The Association sincerely appreciates the efforts of Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Lott, Sen. Breaux and the other co-sponsors, in bringing this far-sighted 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, and funding levels in S.446 which I will share with you later in my testimony. Finally, we appreciate President Clinton's initiative (Land's Legacy Initiative) and his commitment to work with Congress to bring these programs under permanent, indefinite appropriation. We are disappointed and concemed, however, that the Administration's initiative is deficient in not providing wildlife funding to the States, and will address that later. As you know, the need in the states for wildlife programs reflected by the various proposals are significant, they enjoy widespread public support, and our children and their children will thank us for the commitment we make to ensure the conservation and vitality of America's natural resources. Without a program to address the vast array of species through a prevention approach, the result will simply be more and more species declining to the point of being threatened or endangered.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-govemmental 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, as you know, community health, environmental quality, and fish and wildlife health 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 State fish and wildlife agencies are dedicated to working with the appropriate state, county/local and appropriate federal government agencies to facilitate smart growth, the antidote to urban sprawl.
Let me cite one example. A little more than two hours from Washington, DC, our State fish and wildlife agency is working cooperatively with other public and private organizations to protect not only globally significant wetland and wildlife habitat, but also contributing to the quality of life for the citizens of the area, through facilitating enlightened land use planning decisions, providing technical information and assistance to landowners in conserving habitat, etc. The area to which I refer is the Delaware Bay and Cape May Peninsula, New Jersey.
The Delaware Bay and Cape May Peninsula are among the most important migratory bird stopover areas in the world. The reasons are numerous:
-- The fall flight of migratory birds through Cape May not only includes over 150 species of passerines and 21 species of raptors, but also woodcock and over 30 species of migratory butterflies and dragonflies.
-- The spring stopover of shorebirds through the Delaware Bay, one of the top three in the world, includes over 15 species, some making round trip flights of over 20,000 miles.
-- Both fall and spring migrants gain weight while stopping ova in this coastal habitat and this weight can be crucial to the success of their migration. Shorebirds double their body weight before flying non-stop to arctic breeding grounds. The primary resource is horseshoe crab eggs and the bay is the only place in the world where crabs occur in sufficient number to produce enough eggs for birds to gain more than 3-5% oftheir body weight/day.
-- The Cape May peninsula and the Delaware Bay is one of the most popular nature-based destinations in the country. An estimated S30 million in the fall and an estimated $5-$10 million in the spring are spent each year by visiting birders alone.
-- The wide diversity of bird species requires a wide array of habitats, distributed over a large part of the bayshore and peninsula. In other words, the birds require a functioning ecosystem right in the very heart of the New York-Washington coastal megalopolis.
A major portion of the US human population, nearly 15%, is within a three-hour drive of this area. This adds incredible pressure in almost all areas of potential impact: land development, disturbance, contamination, and catastrophic oil spills. But if we are to protect this stopover habitat, we must also conserve the ecosystem in which these habitats occur.
In consequence, the bay and peninsula have been the subject of numerous protection attempts. In the last 15 years we have seen nearly every major national program play some role in protection. The bay has been designated a RAMSAR site, a WEAN Hemispheric site, an EPA Estuary of National Significance, and a TNC Last Great Place, to name a few. It has been ranked near the top of several land acquisition programs including the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, a North American Waterfowl Management Plan Joint Venture, as well as the New Jersey state Green Acres Program. The areas include four National Wildlife Refuges including the recent Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, three different wild and scenic rivers (two sections of the river and one tributary), many state Wildlife Management Areas on both sides, and a large number of parcels held by private conservation organizations.
Yet despite this extraordm~ry protection, there are dear signs of major needs for these wildlife species that remain unsatisfied. The fall migration is threatened because nearly 40% of all migratory bird habitat has been lost between 1972 and 1992, the period of greatest protection activity.
These habitats can only be conserved with a significant increase in efforts and programs directed at the problems which results in habitat loss. The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife has piloted a number of projects using funds from private foundations and mitigation agreements that with stable and significant funding can lead to permanent ofthese globally significant habitats.
These pilot projects suggest the conservation of both the spring and fall flight of migratory birds can be accomplished with new programs aimed at an increased involvement of citizens, municipal and local governments, and an additional emphasis by state fish and wildlife and land management agencies.
Detailed mapping of significant wildlife habitat areas can be made widely available, and characterized not only as key habitat for wildlife, but as indicators of our community quality of life. These maps can be based on satellite imagery and could be redone regularly to provide feedback to community organizations on the real impact ofthe conservation ofthese habitats.
This regional scale mapping can be used to facilitate the coordination of state and federal level activities that include consideration of migratory birds such as land agreements, easements or acquisition, and application of conservation and habitat management programs. This is just one of hundreds of examples where open space, smart growth and the needs of wildlife can and must be seen as complementary activities.
At the county and municipal level, state fish and wildlife agencies can assist land use planners in the development of land use ordinances that reduce impact to migratory birds and recommend zoning classifications to protect areas of greatest importance. This could include, for example, recommending small but significant changes to the minimum amounts of land cleared for each new house or the width of setbacks for roads and property.
At the private landowner level, state fish and wildlife agencies can affect habitat in several ways. For large private landholdings, the agencies can develop non-regulatory, incentive based management plans that protect bird habitat while still achieving landowners' goals. To encourage protection, the plans would take advantage of existing financial incentives from other agencies such as farmland conservation programs under the federal farm bill and other state and federal programs. Landowners of key wildlife habitat can also be referred to programs of conservation easements, or purchase of development rights or land acquisition if they are interested in long-teml conservation. These owner- friendly programs have worked quite well to keep open space and provide important wildlife habitat.
Backyard habitat for migratory birds can also be created or enhanced by working with individual homeowners. Our agencies can work with developments that are adjacent to important habitat areas and several have created state programs to certify backyard wildlife habitat. State fish and wildlife agencies can also work with developers to certify entire new developments as migratory bird sanctuaries. Working with homeowners has the additional benefitt of creating habitat in areas where much habitat has already been lost, namely housing developments.
All of these efforts require a consistent dedicated funding source to enhance Sta~based wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife associated recreation. The Association believes that S.25, and its House companion HR701, will provide the funds and the flexibility to the States to accomplish these goals. As you know, the need for a State like New Jersey, which I just described, is much different than a western state that has millions of acres of public land where the challenge may be to better understand the thermal cover needs of wildlife during cold winters and encourage planting of shrubs and evergreen trees for winter shelter in key areas.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are well aware of the longstanding commitment and priority of the Association to secure 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. As Secretary Babbitt once remarked before this Committee, 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 Dingell-Johnsonl 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. There have been corollary benefits to species other than those that are hunted and fished, from the conservation of habitat, etc. However, 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 shnke, American goldfinch, bog turtle, and species of frogs and salamanders that are declining. Responding to early warning signs of decline in these 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 the funds for game and sportfish species conservation. The more we know about declining species the quicker we can respond with a broad array of incentivebased, 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 good biological sense and good 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 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 hip san 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 oftheseneeds at the state level.
Before I comment on S.25, S.446 and the Administration's initiative specifically, let me summarize again 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 nongame wildlife species. State agencies have barely enough funding from established game species funding sources to support vital conservation programs. While wildlife budgets for all 50 states add up to approximately S1 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 manna.
-- Dwindling fish and wildlife species and habitat directly affect some of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation. Wildlife viewing is the numba 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. Nature-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:
-- 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 Reinvestmant Act will enable all 50 states to support increased recreation and education participation. Local communities will benefit from increased tourism. Nature 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 nature-based tourism and outdoor recreation requires an investment in our nation's wildlife and land and wata base. Particularly, opportunities dose 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 open space and quality of life goals for millions of Americans while contributing to conservation, conservation education and wildlife related recreation programs.
-- S. 25 re-commits the United States to a policy of dedicating revanues 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 are working 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. The sponsor's goal is to ensure that no incentive is 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 ganeral revenue source, the leases and royalties on Outa Continual Shelf gas and oil extraction. We support the use of the very successful Pittman-Robatson Act as the means of apportioning the funds to the States under a separate subaccou~, 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 sham.
-- 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 Wata Conservation Fund program so that conservation and recreation projects of highest state and local priority are satisfied.
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 Sate 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 Assuring that this bill is in no way a potential incentive to encourage further OCS drilling, and evan though further (after January 1, 1999) OCS exploration and drilling will continue both within and outside ofthese 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 portal for grants to the states) is the driving deeming of new exploration and drilling, which is corroborated in the recent Congressional Research Service report on OCS Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue gB10005, 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 Pittrnan- Robertson, and makes S100M - 350M available to the States for native fish and wildlife conservation stardag with S100M and ramping up ova six years to S350M. 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 mainlining 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 Forum peregrine falcon was from a captive-bred source of hybrid North American-European-African peregrine falcons, which unda this definition in S.446, would not be eligible for funding conservation activities therefor. It is not at ad 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 concerts 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~round 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. Funding commensurate with the States' significant needs should be available from the start-up, as we have ou~dined earlier in this statement.
Our final concan 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.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, let me briefly comment on the Adminis~on's Land Legacy Initiative. At this point we have little information on the specifics of the components of that proposal. We have seen only a summary of programs and dollars at this point. There are good proposals in this initiative which can contribute to conserving open space, and enhancing community health through improving environmental quality. Yw have heard about those from others who have testified today. The Administration's initiative does not address the large and growing fish and wildlife conservation needs of our states and communities today. As you know, habitat acquisition is only a part of the solution. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, 2/3 of our land in the U.S. is in private ownership, and it is neither appropriate nor are we simply able to afford to purchase the habitat necessary to consave our fish and wildlife resources for future generations. Experience has shown we must understand the needs of particular species of wildlife in order to work with private landowners as well as public agencies to meet those needs. A key part of the puzzle missing from the Administration's proposal is Title m of S. 25, providing permanent and dedicated funding for state-based enhanced wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation programs. Without that, the Administration's proposal is a glass half-full and will not be successful in restoring America's wildlife.
We are also concerned that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act lacks the statutory authority for spending on the programs contemplated unda the Lands Legacy Initiative. We would suggest that there are more appropriate statutes and funding sources for many of the Administration's proposals.
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