Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
3022 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK L.
SHAFFER
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAM DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - RESOURCES 2000 ACT
(H.R. 798) AND
CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 701)
BODY:
Defenders of Wildlife presents the
following testimony on the Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798) and the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (H.R. 701). Defenders
is a nonprofit conservation organization with more than 300,000 members and
supporters that advocates the conservation of all native wild animals and plants
in their natural communities. We would like to thank Chairman Young and
Congressman Miller for their leadership in working to secure dedicated funding
to conserve our nation's natural resources, and hope that the following
testimony will assist you and your staff as these bills work their way through
the committee legislative process.
Defenders' highest legislative priority
this Congress is to see the passage of legislation that will provide dedicated
funding to aid in the conservation of our nation's imperilled biodiversity, and
believes that Outer Continental Shelf revenues are an appropriate source of such
funding. As provided in greater detail below, Defenders believes that of the two
bills under consideration during these hearings, the Resources 2000 Act would
clearly accomplish this goal more effectively. Defenders, therefore, strongly
supports and endorses the Resources 2000 Act. As an initial point, Defenders
cannot support any legislation that would provide incentives for offshore oil
and gas drilling nor allow coastal impact aid funding to be used for
environmentally damaging activities. It is our view that HR. 701 would do so and
H.R. 798 would not. On that basis alone we cannot support H.R. 701 in its
current form.
The Resources 2000 Act would fund a menu of programs that we
believe collectively will make a significant contribution to the conservation of
our nation's biodiversity. For example, the Lands Restoration fund will support
needed restoration on federal and tribal lands; while the Farmland and Open
Space Preservation Grants will help state, local, and tribal governments assist
private landowners in protecting farmland, forestland, and ranchland from
unwanted development through permanent conservation easements. We would like to
focus our testimony, however, on those three titles dealing with funding for the
development and implementation of comprehensive state wildlife conservation
plans, full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
dedicated funding for the recovery of endangered and threatened species. 1.
Planning and Implementation Assistance to the States for the Development and
Implementation of Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans.
H.R. 798 and
H.R. 701 both propose to provide a portion of Outer Continental Shelf revenues
to fund state wildlife conservation programs - a goal that we strongly support.
HR. 701 would accomplish this goal by augmenting state fish and game agency
funding through the existing Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (a.k.a.
Pittman- Robertson). Defenders supports the approach taken in H.R. 798 which
would utilize the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA) as the
funding vehicle.
In 1980, Congressman Forsyth and Senator Chafee
co-sponsored landmark legislation designed to provide much-needed financial
assistance to state fish and game agencies to begin to better address, in a
comprehensive and proactive way, the conservation needs of the whole array of
species that make up our wildlife heritage. The FWCA recognized the many
significant values of wildlife species, the majority of which are neither
hunted, trapped or otherwise caught. It also recognized that the traditional
sources of funding for wildlife management, such as those available through
Pittman-Robertson, were so closely tied to game species, that "nongame species"
were not receiving adequate conservation attention, and as one result, many were
becoming listed as threatened and endangered. This far-sighted legislation
sought to do two things. First was to establish a reliable source of funding for
nongame management to complement the very successful game management programs of
the state fish and wildlife agencies. The second was to ask the state fish and
game agencies to develop and implement conservation plans and programs for
nongame fish and wildlife. Although enacted into law, the FWCA was effectively
never funded by Congress.
H.R. 798 would rightfully remedy that situation.
Moreover, it would update and further refine the goals of the FWCA. Since 1980,
science and society have come to recognize the fundamental value of
biodiversity-the full array of species and the natural communities and
ecosystems they form across the landscape. We have also come to recognize that
the leading threat to the maintenance of our biodiversity is the continued loss
of habitat. And, without proper habitat protections, game and nongame alike can
become threatened or endangered species in short order. Today, we should be more
concerned with defining and meeting the habitat needs of all our wildlife
species, rather than focusing on such transient distinctions as game or nongame.
H.R. 798 would both fund FWCA and amend it in recognition of this evolution
in our understanding of the conservation problem. It replaces the term "nongame"
with "native fish and wildlife species" to better express our true goal for
comprehensive conservation. In the same spirit it expands the definition of
wildlife to include invertebrates, wild plants, and endangered and threatened
species; all essential components of our biodiversity heritage. And, it
maintains the requirement of FWCA for the development and implementation of
comprehensive, statewide conservation plans. The FWCA's emphasis on sound,
comprehensive planning is particularly important. Even with the significant
funding levels proposed in both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, it will be necessary to
strategically prioritize and target how the money is spent to most efficiently
and effectively conserve biodiversity. The FWCA was prescient in understanding
the need for a comprehensive, state-wide assessment of our wildlife species,
their habitat needs, the threats to these species and their habitats, and the
management actions necessary to address those threats. It was intended as an
intensive look at what it would take to conserve all species. Equally important,
the FWCA recognized the need for meaningful participation and expressly provided
for it in the development, implementation and revision of state plans. Twenty
years later, with an ever-growing list of threatened and endangered species--now
more than 1000 native species, eight-five percent of which are at risk due to
habitat loss-- the need for such comprehensive planning efforts has never been
greater.
What would such plans look like? At least two states-Florida and
Oregon-have taken the initiative to attempt such comprehensive, state- wide
conservation plans. In Florida, the effort was led by the Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission, demonstrating what the state agencies could do with adequate
funding of the FWCA. In Oregon, I am proud to say that the effort was led by
Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy, but with active participation
and support from relevant state and federal agencies, and the private sector. I
have brought copies of each plan and I offer them for the record and your
consideration. Each effort has its own unique features but each serves as a
prototype for the type of comprehensive, state-wide conservation planning that
will be necessary to maintain our nation's biodiversity. This is the kind of
farsighted, proactive, problem-solving approach to conservation that was
envisioned in the FWCA and that, with passage of H.R. 798 can become a reality
in all states.
We believe such planning exercises are absolutely
essential to the effective and efficient conservation of our wildlife heritage,
be it game, nongame, or endangered species. Properly done, such plans could be
the blueprints for biodiversity conservation success, and could provide a common
framework for effective coordination for existing or new conservation programs
at the federal, state, and local levels.
2. Full and Permanent Funding for
LWCF.
One of the major tools we have available to us to provide the habitat
essential to maintain our biodiversity heritage is the LWCF. Full and dedicated
funding for the LWCF has been a top priority for Defenders of Wildlife and the
rest of the environmental community for many years. We support the funding
levels provided for both federal and stateside LWCF in HR 798. This level of
funding is needed both to address the estimated $10-12 billion in current
acquisition needs for our National Wildlife Refuges, Forests, Parks, and BLM
managed special areas and to give states and local entities the resources they
need to preserve dwindling vestiges of habitat and greenspace.
The ability
to acquire land across a continuum of jurisdictions- federal, state, and local-
is a critical tool in the increasingly difficult battle to preserve what remains
of our nation's dwindling wildlife habitat and natural ecosystems. As our
nation's population grows by about 2.5 million people annually, accompanying
development and sprawl continue to fragment and destroy habitat. Loss of habitat
is the primary cause of species endangerment and will lead to more listings
under the Endangered Species Act.
A 1995 report by Defenders, "Endangered
Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife" found
that extensive habitat destruction is reaching the point where the nation faces
the loss of not just thousands of species, but hundreds of natural ecosystems as
well. The report identified the 21 most endangered ecosystems which include the
south Florida landscape, southern Appalachian spruce fir forest, California
native grasslands, southwest riparian forests, southern California coastal sage
scrub, and tallgrass prairie. The ten states with the greatest overall risk of
ecosystem loss were found to be Florida, California, Hawaii, Georgia, North
Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, and Tennessee; however all
states were found to have serious problems. A secure and adequate stream of LWCF
funding is absolutely necessary to help slow this loss before it accelerates
further. H.R. 798 would accomplish this without imposing the types of
unacceptable restrictions on federal LWCF projects contained in H.R. 701;
restrictions that would limit needed flexibility and could result in unforeseen
obstacles and unnecessary delays for high priority projects and willing seller
landowners.
The first of these restrictions would require subsequent and
specific authorization for funding of each federal acquisition in excess of $1
million. This is unnecessary and duplicative, as federal acquisition is already
authorized in a number of statutes. And it would put numerous federal projects
right back where they are now -- unnecessarily delayed because funding is
unavailable. For example, even under the existing acquisition process,
landowners are routinely told by the Fish and Wildlife Service that they must
wait at least one and one-half to two years for Congress to provide funding.
Examples of projects that could be affected are numerous including some in
excess of $1 million proposed for FY 2000 such as acquisitions for Everglades
and Saguaro National Parks, Archie Cart, Ding Darling and Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuges, BLM California Wilderness and Desoto (MS), Flathead
(MT), and Coconino (AZ) National Forests.
The second restriction, requiring
that two-thirds of yearly funding be spent east of the 100th meridian imposes an
arbitrary geographic limitation that could affect new opportunities similar to
the recent Headwaters Forest and New World Mine projects and timely acquisitions
from willing sellers of inholdings in a number of western states including
Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Arizona.
The third restriction would prevent acquisition
outside the exterior boundaries of our current land management systems. We
believe that this would pose a serious impediment to the creation of any new
units in our federal lands systems and could result in the loss of numerous
conservation opportunities. Moreover, this provision would affect the National
Forest System's current authorization allowing acquisition of lands adjacent to
its boundaries. The ability of the National Forest System to acquire adjacent
lands can be particularly important in preventing fragmentation of habitat and
establishing wildlife corridors. A prime example of an ongoing project which
could be jeopardized by this language is the North Florida Wildlife Corridor or
Pinhook Swamp which eventually will provide a linkage between the Okeefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia and the Osceola National Forest in Florida.
This linkage would complete a large, regionally significant conservation area
providing a stronghold for wideranging species such as the Florida black bear
and the federally endangered Florida panther; these species have been pushed
into areas so small that a predominant cause of mortality is motor vehicle
collisions. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor is looked to nationally as an
example of a successful-public-private-non-profit cooperative venture to enhance
the value of protected areas by establishing their connection as one major
ecosystem and for this reason was identified as a model for future land
acquisitions in the 1993 National Research Council study Setting Priorities for
Land Acquisition. This purchase is also important in protecting a recharge area
for the aquifer that supplies drinking water for more than 20.5 million citizens
of Florida and Georgia and will be open as a recreation area for hiking,
fishing, hunting, camping, and wildlife observation.
Finally, while we
support funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program (UPARR), we
believe it should be provided in addition to the $900 million for LWCF as in
H.R. 798, not taken out the total for LWCF as in H.R. 701.
3. Funding for
the Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species.
Finally, Defenders
strongly supports the Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery title of H.R.
798 which would provide much needed and dedicated funding to assist in the
recovery of those species of wildlife most in need - endangered and threatened
species. Through non-regulatory incentives other than fee simple acquisition,
this money would be available to those private landowners interested in
assisting with the recovery of federally listed species.
The Endangered
Species Act (ESA) is the most important piece of legislation ever enacted into
law to conserve endangered species and their habitats. Since 1973, the ESA has
prevented the extinction of hundreds of species and has helped focus attention
on the need to conserve our nation's imperilled biodiversity. We can and must,
however, do better. Due in part to improper implementation and inadequate
funding, few species listed under the ESA have recovered. If we are to fulfill
the goal of the ESA - the conservation of endangered and threatened species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend - we cannot be satisfied with merely
holding species at the brink of extinction. There must be a concerted effort to
implement programs and actions that promote the recovery of listed species and
their habitats.
Habitat loss is recognized as the primary factor leading to
the endangerment of species in the U.S. Much of that habitat is found on
non-federal lands. It has been estimated that nearly half of all federally
listed species occur exclusively on non-federal lands, and that over sixty
percent of their populations are on non-federal lands. Clearly, if we are to
recover our nation's endangered and threatened species, we must conserve and
restore their habitats on non-federal lands.
The Resources 2000 Act would
help accomplish this goal by providing much needed funding for the purpose of
enlisting the voluntary participation of private landowners in the recovery of
endangered and threatened species. Under this provision, $100 million a year of
dedicated funds would be available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service for the purpose of assisting private
landowners in the development and implementation of endangered and threatened
species recovery agreements. This provision contains two important standards to
guide the types of agreements to be funded, but without being so prescriptive as
to restrict innovation. First, the agreement must clearly contribute to the
recovery of an endangered or threatened species. Second, financial assistance
under this program would be restricted to voluntary activities that are not
otherwise required under law, including mitigation performed under an ESA
incidental take permit.
Section 205 of Title II of H.R. 701 appears to be an
effort to provide a Habitat Reserve Program for endangered and threatened
species. While we support the concept of such a program, the section as
currently drafted contains several flaws. First, there is absolutely no money
allocated for the program. The provision is therefore meaningless, no matter how
well intentioned. The source of funding is also important. Defenders could not
support such a program if it were funded from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service operating budgets or existing programs, or
federal LWCF. Second, there is no restriction against use of these funds for
actions otherwise required under the law, including mitigation performed as a
condition of an ESA incidental take permit. Utilizing taxpayer dollars to pay
people to comply with the law is unacceptable.
In conclusion, Defenders
believes there is an historic opportunity in the 106th Congress to pass landmark
legislation to fund the menu of programs needed to help protect our magnificent
natural heritage as we move into the 21 st century. We look forward to working
with both Chairman Young and Congressman Miller as this process moves forward.
Thank you.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999
