LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

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

Document 12 of 92.

View Related Topics

MAY 4, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 5248 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MARK VAN PUTTEN
PRESIDENT AND CEO
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - GIVING BACK TO NATURE

BODY:

Mr. Chairman, Members of the 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 S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA), S. 446, the Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act (Resources 2000), S. 532, the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999 (Public Lands Investment), and S. 819, the National Park Preservation Act (Park Preservation) for their tremendous leadership in introducing the 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 have the final legislation be consistent with our five principles. It should:
- assure permanent, dedicated funds that do not require annual Congressional appropriation;
- assure these programs do not reduce or divert funds that are currently available for other conservation purposes;
- include funding for state fish and wildlife agencies that would support conservation, recreation, and education programs for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis given to nongame species;
- guarantee funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized $900 million level and divide those funds equally between federal and state programs without unreasonably restricting the use of those funds; and- provide 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 include strong guidelines to ensure that the funds are used for the restoration and enhancement of coastal natural resources.
This testimony focuses primarily on S. 25 and S. 446 because they are more ambitious in their attempts to address broad conservation needs. While we are supportive of the provisions in S. 532 and S. 819, these bills are narrowly focused on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and national parks, respectively. The opportunity to obtain substantial, permanent funding for conservation is not likely to happen again in the near future. We encourage all of the bill sponsors to think broadly about the nation's conservation needs and provide a level of funding that is commensurate with the value of the natural resources that are at stake.
Although this testimony details the differences among the various bills, it is important to recognize that they are not so far apart that reconciliation is unthinkable. CARA and Resources 2000, in particular, share a surprising amount of common ground. Both of these 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 and permanent 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.
FUNDING AT ANY COST?
The opportunities presented by these conservation funds are enticing. It is vital, however, that a new conservation funding law does not inadvertently create negative environmental impacts. One of the big hurdles remaining for these bills is the fact that CARA contains language that directly links a state's funding allocation to the amount and proximity of oil and gas drilling occurring off its shores. The significant restrictions that CARA places on the use of federal LWCF dollars is another area of serious concern. We look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that these issues are addressed before the bill proceeds through mark-up.
The following testimony provides a comparison of the primary features of S. 25 and S. 446, 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 the majority of 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. Often funds are not adequate for agencies to meet their extensive conservation needs, and frequently, 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 neither hunted or fished nor 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 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 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 that have kept the user fee concept out of the legislative arena. The idea of funding nongame wildlife programs, however, is still very much alive. A broad constituency for wildlife funding now exists and strongly supports the inclusion of a nongame wildlife component in any permanent conservation funding bill.
State Fish and Wildlife Funding- S. 25 (CARA) and S. 446 (Resources 2000)
S. 25 would automatically direct 7% 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 in Wildlife Restoration Act (the Pittman-Robertson Act) for directing these funds to the states. Based on predicted FY2000 OCS revenues, this title would provide approximately $321 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 trail maintenance. In several places, the bill language indicates that it is intended 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.
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, 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 redirects 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. Like CARA, a state would receive its allocation under Resources 2000 based on population and land area relative to other states.
Suggested Changes to the Wildlife Title
We strongly urge you to maintain a wildlife funding component as these bills move forward. Both funding mechanisms offered under the existing bills -- Pittman-Robertson and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 -- have positive features. Whatever mechanism is ultimately used to distribute wildlife funding to states, we recommend that it incorporate the following four components -- what we have termed "four P's for wildlife": permanent funding for wildlife conservation; prioritization for those species that have the greatest conservation need; a strategic planning mechanism; and public participation in the development and implementation of state wildlife conservation programs.
Permanent and Substantial Funding- Like the other conservation programs covered by these bills, state wildlife protection programs will be able to dramatically improve their conservation work if they have a reliable, substantial source of funding. It is essential that this funding be provided on a permanent basis. Among other things, this will provide states with some certainty about future funding levels, which in turn, will allow them to begin developing the type of ambitious, longterm conservation projects that are needed to save declining wildlife species.
The needs of wildlife species are great and existing funds are limited. To ensure that wildlife funding needs are fully addressed, we encourage the bill sponsors to raise the level of wildlife funding to 10% of OCS revenues (approximately $459 million)to match the levels provided for under HR. 701, the House version of CARA. Wildlife conservation funding needs are not only extensive, they are immediate. Resources 2000 would not reach its full funding level of $350 million per year 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 any wildlife provision be designed to provide the full level of wildlife funding from the outset.
Prioritization for Nongame- 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 neither hunted or fished, nor listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. 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 underfunded.
Planning- In order for state fish and wildlife agencies to effectively address the conservation needs of a diverse array of species, they need to develop scientifically-based, statewide conservation plans. Conservation planning will help state agencies determine the wildlife species and habitats that have the greatest conservation needs, identify the threats they face, and outline the conservation and management strategies necessary to protect them. By making use of the best available scientific information and addressing areas where there are information gaps, a state conservation plan will establish the framework for pro-active, efficient, and effective conservation of fish and wildlife species.
The following elements could be used as guidelines for development of state plans:
* A broad-based assessment, by the relevant agencies, of the state's animal and plant species. This should be done at a more general level in order to create an overview of the status of plants and animals in the state, with more detailed analyses done for select species (e.g. indicator species, endangered species, keystone species).
* Identification of essential habitat necessary to protect key species and ensure adequate representation of all native ecosystem types, and identification of key threats to species and essential habitat.
* Prioritization of management, research, and land acquisition needs.
* A monitoring and assessment program that provides feedback to state wildlife managers for use in adapting their management plans as new information becomes available.
* A meaningful public participation program that not only seeks out public input, but also identifies opportunities for increasing the public's awareness, interest, and participation in state wildlife protection efforts.We recognize the potential dangers of placing burdensome planning requirements on the states and inadvertently wasting funds that could have been better spent on actual conservation activities. We also recognize, however, that lack of planning could result in the funds being spent on uncoordinated, unrelated individual projects that do not maximize the benefits to wildlife. To balance these two concerns, we recommend that a planning process be incorporated into the bill, but that it not attempt to be too prescriptive. Instead, the planning requirements should provide general guidelines about what should be in a plan, but leave room for each state to adapt the planning process to suit its individual needs. Furthermore, states that already have adequate statewide conservation plans should not be required to do further planning. The states should not be prevented from receiving funds for critical wildlife and habitat conservation needs while they are in the process of developing a broad-based conservation plan. To assist states in the development of these plans, states should receive a greater proportion of federal matching funds for planning efforts. In addition, federal agencies should coordinate and provide technical assistance to states where appropriate. Finally, the planning and implementation process should incorporate the type of federal oversight and accountability currently in place under Pittman-Robertson.

Public Participation- Within the context of developing broad-based conservation plans, it is critical that wildlife conservation programs take into account the knowledge, skills and interests of the public during its strategic planning. The final legislation should include language that would provide for public meetings or citizen advisory committees to help guide the programs that states develop with these federal funds. By incorporating public involvement at meaningful times throughout the planning and implementation process, state fish and wildlife agencies will be able to generate more public support and understanding of their management decisions and their conservation efforts.
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 the pending bills, 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 Outer Continental Shelf (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 nofunding -- 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 and there is now a huge backlog of projects that are awaiting funding.
Although LWCF has always received less funding than was authorized, it has contributed greatly to our nation's land-based resources. In every state, LWCF dollars have been used to create local parks, provide much-needed outdoor recreation facilities, and protect dwindling open space areas. Playgrounds, swimming pools, and scenic trails around the country are attributable to LWCF. CARA, Resources 2000, and Public Lands Investment go a long way towards fulfilling the original promise of the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Act.
Land and Water Conservation Fund- S. 25 (CARA), S. 446 (Resources 2000), and S. 532 (Public Lands Investment)
CARA provides 14.4% of annual OCS revenues (approximately $660 million) to be permanently and automatically directed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, split evenly between the federal and state sides of LWCF. Additionally, it provides 1.6% of OCS revenue (approximately $73 million) for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (UPARR). It funds UPARR and LWCF out of the same pot of money 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 $5 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.
Resources 2000 does not significantly amend LWCF. It provides permanent and automatic appropriations, at the fully authorized level, to both the state and federal components 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.
S. 532 (Public Lands Investment) is focused exclusively on funding LWCF and UPARR using OCS revenues. It provides $810 for LWCF ($360 million for states and $450 million for federal acquisitions) and $90 million for UPARR. As noted earlier, we believe that the focus on LWCF and UPARR unnecessarily narrows the scope of the bill. Like Resources 2000, however, it is free of the restrictions on federal usage of LWCF dollars that are in CARA.
Suggested Changes to the LWCF Title
We strongly recommend that the LWCF/UPARR provisions be designed to ensure that each of these programs reach their full level of authorized funding ($450 million each for state/federal LWCF and $100 million for UPARR). We support the Urban Parks program and the worthwhile urban recreation areas it creates; however; it should be kept separate and distinct from LWCF funding. Most importantly, we urge the Committee to eliminate the restrictions on federal LWCF spending that are now found in CARA. In its current form, CARA would effectively cripple what is now an underfunded, but functional federal LWCF program. One of the most damaging restrictions in CARA is the requirement that federal purchases over $5 million be authorized by subsequently enacted law. This means that the majority of LWCF projects will be forced to get approval through Congress and will again be subject to the political battles that currently hinder the application of LWCF. This restriction should either be lifted entirely or the cap set at a much higher level. If this last change is not made, the benefits of permanent and automatic LWCF funding may be lost. Instead, opportunities for land acquisition will be lost while waiting for Congressional approval.
In addition, we urge that the other restrictions to the federal LWCF program 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.
COASTAL CONSERVATION
It is hard to overstate the environmental degradation caused by 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 and fragile marine ecosystems, which rank among our most biologically rich and economically significant natural systems. In general, coastal states that have oil and gas drilling off their shores suffer from the most Chronic and direct impacts of this industry. The recent oil spill from a grounded tanker in Coos Bay, Oregon, however, clearly illustrates the hazards that oil and gas related activities pose to all of the nation's important marine and coastal resources. Fragile coastal ecosystems around the country face threats from development and other types of human disturbances. Our coasts are now home to over half of the nation's population, which places incredible pressures on these ecosystems. As our population continues to expand, it will become more difficult to maintain intact, functioning coastal ecosystems. If we do not protect these coastal resources, we will lose economically valuable fisheries, irreplaceable outdoor recreational opportunities, and unique assemblages of species. Our nation's marine resources face similar pressures. Increased pollution, climate change, overharvesting of fisheries, and other factors are threatening the survival of many marine species t including endangered marine mammals like the blue whale and Hawaiian monk seal, and commercially valuable fish species like red snapper and bluefin tuna. These are resources we cannot afford to lose. As a result, the use of coastal impact assistance dollars to support coastal and marine conservation work in areas with. and without, offshore drilling is both appropriate and necessary.
Coastal Conservation- S. 25 (CARA) and S. 446 (Resources 2000)
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 in states with offshore drilling, for 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.
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 central and western Gulf of Mexico (as of January 1, 1999).
Suggested Changes to the Coastal/Marine Title
The devastating impacts that offshore oil and gas drilling can have on our coastal and marine ecosystems are substantial. Thus, it is appropriate that at least some portion of the revenue derived from OCS drilling be used to mitigate its impacts. "Coastal impact assistance" funds, however, should not be used to subsidize environmentally harmful infrastructure projects. These funds should be directed to projects that ameliorate the environmental impacts of OCS oil and gas development. Rather than supporting 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 and marine 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.
Any coastal/marine title must be designed in a way that does not create financial and political incentives for coastal states to accept increased offshore oil and gas development. Under CAR& the allocation of OCS leasing revenues to' coastal states and their local governments is based on a formula that rewards increased production. To eliminate these incentives, the allocation of funds to coastal states should be based on their population and shoreline miles. 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.
ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION
The National Wildlife Federation considers nongame wildlife programs to be the area of greatest conservation need. If OCS revenues--- beyond the 10% we have recommended for nongame protection are made available for wildlife, they should be directed towards the protection of threatened and endangered species. A long history of inadequate funding for the federal Endangered Species Act has made it extremely difficult to recover threatened and endangered species. To address this need, the National Wildlife Federation has called for a dedicated funding source that could provide reliable dollars for endangered species habitat protection. The use of Outer Continental Shelf revenues for private landowner incentives programs-- programs that get landowners more engaged in endangered species protection efforts--- would be a particularly sensible and beneficial application of these dollars. Many threatened and endangered species depend heavily on private lands for their habitat, yet the Endangered Species Act has been relatively ineffective at improving conditions for species on these lands. Moreover, current implementation of the Act has left many private landowners antagonistic toward endangered species. Positive outreach efforts could help minimize their hostility toward the Act.
Endangered Species- S. 446 (Resources 2000)
If it can be done without jeopardizing funding for state wildlife programs, the Committee should include a title for endangered species funding. 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. These bills 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 proposals are merged in a way that brings out the best in all 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: May 6, 1999

Document 12 of 92.


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