Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
5224 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATMENT OF MARK VAN
PUTTEN
PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - GIVING BACK TO NATURE
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Resources
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. My name is Mark
Van Putten; I am here on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, the
Nation's largest conservation advocacy and education organization.
I want to
congratulate the sponsors of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of 1999 (CARA) and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection for America's
Resources 2000 Act (Resources 2000) for their tremendous leadership in
introducing the two bills that are now pending before this Committee. Each
presents an historic opportunity to enact permanent and meaningful conservation
funding that would benefit wildlife, wild places, and generations of Americans
to come. Your bills, and the support they have received, suggest that at long
last the Nation is ready to produce a solution to its pressing conservation
funding needs. If we are successful in passing a permanent conservation funding
bill, it would be a conservation milestone comparable to the passage of landmark
laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and the original Land and Water
Conservation Fund. There are considerable hurdles, budgetary and otherwise, yet
to be overcome. Like you, however, we recognize that there is a rare window of
opportunity to pass significant legislation.
The National Wildlife
Federation (NWF) has made it our top priority to work with you to ensure that
this victory is accomplished. It is our objective to have the final legislation
incorporate the following five principles:
- assures permanent, dedicated
funds that do not require annual Congressional appropriation;
- assures the
program does not reduce or divert funds that are currently available for other
conservation purposes;
- includes funding for state fish and wildlife
agencies that would support conservation, recreation and education programs for
a diverse array of fish and wildlife species;
- guarantees funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized $900 million level and
divides those funds equally between federal and state programs; and
-
provides funds for coastal conservation efforts in a manner that does not create
an incentive for coastal states and their local governments to support
inappropriate new offshore oil and gas development and includes strong
guidelines to ensure that the funds are used for the restoration and enhancement
of coastal natural resources.
Though this testimony details the differences
between CARA and Resources 2000, it is important to recognize that these bills
are not so far apart that reconciliation is unthinkable. Both bills direct that
receipts from non-renewable oil and gas drilling off of the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) be used for the protection and renewal of our vulnerable coasts,
public lands, and wildlife resources. Moreover, both bills acknowledge the
serious conservation needs that now exist and respond by providing a dramatic
increase in conservation funding resources (more than $2 billion annually). We
strongly encourage the Members of this Committee to work together to ensure that
there is the necessary bipartisan support to make permanent conservation funding
a reality.
OVERVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION NEEDS
Not so long ago, America's
network of public lands, which includes our national parks, grasslands, forests,
and wildlife refuges, was the model for and envy of the rest of the world. Over
time, however, this endowment has eroded under the pressure of ill-use and
over-demand. We are now learning that even the largest of these protected areas
often cannot provide enough habitat for wide-ranging species like grizzly bears
and bison. Nor are these protected areas impervious to the development that
presses up against their borders. Some of our most fragile ecosystems, such as
the Everglades, have declined to the point that challenging restoration efforts
are necessary. And, there are some tremendously rich ecological systems -- such
as the northern forests of New England and vital swamplands in the Greater
Okefenokee ecosystem -- that face threats from future development if they do not
receive protection soon.
The management of our precious wildlife resources
constitutes another significant area of conservation need. Nearly all wildlife
management dollars are devoted to the protection of either game species (species
that are either hunted or fished) or endangered species. Yet, roughly 90% of all
species are considered "nongame" species (i.e. they are not hunted or fished,
nor are they classified as threatened or endangered). As the pressure on the
habitat of this nongame wildlife increases, the species are left to fend for
themselves. Ironically, the failure to intervene with early protective measures
means that these nongame species frequently decline until they are finally
listed as endangered or threatened. Funding should be dedicated to the
prevention of nongame species' decline in order to avoid the more costly
recovery measures that are frequently incurred once a species has been listed.
The threats faced by our fragile coastal ecosystems present a third category
of conservation needs. America's coastal zones, which are among the most
biologically rich natural systems on the continent, are facing devastating
impacts such as loss of coastal wetlands and estuaries. Factors such as
development, sea level rise, offshore oil and gas development and water
pollution are damaging our coastal areas -- some almost beyond repair.
These
conservation funding needs are desperately real. Each year that passes without
adequate conservation funding brings a greater chance that irreplaceable natural
resources will be lost forever. By directing several billion dollars annually to
the cause of conservation, both of these bills would make a substantial
difference in the efforts to preserve our Nation's natural heritage.
What
makes these two bills so historic, however, is the fact that they would finally
provide a reliable source of conservation support. Currently, conservation
funding is subject to annual appropriation -- a highly political, sometimes
fickle, and always unreliable process. As a result, conservation funding levels
have fluctuated dramatically from year to year and often been dramatically
reduced without much warning.
FUNDING AT ANY COST?
The opportunities
presented by these conservation funds are enticing. It is vital, however, that
any conservation funding bill does not inadvertently create negative
environmental impacts by encouraging more oil and gas development or other types
of environmental degradation. One of the big hurdles remaining for these bills
is the fact that CARA continues to contain language that directly links a
state's conservation funding levels to the amount and proximity of oil and gas
drilling occurring off its shores.
We are heartened by the significant
improvements that have been made to Title I of CARA to exclude areas currently
covered by the oil and gas leasing moratoria from the revenue stream. We look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that any remaining incentives
are addressed before the bill returns for mark-up.
The following testimony
provides a comparison of the primary features of the two bills, evaluates them
in light of NWF's five principles, and offers suggested changes to the bills.
FUNDING STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
State fish and wildlife
agencies are responsible for the management and protection of all fish and
wildlife species that inhabit their borders. Their efforts in the conservation
of fish and wildlife species have yielded remarkable results including the
restoration of wild turkey, elk, black bear, and striped bass populations to
their native habitats. Yet funds available to these agencies do not typically
reflect the broad mandate that the agencies must fill, and all too often,
difficult programmatic decisions must be made based on limited budgets.
Substantial new funding would provide a much-needed shot in the arm to state
fish and wildlife agencies for improvements in on the-ground management of
wildlife species.
Traditionally, much of the funding for wildlife management
has come from the support of sportsmen and women through excise taxes on hunting
and fishing equipment and through the sale of sporting licenses. Given that
hunters and anglers pour millions of dollars annually into state wildlife
programs, it is not surprising that the vast majority of those funds have
historically been used for the management of hunted and fished (or "game")
species.
Yet roughly 90% of species, those that are not hunted or fished or
federally listed as threatened or endangered (often referred to as "nongame"
species), receive significantly less reliable financial support. Annual funding
for all state nongame programs amounts to less than $100 million compared to
more than $1 billion spent for state game programs. It makes sense to set aside
funding dedicated to prevent the decline of wildlife species before they reach a
crisis point when recovery is often more costly.
There is widespread
agreement about the need to increase funding for wildlife conservation, however,
there are important questions about where the money should come from and a long
history of previous failed attempts to get dollars for these programs. In 1980,
Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which was designed to
protect the Nation's nongame wildlife resources. The law was intended to augment
state wildlife programs aimed at nongame species. Unfortunately, Congress never
appropriated funds for this program -- so the law was rendered meaningless.
The National Wildlife Federation, along with other organizations, developed
the Teaming with Wildlife Initiative to address the unfulfilled promise of the
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Teaming with Wildlife concept sought to
gamer funds for wildlife from a user fee on outdoor recreation equipment. The
Teaming with Wildlife Initiative faced its own set of political obstacles and
the user fee concept has yet to make it into the legislative arena. The idea of
funding nongame wildlife programs, however, does appear in a modified form in
these bills.
H.R. 701 (CARA)- State Fish and Wildlife Funding
H.R. 701
would automatically direct 10% of the annual OCS revenues to states to allow for
the development and implementation of programs for wildlife conservation,
conservation education, and wildlife associated recreation. To accomplish this,
the bill creates a new subaccount under the existing Federal Aid to Wildlife
Restoration Act (the Pittman-Robertson Act) for funneling these funds to the
states. Based on predicted FY2000 OCS revenues, this title would provide
approximately $459 million annually to the states. States would receive their
allocation based on the state's population and land area relative to other
states.
This bill would fund management efforts necessary to sustain healthy
populations of wildlife (e.g. gathering scientific data, monitoring species,
direct management of habitat, captive breeding, relocation, etc.). Additionally,
it would support recreation-associated efforts such as construction of wildlife
viewing structures and clearing trails. In several places, the bill's language
indicates that its intent is to benefit a "diverse array of wildlife and
associated habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished." The bill
does not, however, give explicit priority to nongame species.
Suggested
Changes to CARA
Given the longstanding emphasis that state fish and wildlife
agencies have placed on game species, the legislation should be written in a way
that clearly directs states to prioritize the use of these funds for species
that are not hunted or fished. Bill language that requires the states to place
an increased emphasis on nongame species would help to rectify the historic
imbalance that has left these programs relatively underfunded.
Additionally,
although one of the bill's purposes is to "provide for public involvement in the
process of development and implementation of a wildlife conservation and
restoration program," it provides no clear mechanism or requirement to ensure
that public participation is actually part of the process. The bill should be
amended to include language that would provide for public meetings or citizen
advisory committees to guide the programs that states develop with these federal
funds. Strong public participation would help ensure that the concerns of
nongame and other species with pressing needs are addressed.
H.R. 798
(Resources 2000)- State Fish and Wildlife Funding
Resources 2000 also
provides funding to state fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation,
however, it uses a different approach. While CARA relies on the
Pittman-Robertson Act to convey OCS revenues to states, Resources 2000 makes use
of the "Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980." This Act, which was passed
nearly two decades ago, recognized the lack of reliable funding for
comprehensive nongame wildlife management. Unfortunately, however, no funds have
ever been requested by the Executive branch, nor has Congress ever appropriated
funds to this law. Resources 2000 amends this Act and reflects it to "preserve
biological diversity by maintaining natural assemblages of native fish and
wildlife." Over the next 5 years, the bill gradually increases funding for this
program to $350 million annually (nearly $100 million less than CARA). Lake
CARA, states would receive their allocation based on its population and land
area relative to other states.
Suggested Changes to Resources 2000
Channeling state fish and wildlife agency funds through the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act, rather than the Pittman-Robertson Act could create
some administrative disadvantages. The Pittman-Robertson program has been
tremendously successful for over 60 years and has a well established mechanism
for ensuring that states receive the funds that they are entitled to, but also
that states are accountable for their use of these funds. Because the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act has never received any funding, it is likely to be
difficult to establish the infrastructure necessary for distributing the funds
and to provide reasonable oversight and accountability. NWF recommends using the
proven mechanism of Pittman-Robertson.
In addition, wildlife conservation
funding needs are extensive and immediate. Resources 2000 would not reach its
full funding level of $350 million per year for wildlife funding for five years.
By delaying the flow of substantial funds for wildlife conservation, states will
be unable to make effective, pro-active program developments for several years.
We recommend that the bill be amended to provide the full level of wildlife
funding from the outset. Finally, we recommend that funding levels for state
fish and wildlife programs be increased by approximately $100 million to match
the higher level offered by CARA.
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND There
is also a long history of unfulfilled funding for land and habitat acquisition.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created by Congress in 1965 to
preserve wildlife habitat and wildlands, as well as to protect our outdoor
recreational resources for future generations. Like CARA and Resources 2000,
LWCF is based on the idea that revenue paid into the Federal Treasury for the
right to exploit off-shore oil and gas reserves -- (i.e. royalties from private
companies that drill for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf) -- should
be used for conservation purposes. Revenue for LWCF comes primarily from OCS
receipts, with some additional portion coming from the sale of surplus
government property.
LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million
annually, however, it has rarely come even close to receiving this amount from
Congress. LWCF funds are subject to annual approval by Congress and each year
LWCF funding gets caught up in the political process. In general, LWCF funding
has plummeted since 1979. And for the last four years, the state-side of LWCF
received no funding leaving state and local governments without sufficient
resources to meet community demands for accessible local recreational
opportunities. Instead, these OCS receipts have been funneled back into the
general treasury. It is estimated that approximately $11 billion of OCS funds
meant for LWCF have been diverted for other uses that are completely unrelated
to conservation.
Although LWCF has always received less funding than was
authorized, it nonetheless has provided phenomenal contributions to our Nation's
land-based resources. It is responsible for the acquisition of over 7 million
acres of federal parks and open space. Playgrounds, swimming pools, and scenic
trails around the country are also attributable to LWCF.
Nonetheless, the
demand for funds to acquire lands and recreational areas has always far outpaced
the supply. Additionally, the recent lean LWCF funding years have left an
enormous backlog of worthwhile projects that are awaiting funding. Both CARA and
Resources 2000 go a long way towards fulfilling the original promise of the 1965
Land and Water Conservation Act.
H.R. 701(CARA) - LWCF
CARA provides 23%
of annual OCS revenues to be permanently and automatically directed to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund with 42% of these funds going to the states ($378
million), 42x/6 to federal land acquisitions ($378 million), and 16% for the
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) Act of 1978 ($144 million). It funds
UPARR using funds intended for LWCF and caps the combined total at $900 million;
this leaves both funds below their fully authorized levels.
CARA places a
number of serious restrictions on how these LWCF funds may be used including: no
expenditures can be made for purchases that exceed $1 million unless they have
been specifically authorized by a subsequently enacted law; 2/3 of the funds
must be spent on lands east of the 100th meridian; land acquisitions must be
within the exterior boundaries of existing federally managed areas (e.g. the
National Forest or Park systems) or a land management unit established by an Act
of Congress; and funds can not be used for condemnation purposes.
Suggested
Changes to CARA
It is appropriate that this bill be amended to ensure that
each of these programs reach their full level of authorized funding ($450
million each) and that the state and federal-sides of LWCF receive equal amounts
of funding. While the Urban Parks program provides worthwhile urban recreation
areas, it should be kept separate and distinct from LWCF.
One of the more
damaging provision in this title is the requirement that federal purchases over
$1 million be authorized by subsequently enacted law. It means that many LWCF
projects will be forced to get approval through Congress and will be subject
again to the often fickle political process that currently hinders the
application of LWCF. This restriction should either be lifted entirely or the
cap set at a much higher level (e.g. $100 million). If this last change is not
made, the benefits of permanent and automatic LWCF funding may be lost as each
individual project stalls out waiting for Congressional approval.
In
addition, we urge that the other restrictions on LWCF's application also be
removed from this bill. The requirement that 2/3 of the funds be spent in the
East is an arbitrary and illogical restriction, particularly in light of the
accompanying requirement that the federal lands be acquired only in areas within
the external boundaries of existing federal lands (there are far fewer tracts of
federal land in the East). This latter provision would restrict the use of LWCF
federal funds to only those areas that are within existing federal areas
(inholdings) and could have devastating implications for the use of LWCF.
H.R. 798 (Resources 2000)- LWCF
Resources 2000 does not significantly
amend the LWCF. It provides permanent and automatic appropriations, at the fully
authorized level, to both the state and federal sides of LWCF (i.e. $450 million
each). Although Resources 2000 does fund the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
Program (at $100 million), it keeps it entirely separate from LWCF. The bill's
LWCF title is free of the types of problematic and unnecessary restrictions
found in CARA.
COASTAL CONSERVATION
It is hard to overstate the
devastating environmental impacts of OCS drilling-- impacts that result from the
initial exploration and development of the platforms; from the production,
transportation, and refining of oil and gas; and ultimately, from our own
consumption of OCS petroleum. Unfortunately, the lion's share of these impacts
are borne by America's coastal zones, which rank among the most biologically
rich and economically significant natural systems on the continent. These
coastal zones are home to over half the Nation's population, play a critical
role in absorbing flooding and blunting storms, provide important spawning
habitat for commercially valuable fisheries, and harbor a disproportionate
fraction of rare and endangered wildlife. Unquestionably, our Nation's important
coastal resources face a variety of threats from sources other than offshore oil
and gas drilling, including pollution and development of coastal wetlands.
Coastal conservation efforts have been underway for decades, however, they
have failed to address the significance of the threats in a systematic or
comprehensive way. If properly crafted, CARA and Resources 2000 could help
mitigate the damage to the environment that is created by offshore oil and gas
development and other coastal threats.
H.R. 701 (CARA)- Coastal Conservation
CARA provides 27% of annual OCS revenues (approximately $1.24 billion) to 35
coastal states (including the Great Lakes states) for use in the following
areas: air and water quality; fish, wildlife, wetlands, and coastal restoration;
and onshore infrastructure and public service needs. This enormous pot of money
is divided among the states using a formula based 50% on the state's proximity
to OCS drilling, 25% on its population and 25% on its shoreline miles. The bill
does stipulate that revenue from areas currently coveredy a drilling moratoria
would not go toward CARA, however, it does not address the incentives problem
for new drilling that might occur in areas outside the moratoria.
Suggested
Changes to CARA
CARA should be amended to restrict the use of"coastal impact
assistance" funds so that they are not used to subsidize environmentally harmful
infrastructure development. Instead, these funds should be directed to projects
that ameliorate the environmental impacts of OCS oil and gas development. Rather
than subsidizing unwise development, the bill should require a demonstration
that each impact assistance project will benefit the natural environment and
will be consistent with the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
and other federal environmental laws. Further, the majority of these funds ought
to be used for direct coastal conservation purposes. Priority should be given to
uses of the funds that directly offset the impact of OCS drilling, protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and support the repurchase of OCS leases.
Additionally, the proposal still contains features that create a financial
and political incentive for coastal states to accept inappropriate offshore oil
and gas development. The allocation of OCS leasing revenues to coastal states
and their local governments is based on a formula that includes and rewards
increased production. In order to ensure that our nation's coastal zones are
properly managed, allocation of funds to coastal states should not be tied to
new leasing, exploration, production, or geographic proximity to such
activities. Alternatively, allocation of state shares of coastal impact
assistance should be set at the time the bill is passed (i.e. fixed at the rate
of current production levels) or based on an average production level over the
last 20 years. Funds generated from future leasing that occurs in areas
currently excluded from the funding revenue stream (i.e. areas currently covered
by the moratoria area) should be set aside in a "catastrophic response account"
to be used for emergency costs associated with oil and gas accidents such as the
recent tanker spill that occurred in Coos Bay, Oregon.
B.R. 798
(Resources 2000)- Coastal Conservation
Like CARA, Resources 2000 contains a
funding program that addresses coastal conservation. Resources 2000, however,
places more of an emphasis on ocean species and marine ecosystems than CARA.
Resources 2000 has no provision that serves as a "coastal impact assistance"
fund to mitigate the impact of OCS drilling. Instead, Resources 2000 provides
$300 million (phased in over a five year process) that is divided with 2/3 going
to 35 coastal states for ocean fish and wildlife conservation and 1/3 going to
the Commerce Department to support competitive grants for living marine resource
conservation.
Notably, funding for this program is completely de-linked from
OCS production levels and the proximity of drilling sites to a particular state.
Instead, states receive their allocations using a formula that is based 2/3 on
population and 1/3 on shoreline miles. Moreover, the revenue source for all of
the titles in Resources 2000 is limited to OCS revenues from currently producing
leases in the Gulf of Mexico (as of January 1, 1999).
Suggested Changes to
Resources 2000
The devastating impacts that offshore oil and gas drilling
can have on a state's coastlines are substantial. States like Louisiana are
losing their coastal wetlands and beaches at an alarming rate because of the
associated impacts of the offshore oil and gas production and transportation
processes. It is appropriate that at least some portion of the revenue derived
from the significant impacts of OCS drilling should be used to mitigate its
impacts. A coastal impact assistance component should be added to Resources 2000
and can be designed in a way that does not link the revenue directly to the
amount or proximity of drilling occurring off a state's shore.
Additionally,
Resources 2000 has limited the "qualifying OCS revenues" to those that are
occurring under currently operating leases. As a result, when these leases stop
producing oil, the accompanying revenue will be gone and the law will
essentially sunset itself. While cognizant of the risk of using any funds from
new oil and gas drilling for fear of creating additional incentives to drill,
there are alternative ways of eliminating the incentives issue without
jeopardizing long-term funding. For instance, the bill could be amended to allow
funds generated from future leasing that occurs in areas currently excluded from
the funding revenue stream (i.e. areas currently not in production) to be set
aside in a "catastrophic response account" to be used for emergency costs
associated with oil and gas accidents such as the recent tanker spill that
occurred in Coos Bay, Oregon.
H.R. 701 (CARA)- Endangered Species
CARA
includes a provision that establishes a Habitat Reserve Program within the
Department of Interior for private landowner assistance. The provision allows
the Secretary to enter into agreements with private landowners and the relevant
state agencies to enroll lands, on a voluntary basis, for the protection of
endangered species in exchange for incentives payments. The provision provides
no guidance as to what types of lands should be enrolled in this Habitat Reserve
Program, nor does it indicate what the obligations of the landowners are under
these plans (except for a requirement that the plans last at least 5 years).
Furthermore, the provision includes a disclaimer that the amount received under
this program shall in no way affect the amount received under other federal
incentives programs.
Although this provision appears in Section 205 of the
bill, the LWCF title, it is unclear whether there is actually any money
allocated to the program and if so, where it is supposed to come from.
Suggested Changes to CARA
This provision should be tightened up
considerably if it is to be left in the bill. A clear funding source, and amount
of funds, needs to be designated. It is inappropriate to draw endangered species
funds from LWCF -- the two issues have historically been kept separate for fear
that endangered species' needs would overwhelm LWCF and steer it away from its
intended course.
The purpose of the Habitat Reserve Program needs to be
clarified. What are the obligations of the landowners? It needs to be made clear
that these landowners are engaging in activities above and beyond the existing
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. As it currently stands, this program
could be used to pay people to comply with their existing obligations under the
law. While it is appropriate to allow landowners to continue to receive payments
for their conservation activities under other incentives programs, such as the
Conservation Reserve Program, they should not be paid twice for the same set of
activities. This program should fund activities that the landowner would not
otherwise be doing under these other types of agreements. Finally, a monitoring
and review process is necessary to ensure that the landowner really is carrying
out the conservation activities for which the government is paying.
H.R. 798
(Resources 2000)- Endangered Species
Resources 2000 creates a dedicated
source of funding ($100 million annually) to create an incentives program for
private landowners who are contributing to the recovery of endangered and
threatened species (as well as the habitat upon which they depend). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the two
agencies responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act) would use the
funds to provide grants to landowners who enter into "recovery agreements" that
contribute to the recovery of the species in ways that go beyond the existing
obligations under the law. These recovery agreements must have clear goals and
be periodically reviewed to evaluate whether the goals are being met. Priority
would be given to small landowners and farmers.
Increased outreach to
landowners is desperately needed to ensure the continued survival of many
endangered species that are found primarily on private lands. These proposed
"recovery agreements" would provide beneficial incentives to encourage
landowners, who might otherwise be uninterested, to contribute to the recovery
of species.
CONCLUSION
The conservation needs for state fish and
wildlife management, as well as for coastal and land conservation programs are
tremendous. And the threats to these resources loom larger the longer it takes
us to act. CARA and Resources 2000 have the potential to make a lasting,
historic contribution to the conservation cause.
We look forward to working
with the sponsors of these bills to ensure that the two proposals are merged in
a way that brings out the best in both of them and allows the final piece of
legislation to have the broad base of support necessary to ensure passage into
law.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999
