incompatible if 
not carefully regulated and managed.
  For example, at Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge, visitors 
enjoy observing the manatees that this refuge was established to 
protect. The favored way of observing the animals is by swimming with 
them in the refuge waters. A few years ago, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service discovered that so many people were engaging in this activity 
that many of the manatees were leaving the refuge that was designed for 
their protection. The agency determined that this form of wildlife 
observation was occurring at levels that were incompatible with the 
purpose of the refuge and had to establish certain limits on when and 
where people could engage in this activity and how many could do so at 
one time.
  Am I correct that even those so-called wildlife-dependent activities 
that are considered priority public uses in the bill must be found to 
be compatible with the purposes of the refuges and the mission of the 
system? And, that as a part of this determination, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service must consider whether there are adequate funds 
available to administer the use in a manner that is compatible?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct. Even though we are designating wildlife 
observation, hunting, fishing, and environmental education as priority 
public uses the bill requires each of these to pass the compatibility 
test. Even these uses have occasionally been determined to be 
incompatible on a number of refuges in the past and may be so in the 
future.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this bill--for the first time in law--would 
establish a definition for the term ``compatible.'' This is one of the 
single most important aspects of this legislation. Too often in the 
past, activities have been allowed on refuges that have harmed the fish 
and wildlife and habitats that these areas were designed to protect. 
There has been some concern that the definition used in the bill is 
overly vague. The bill defines a compatible use as one that will not 
``materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of a refuge or 
the mission of the Refuge System.''
  The House committee report on this bill further clarified that what 
this language means is that a use is compatible if it will not have a 
tangible adverse impact on refuge purposes. Is it also your 
understanding that this is what is meant by this definition?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. That is the correct interpretation of what is meant 
by this definition. A compatible use is one that will not have a 
tangible adverse impact on refuge purposes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the third part of our amendment concerns 
the issuance of permits for such uses as electric utility rights-of-way 
that may be of longer than 10 years in duration.
  The underlying bill requires that all non-wildlife-dependent uses be 
reevaluated every 10 years to ensure they are still compatible. The 
language of our amendment directs that for uses that are authorized for 
more than 10 years, such as utility right-of-way the Fish and Wildlife 
Service will evaluate compliance with the original terms and conditions 
of the permit and not the authorization of the right-of-way itself.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Your understanding is correct. This amendment is intended 
to address the concerns of those with permits for more permanent or 
semipermanent physical structures such as powerlines.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, some have pointed out correctly that, in 
the case of unforeseen changes in circumstances, it may occasionally be 
necessary to adjust a use to ensure that it remains compatible. My 
understanding is that utility companies have been willing and able to 
make minor adjustments to their facilities to ensure that they remain 
compatible.
  Mr. Chairman, am I correct to understand that this amendment will 
still allow the flexibility to make such adjustments to facilities that 
have been authorized for more than 10 years in order to ensure that 
they remain compatible?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.

                          ____________________