LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 11 of 92.

View Related Topics

MAY 4, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 3395 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
MARK L. SHAFFER
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAM DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT (S. 446)
THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999 (S. 25)
THE PUBLIC LAND AND RECREATION INVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
(S. 532)
THE NATIONAL PARK PRESERVATION ACT OF 1999 (S. 819)
THE LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE

BODY:

Defenders of Wildlife presents the following testimony on the Resources 2000 Act (S. 446), the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (S. 25), the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999 (S. 532), the National Park Preservation Act of 1999 (S. 819), and the Lands Legacy Initiative. 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. Although we have concerns about certain provisions in some of the proposals under consideration, we are extremely grateful to all the cosponsors of the above legislation and to the Clinton Administration for their leadership and commitment in securing dedicated funding to conserve our nation's natural resources. We would like to thank Chairman Murkowski and Senator Bingaman for these hearings and hope that the following testimony will assist you and your staff as these proposals 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 all the proposals under consideration during these hearings, the Resources 2000 Act combines the most comprehensive and effective menu of programs at a substantial level of funding to accomplish this goal. Defenders, therefore, strongly supports and endorses the Resources 2000 Act.
Defenders also 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 S. 25 would do so and other proposals would not. On that basis alone we cannot support S. 25 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. The President's Lands Legacy Initiative also contains many of these same elements. We would like to focus our testimony, however, on those three areas 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 Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Plans.
S. 446 and S. 25 both propose to provide a portion of Outer Continental Shelf revenues to fund state wildlife conservation programs - a goal that we strongly support. The Administration's Statement of Principles on Lands Legacy Legislation also supports funding to states to conserve habitat for at risk and non game species. S. 25 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 S. 446 which would utilize the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA) as the funding vehicle.
In 1980, Congressman Forsythe 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. The 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.
S. 446 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.
S. 446 would both fund the 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 the FWCA for the development and implementation of state-based wildlife and habitat conservation plans.
A Strategic Approach to State Wildlife Conservation
The FWCA's emphasis on sound, broad-based planning is particularly important. Even with the significant funding levels proposed in both S. 446 and S. 25, 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, eighty five percent of which are at risk due to habitat loss--the need for such broad-based planning efforts has never been greater.

What are the key elements of such state-based conservation plans?
1. They are broad-based, both biologically and institutionally. They cover all animal and plant species, but they can do so through a coarse filter (community-based)/fine filter (rare, threatened, or endangered species occurrences) approach. They also are done in coordination with other relevant state and federal land and resource management agencies.
2. They identify the key habitat areas that must be maintained in current land-uses to provide adequate habitat for all natural community types (the coarse filter) and all focal species (e.g., threatened, endangered, or otherwise of management concern (whether game or nongame)).
3. They identify the key threats to focal species and essential habitats, and identify and prioritize management options and research needs for addressing those threats.
4. They use the best available data and information, such as state Gap Analysis and Natural Heritage databases and, if necessary, identify additional survey needs where data gaps exist.
5. They establish a practical and informative program of monitoring and assessment of essential habitat and focal species status that can assist the agency in taking an adaptive management approach to conservation. Such programs should be geared to evolving the state's habitat conservation system plan on a periodic basis to address changing conditions.
6. As any good government planning exercise must, they provide for meaningful public participation in the development, implementation and periodic revision of the plan.
7. They provide opportunities to educate and inform the public on the importance of conserving wild species and their habitats.
At least two states-Florida and Oregon-have taken the initiative to attempt such statewide 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. Copies of each plan have been provided to this committee. Each effort has its own unique features but each serves as a prototype for the type of state-wide conservation planning that will be necessary to maintain our nation's biodiversity. This is the kind of far-sighted, proactive, problem-solving approach to conservation that was envisioned in the FWCA and that, with passage of S. 446 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. The importance of LWCF is clearly recognized across the array of proposals under consideration: S. 25, S. 446, S. 532, and the President's Lands Legacy Initiative all provide dedicated funding for LWCF.We support the funding levels provided for both federal and stateside LWCF in S. 446. 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 must 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.
Unacceptable LWCF Restrictions
A secure and adequate stream of LWCF funding is absolutely necessary to help slow this loss before it accelerates further. S. 446 and S. 532 would accomplish this without imposing the types of unacceptable restrictions on federal LWCF projects contained in S. 25; 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 new authorization for funding of each federal acquisition in excess of $5 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.
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 S. '446, not taken out the total for LWCF as in S. 25 and S. 532.
3. Funding for the Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species.

Lastly, Defenders strongly supports the Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery title of S. 446 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 nonregulatory incentives 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.
While not included in S. 25, we would like to offer some brief comments on Section 205 of Title II of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 as introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 701). This section 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. Without funding, even the best crafted and most well-intentioned legislation cannot attain its goals. 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 from funding provided under the bill for 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 simply bad policy.
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 21st century. We look forward to working with both Chairman Murkowski and the committee as this process moves forward. Thank you.
END

LOAD-DATE: May 6, 1999

Document 11 of 92.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: