Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
February 15, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1892 words
HEADLINE:
JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK DIRECTOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
BODY:
Good
morning, Mister Chairman, and thank you for inviting me today to discuss the
land acquisition programs in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I would like to
address the following main topic:
Our ongoing work with the General
Accounting Office which has addressed Congressional concerns regarding our
priority setting and how we inform the Congress about new refuges.
I
would also like to briefly describe our land acquisition request as part of the
Administration's Lands Legacy initiative.
GAO Report
In a nutshell, the recent GAO report on our land acquisition program
noted the following two issues:
1) That the FWS - under long-standing
existing authorities - can establish National Wildlife Refuges through donations
or other means outside of the annual appropriations process and funding from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under current procedures, the Congress
oftentimes finds out about these new refuges when the FWS requests operations
and maintenance funding to meet its new mission responsibilities. 2) That under
the existing land acquisition priority setting system, the FWS criteria are
subjective, do not reflect the true relative rankings of the projects, and that
it is hard to differentiate between the projects at the national level.
How and why does the FWS acquire land?
The first great
conservation era began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century and the
dawn of the twentieth century when forward looking leaders like President
Theodore Roosevelt had the vision to establish our first National Wildlife
Refuge at Florida's Pelican Island to save beautiful birds from certain
extinction at the hands of the then fashion industry. The refuge system remained
a central core of the conservation movement during the twentieth century first
with the creation of the popular Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, or "Duck
Stamp" program in 1934, and second with passage of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund created in 1964.
Now, on the dawn of the twenty-first
century, we have an opportunity to further Theodore Roosevelt's vision yet meet
the concerns of a new century. These range from sprawling development, increased
recreational demand on the public lands, habitat destruction, and other factors.
We use several tools to conserve wildlife, fisheries and plant
resources. We will consider land acquisition only after we have tried to use our
other tools and even then a key principle is our ongoing commitment to work only
with willing sellers.
We would like to stress, though, that the Service
strongly views land acquisition as only one tool among many to meet our
conservation goals. As a matter of policy, the Service first looks to the
development of conservation easements, land exchanges or other types of
partnership arrangements to meet national conservation goals. If none of these
tools are available - or workable - the Service will evaluate the potential for
land acquisition. Within the FWS, we further pride ourselves on our
long-standing commitment to work only with willing sellers if in fact we do
proceed to the potential for Federal land acquisition.
The decision on
whether or not to acquire land is initiated by our on- the-ground staff and is
based on how the proposed project would further our mission and goals. This
staff, or eco-system team, will work with the regional office planning staff to
craft a project proposal that is sent in for review and approval to conduct
detailed planning. After the detailed planning is concluded, the regional
directors will submit the completed decision for final approval and subsequent
announcement in the Federal Register. At this stage, the project will be
authorized for establishment using several acquisition and funding sources. They
include:
The Migratory Bird Conservation Fund provides funding to
acquire migratory bird habitat. The MBCF was authorized in the Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of March 18, 1934. The fund is comprised of
revenues from the sale of Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps,
commonly known as Duck Stamps, appropriations authorized under the Wetlands Loan
Act of October 4, 1961, import duties from arms and munitions, receipts from the
sale of products from refuges, rights-of-way across refuge lands, sale of refuge
lands, and reverted Federal Aid Funds. The fund finances the acquisition of
lands for migratory birds, as authorized by the MBCA and approved by the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, as well as small natural wetlands, and
associated uplands, located mainly in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Upper
Midwest. These lands are known as Waterfowl Production Areas.
LWCF
funding purchases lands for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The lands
acquired under the numerous authorities assist us in achieving our
responsibility of being the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing, fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. The Congress, through the
Appropriations Committees, has the final decision making authority on funding
for refuges, including the establishment of new ones.
Donations,
transfers from other Federal agencies (DoD etc.) and land exchanges. We are
authorized to accept lands via donations, land exchanges, and transfers. These
types of acquisitions are used strategically. Prior to accepting a donation,
transfer, or pursuing an exchange, we evaluate each proposal to ascertain
whether it will correspond with our goals for the refuge system. The Director
has the authority to approve these transactions and establish a new refuge unit.
How do we set priorities, particularly for LWCF projects?
LWCF
project requests are based on Regional and National priorities that are
developed using tools such as the Land Acquisition Priority System which
generates a numerical ranking of all projects that are designated as available
for funding. LAPS is based on empirical biological criteria which is analyzed to
produce a final ranking. The LAPS list is publicly available on the Service web
site or to any one who requests a copy.
We first implemented our Land
Acquisition Priority System in 1987 and updated the criteria in 1992. Our
current LAPS categories are basically tied to differing statutory authorities
and include: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources; Endangered and Threatened Species;
Bird Conservation; and Ecosystem Conservation. Projects are scored within these
four categories against subjective criteria and then merged into a national,
annual priority list which is used by our policy officials here in Washington
and is shared with decision makers in the Department, the Administration, and
the Congress.
While this system has worked well, criticisms have arisen
that our criteria are subjective, do not reflect the true relative rankings of
the projects, and do not differentiate between the projects at the national
level.
Based on these criticisms, we started taking a hard look
at the program in 1998 and over the past two years have attempted to reengineer
our process. While this work is ongoing and incomplete, ! would like to share
with you the template for where we hope -to be in time to formulate our proposed
FY 2002 project lists.
While we're going to continue to use consistent
national level criteria, we're going to push some of the decision-making down to
the local level. Our existing Ecosystem Teams will develop habitat protection
goals and objectives for their respective ecosystems and these goals and
objectives will be the basis against which new acquisition proposals will be
evaluated. For example, a project will begin at the eco-system level, be
developed and refined through the regional office and finally come into
Washington for final approval and authorization. After receiving the Director's
approval, the proposed project will be announced in the Federal Register.
We are also trying to do a better job estimating operations and
maintenance costs.
In the operations arena, we use our Refuge Operating
Needs System (or RONS) to inventory and prioritize operations needs in three
areas: to protect wildlife, to improve habitat, or to serve people. Under our
system, the management needs of newly established refuges are evaluated against
pressing needs at existing refuges.
Currently, estimated maintenance
costs are identified in the Preliminary Project Proposal which are theoretically
used to evaluate whether or not the proposal should move forward. It should be
noted that, for the most part, operations and maintenance costs on a start- up
project of relatively small size tend to be minimal.
In both cases, the
problem tends to be when we take over management responsibilities for large
parcels of land. An example would be the expansion of Saddle Mountain in
Washington State through a DOE transfer which added roughly 57,000 acres to the
NWR system or the DOD transfer of the Aroostook NWR parcel (5,058 acres). These
large additions do require a larger initial investment, and are carefully
evaluated against existing shortfalls and priorities are set within funding
levels. In the case of Saddle Mountain, for example, the Administration's Budget
request includes $356,000 for priority operations needs to
eradicate and control invasives such as cheat grass and saltceder by
establishing an integrated management program. The resulting habitat restoration
will contribute to the conservation of shrub-steppe dependent breeding birds.
The GAO recommended that we:
Provide authorizing and
appropriations committees, annually, a list of all approved and proposed refuges
and refuge boundary expansions - including those for which the Congress declined
to provide land and water funding. The list should identify, for each refuge,
(a) estimated future requests for land and water funds and (b) estimated future
operations and maintenance costs.
Expeditiously implement the revised
automated priority-setting system for land and water funds, ensuring that the
revisions correct the problems identified in the current system and that they
meet the needs of the Service and Congressional appropriators.
We have
agreed to implement the two recommendations that were raised in the recent GAO
report on our land acquisition.
The Administration's Lands
Legacy initiative
This is the second year of the
Administration's Lands Legacy initiative which builds on our
commitment to our natural environment through the preservation of our public
lands and national treasures, and through partnerships with States and local
communities to protect open spaces and natural resources.
Our components
of this Initiative include a new State Non-Game Wildlife Grants program, the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and the North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund.
We are requesting $111.6
million for our land acquisition program -- an increase of
$59.9 million over 2000 - as part of the Department's overall
land acquisition program. We will play a leading role in major Departmental
priorities, with $30.0 million for key habitat acquisitions in
the Everglades; $ 8.0 million for the New Jersey/New York
bight; $6.0 million for the Mississippi Delta; and other
priorities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2000
