LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

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

Document 14 of 92.

View Related Topics

MAY 4, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 4356 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY BY
DAVID WALLER
DIRECTOR, GEORGIA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - S.25, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT;
AND S.446, THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT

BODY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Waller, Director of the Georgia Wildlife Resources Division and Vice-President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As you know, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members of the Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express the strong support of the Association for S.25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
The Association sincerely appreciates your efforts and those of Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Lott, Sen. Breaux, Sen. Johnson and the other co- sponsors, in bringing this farsighted conservation proposal to the table, which will provide consistent and dedicated funds to the states to conserve our fish and wildlife resources, provide for the protection and restoration of our coastal habitats and living resources, fund land and water conservation activities at all levels of government, and provide much needed recreational opportunities for our citizens, thus resulting in economic growth to our communities.
The Association is also encouraged that Sen. Boxer and others have recognized many of these same needs in introducing S.446, the Resources 2000 Act. We do have concerns about the focus, legislative construct, spending direction and funding levels in S.446 which I will share with you later in my testimony.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are well aware of the longstanding commitment and priority of the Association to securing the necessary funds so that the State fish and wildlife agencies can address the needs of all fish and wildlife species in their states, including conservation education and wildlife associated recreation needs. As you know, the states have principal and broad authorities for the conservation of fish and resident wildlife within their borders, even on most public lands. Congress has given the federal executive branch agencies (USFWS and NMFS) certain statutory conservation obligations and responsibilities for migratory birds, anadromous fish and listed threatened and endangered species, but this responsibility remains concurrent with State jurisdiction. However, states are the front-line managers of fish and wildlife within their borders.
You are also well aware of the long history and strong commitment of support for funding state fish and wildlife programs by the sportsmen and women of this country through their purchase of hunting and fishing licenses, and contributions from excise taxes they pay on sporting arms and ammunition, fishing tackle and other equipment, import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and gasoline excise taxes on outboard motor and small engine fuels. These funds are apportioned to the States under permanent appropriation in the form of matching grants under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and the DingelI-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act of 1950 and 1984, respectively. These license and excise tax funds are the principal source of funds for State fish and wildlife programs. Our successes under this legislation are well known from restoration of white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope to wild turkey and wood duck and striped bass. While there have been corollary benefits to species other than those that are hunted and fished, from the conservation of habitat, etc, there simply have not been either sufficient or dedicated funds for the State fish and wildlife agencies to adequately address the conservation needs of so-called "nongame" species, which constitute approximately 90% (over 2000 species) of the vertebrate species in the United States. S.25 will position the State fish and wildlife agencies to duplicate the tried and true success of the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux programs with species such as the cerulean warbler, bluebirds, loggerhead shrike, American goldfinch, bog turtle, and species of frogs and salamanders that are declining.
Responding to early warning signs of decline in these nongame species by addressing life needs and habitat requirements through cooperative non-regulatory programs with private landowners will not only conserve the species but also help avoid the social and economic disruption associated with listing species as threatened or endangered. Most threatened and endangered species come from this universe of so-called nongame species, which makes sense if you think about it, because we have not had adequate funds to address these nongame species needs, whereas we have had funds for game and sportfish species conservation. The more we know about declining species the quicker we can respond with a broad array of incentive-based, non-regulatory programs that gives us maximum flexibility in working with the landowners to allow them to meet both their land management objectives and fish and wildlife conservation objectives. This preventative conservation approach just makes both good biological and economic sense.
Seven years ago when the Association made a commitment to secure funding for comprehensive wildlife programs in the states, we began to enlist a support coalition that has now grown to over 3000 conservation, business and other organizations. Our "Teaming With Wildlife' initiative, as we called this endeavor, built up tremendous grassroots support around a funding mechanism patterned after Pittman- Robertson and Wallop-Breaux that would extend the existing excise taxes on sporting arms, ammunition and fishing equipment to other outdoor recreational gear at a very modest level. However, this user- fee approach did not gain the bipartisan political support in Congress needed for success. There was broad bipartisan recognition of the need for these funds and the merits of the proposed state based wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation programs, but not for the funding mechanism. S.25 has married these needs with those of coastal habitat and living resource conservation, and a recommitment of Congress to funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, all from a portion of revenues from gas and oil leases and royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf. We particularly appreciate that S.25 addresses funding to all of these needs at the state level.
Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize to you that the original "Teaming With Wildlife" initiative, and its new manifestation in Title III of S.25, is grounded in working cooperatively with private landowners, communities, and citizens to provide them with the information and assistance they need to improve their quality of life while meeting their land management objectives and satisfying the conservation of fish and wildlife. We have found that most landowners are interested in and willing to do good things for wildlife if they have the appropriate information and a little bit of technical assistance.
You may be surprised, but when private forest landowners are asked why they want a forest management plan for their property, the most frequent response is to enhance the wildlife on their property!
Title III of S.25 is not predicated on a lot of land acquisition for wildlife - as you know, it is neither appropriate nor can we afford to purchase the land that is necessary to conserve the fish and wildlife resources of this Nation. We can and must continue non-regulatory, incentive-based cooperative efforts with our private landowners and communities to provide them with accurate information on fish and wildlife needs and technical assistance and initiatives to facilitate landowners and communities working with our agencies to meet those needs. Further, through working with our schools and in other educational venues, we can help grow a strong stewardship ethic in the children of the next generation to ensure the conservation of these fish and wildlife resources. Finally, by providing to communities and landowners the information and assistance they need, we will help them enhance their capabilities to provide wildlife-based tourism opportunities, thus boosting the local economy by taking advantage of robust fish and wildlife populations.
Before I comment specifically on S.25 and S.446, let me summarize for you the needs in the States for wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife associated recreation.
- More than 90% of the funds that states have for wildlife comes directly from anglers and hunter which means that less than 10% of state fish and wildlife agency funding is for the conservation of 86% of our nation's wildlife species. State agencies have barely enough funding from established. game species funding sources to support vital sportfish and game conservation programs. While wildlife budgets for all 50 states add up to approximately $1 billion annually, nongame funded programs, lacking a similar dedicated funding source, have many unsatisfied needs. Thirty-two states operate nongame conservation, recreation, and education programs on less than 5% of their fish and wildlife budgets. S.25 will provide the states with the funds to achieve preventative conservation through collecting good information (from fish and wildlife surveys and inventories), implementing appropriate management and habitat conservation endeavors, and retaining the State fish and wildlife agencies ability to work with greater flexibility with private landowners in a non-regulatory, incentive based manner. - Dwindling fish and wildlife species and habitat directly affect some of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation. Wildlife viewing is the number one outdoor activity in the United States and has become a billion-dollar industry. Hiking participation has rise 93% and camping 73% in the past 12 years. Wildlife-based tourism is escalating at a higher rate than any other segment of tourism worldwide.
Impressive participation statistics translate into billions of dollars of economic activity each year:
- Wildlife watchers spent $29 billion in state and local economies during 1996, a 39% increase over 1991 spending, according to the latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey.
- Watchable wildlife recreation supports $22.7 billion in salary and wages and more than one million jobs.
- A documented upswelling of interest in conservation education programs is both good news and represents a challenge as state fish and wildlife agencies are hard-pressed to keep up with the public demand for technical assistance for private landowners, developers and local governments, informational materials on wildlife, landscaping for wildlife, and requests on where to view wildlife. Innovative wildlife education programs enjoy positive responses, but often lack sufficient funding. Funds under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will enable all 50 states to support increased wildlife related recreation and conservation education participation. Local communities will benefit from increased tourism. Tourists will extend their stay an extra day or two if they discover more wildlife watching opportunities during their visit. Finally, a caring citizenry is essential to the success of all wildlife conservation efforts and maintaining the natural systems that support us.
The Association estimates $1 billion or more in additional funding needs annually for all 50 states for these programs. However, even a half billion dollars will have a significant positive benefit for 2,000 nongame species, as well as benefit many other species as well. Game and nongame species share the same habitat and both usually benefit from conservation efforts such as restoring wetlands, stream rehabilitation or habitat restoration.
Funding state conservation, recreation and education efforts together makes economic and social sense. To sustain the growth in wildlife- based tourism and outdoor recreation requires an investment in our nation's wildlife and land and water base. Particularly, opportunities close to urban and rural communities for fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation programs are becoming increasingly important for families and communities. Enhanced conservation education efforts will facilitate better-informed citizens and assure a high quality of life for people and wildlife.
S.25 will provide the appropriate funds to the States to satisfy these very vital needs. Mr. Chairman, here are the reasons the Association strongly supports S.25 and believes it will help meet quality of life goals for millions of Americans while contributing to enhanced fish and wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife related recreation programs.
- S.25 re-commits the United States to a policy of dedicating revenues from the use of non-renewable resources into securing the status of living renewable resources, conserving land and water resources, and providing recreational opportunities for our cities and local communities, through a permanent, indefinite appropriation to fund state-based programs. We will continue to work closely with bill sponsors to fine-tune the language in S.25 which addresses the question of whether any of these revenues could be a potential incentive to states to encourage more drilling. We appreciate that the sponsors' goal is to ensure that there is no incentive in the bill and that with regards to drilling in OCS waters, the bill is "drilling neutral."
- S.25 builds on the support the states have relied on for decades from our Nation's hunters and anglers to finance state fish and wildlife programs by broadening this funding support to a permanent, indefinite appropriation from a general revenue source, the leases and royalties on Outer Continental Shelf gas and oil extraction. We support the use of the very successful Pittman-Robertson Act as the means of apportioning the funds to the States under a separate subaccount, to be used for the purposes of enhanced comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated recreation programs. This is a proven, efficient system.
- S.25 will permit the States to avoid the economic and social disruption from listing species as endangered by taking preventative conservation measures early on to address life needs and habitat requirements of declining fish and wildlife species before they reach a level where listing is necessary to protect them.
- S.25 focuses decisions on spending priorities at the local (not Washington) level, where states and communities are in the best position to know what those needs and priorities are. We must facilitate local identification of issues and problem solving, not top-down prescriptive solutions.
- S.25 allows States to work with private landowners in a non- regulatory, incentive-based manner to achieve their land management objectives consistent with good conservation for fish and wildlife species.
- S.25 allows and positions local communities to take best advantage of robust fish and wildlife populations through nature-based tourism opportunities (bird watching tours, hiking tours to natural vistas, etc.) thus providing local economic support to those communities.
- S.25 builds on our citizens' strong sense of stewardship about their land by making them a part of the problem solving and implementation of solutions.
- Through ensuring the conservation of good habitat for fish and wildlife, the programs funded by S.25 will ensure the quality of life for our citizens and future generations, since we all rely on the same life support systems.

- S.25, in addition to wildlife programs, will provide funds for coastal restoration and enhancement programs, wetlands restoration, coastal zone management efforts, and environmental remediation from the impacts of on-shore landing of OCS gas and oil, through the proper location, placement and mitigation of pipelines, roads, and other infrastructures needs.
- S.25 restores certainty to the stateside aspect of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program so that conservation and recreation projects of highest state and local priority are satisfied.
Mr. Chairman, the Association respectfully requests that you make two changes in Title III of S.25. First, we sincerely urge you to increase from 7% to 10% the dedication of OCS funds to Title III programs. Critical needs exist in the States for enhanced fish and wildlife conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated recreation. I am submitting for the record a report done by the Association which substantiates those needs, and most importantly, demonstrates, using case studies, what the States are prepared to accomplish with the availability of funds under CARA. I would again highlight for you, Mr. Chairman, that the State fish and wildlife agencies proposed programs are rooted in cooperative partnerships with private landowners, communities, counties and businesses to facilitate their engagement and participation in meeting fish and wildlife conservation objectives. Our agencies' experiences have been that as long as landowners and communities are involved early enough in the process, and afforded appropriate respect and professional courtesy, many land management and fish and wildlife conservation objectives can be mutually satisfied. As you know, community health, quality of life, and fish and wildlife health all go hand-in-hand, since we all share the same habitat and depend on the same land, air and water for our sustenance. We believe the dedication to ensuring the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats at the state and local level will help ensure the quality of life for our communities. Open space not only provides for fish and wildlife habitat, but for people to enjoy, appreciate and learn about fish and wildlife and their needs.
Our second request for a language change involves the minimum apportionment level a state could receive. In order to appropriately fund programs where the needs are the greatest, we respectfully request that the minimum funding level for a state be raised from 1/2 of 1% to 1%. This will greatly benefit Hawaii and several of our smaller mid-Atlantic and northeastern states where pressures on wildlife and habitat are great and demands for recreation and education programs are high. The apportionment to the other States will be reduced only very minimally, but the benefit will be great to the fish and wildlife resources and citizens in the smaller states. We urge your favorable consideration of that change also.
Let me now comment on S.446, the Resources 2000 Act. The Association is encouraged that S.446 has a title that contains provisions for funding to the states for State-based enhanced wildlife conservation. We are also encouraged that S.446 seeks to use certain OCS revenues under a permanent, indefinite appropriation.
However, we do have several serious concerns about some specific provisions of S.446. First, the OCS source funds in S.446 are limited to only royalties and revenues from wells in Western and central Gulf of Mexico OCS waters that are producing as of January 1, 1999. We understand that this is the bill sponsors' way of ensuring that this bill is in no way a potential incentive to encourage further OCS drilling, and even though further (after January 1, 1999) OCS exploration and drilling will continue both within and outside of these areas, none of the revenues will go to fund the programs under this bill, rather, they will be deposited in the federal treasury. The consequence of the S.446 language would be very self-limiting and guarantee substantial reductions over time in the amount of money available to fund conservation efforts. We believe that the price and supply of oil and natural gas (and not the potential for grants to the states) is the driving determinant of new exploration and drilling, which is corroborated in the recent Congressional Research Service report on OCS Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue (IB10005, January 1999).
Our second concern is that the native fish and wildlife conservation and restoration title in S.446 amends the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation (federal nongame) Act,instead of Pittman-Robertson. The amendments to the 1980 Act replace the existing "nongame fish and wildlife' language everywhere with "native fish and wildlife", and add an additional purpose to preserve biological diversity by maintaining an assemblage of native fish and wildlife species. The definition of native fish and wildlife could be a significant problem because it includes only species that currently or historically occur in an ecosystem, and are not there as a result of introduction. It also gives the Secretary of the Interior final decision authority as to what is a native species. It is virtually impossible to substantiate the origin of many of our indigenous fish species and this definition could exclude spending money which would be beneficial to salmon restoration, for example. Further, many fish species firmly established in our Potomac River drainage, such as the smallmouth and largemouth bass, channel catfish, rock bass, and several species of sunfish, were introduced many years ago from other parts of the country. No one really knows the origins of other species. Also, the restoration of the Eastern peregrine falcon was from a captive-bred source of hybrid North American-European-African peregrine falcons, which under this definition in S.446, would not be eligible for funding conservation activities therefore. It is not at all clear whether a project which would benefit native species plus other species of uncertain origin would be eligible for funding. We doubt that "native' is a workable legal definition because there are hundreds of species whose status as native is uncertain and it is virtually impossible in many cases to carry out a project which would not benefit some non-native species.
Our third concern with this title of S.446 is that, while the elaborate and rather prescriptive planning requirements in the 1980 Act may have been appropriate in 1980, most states have already recognized the need to look comprehensively at the resource base, habitat availability, land use activities, and user demand in their state, and have prepared a strategic plan for the fish and wildlife resources in their state, after due and appropriate public review and participation. We believe that the states do not need to be legislatively directed to do more planning, but are ready and prepared now to spend money on the ground to address conservation needs. Some have responded to these concerns of ours by suggesting that if the states already have a plan, it should facilitate quick approval. Our concern is that with a fairly elaborate planning process requirement, if any entity disagrees with the Secretary's approval of the state plan, there are enough legal hooks to hang litigation on, which could cause significant delays in getting funds to the State for immediate on-the-ground conservation activities.
Our fourth concern with this title of S.446 is the availability of funds, which start at $100 million and are ramped up to $350M over six years. We know that our needs are much greater than even $350M, and conclude that $100M is simply not adequate to address those needs. The limitation on revenue from wells producing on January 1, 1999 will reduce funding by about 30% by 2004 which means that all Titles would be reduced and less than $200 million would be available for wildlife. Funding commensurate with the States' significant needs should be available from the startup, as we have outlined earlier in this statement.
Our final concern with this title in S.446 is that the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act does not authorize funding for either conservation education or wildlife associated recreation. We have earlier stressed the needs in these two arenas also, and are disappointed that no funds are made available for those purposes in S.446.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on the Administration's Land Legacy Initiative. We appreciate President Clinton's commitment to work with Congress to bring these programs under permanent, indefinite appropriation. At this point, we have seen very little information on the specifics of the proposal, other than a summary of programs and dollars. The Administration's proposal appears to be grounded largely in land acquisition. However, the Administration's initiative does not address the large and growing fish and wildlife conservation needs of our states and communities today. A key part of the puzzle missing from the Administration's proposal is Title III of S.25, providing permanent and dedicated funding for state-based enhanced wildlife conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated recreation programs to work cooperatively with private landowners, communities and citizens through non-regulatory, incentive based programs to enhance stewardship of their land, improve the quality of life for our citizens, meet fish and wildlife conservation needs, and provide an economic boost to our rural communities. Without those provisions, the Administration's proposal is a glass half full and will not be successful in restoring America's wildlife.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by reiterating our strong support for S.25, This could be the most comprehensive piece of conservation legislation in our lifetime. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
END

LOAD-DATE: May 6, 1999

Document 14 of 92.


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