Giving Back to
Nature: Visit NWF's conservation funding homepage.
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 garner 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 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 (nearly $100 million less than
CARA). Like 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), 42% 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 covered by 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.
H.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.
- 30 -
CONTACT:
Sara Barth,
(202) 797-6668
Jodi Applegate,
(202) 797-6840