First, we are extremely grateful to authors and cosponsors of all the proposals that have been introduced in the Senate and appreciate their leadership and commitment in seeking to ensure funding for these critical conservation needs. We also thank the Committee for holding this hearing and hope the Committee will use its influence in assuring that any final conservation funding legislation is environmentally sound and truly provides dedicated funding for all covered programs.
Our highest legislative priority this Congress is the passage of sound legislation that will provide dedicated funding to aid in the conservation of our nation's imperiled biodiversity. To provide the ongoing means for achieving the landscape level conservation needed in this new century and to maintain and restore our once vibrant biological heritage, such legislation must include funding for a broad array of conservation tools including: land acquisition at the local, state, regional and federal levels; permanent conservation easements for private landowners to conserve habitat on working lands; incentives for private landowners to recover threatened and endangered species; programs to protect and restore fragile coastal and marine resources; and funding to states for state wildlife and habitat conservation guided by a comprehensive habitat planning process. We also believe it to be absolutely imperative that any final legislative package "first, must do no harm." We have won nothing if we take a step forward by providing funding for critical conservation programs and then two steps back by doing it in such a way that results in irreparable damage to our coastal and marine areas.
Background
A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History confirmed that a majority of scientific experts believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things. These scientists agree that:
the loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in this century; during the next 30 years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today could become extinct; this so-called "sixth extinction" is the fastest in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, but unlike prior mass extinctions, is primarily the result of human activity and not natural causes; biodiversity loss is a greater threat than the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution and contamination.
In the U.S. alone, there are over 1200 species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Unfortunately, this list merely represents the tip of the iceberg. The Nature Conservancy currently lists more than 6,900 U.S. species as either critically imperiled, imperiled or vulnerable representing 1 in 3 of our native vertebrate, flowering plant and selected invertebrate species.
Equally troubling as the demise of wild species is the loss and degradation of entire ecosystems. A 1995 U.S. Department of the Interior report identified 82 ecosystem types in the U.S. that have lost more than 70% of their extent since European settlement. Of these, 27 have declined by more than 98%. These include natural communities from across the country, including eastern deciduous old-growth forest, oak savanna in the Midwest, pine rocklands in South Florida, canebrakes in the Southeast, native grasslands in California, and Palouse prairie in the Pacific Northwest.
The loss of wild species and ecosystems or collectively, biodiversity is clearly one of our most important environmental problems. Fortunately, this Congress has before it an historic opportunity to enact landmark legislation that will greatly increase the number of tools available to conserve our dwindling biodiversity.
I. S. 2181, the "Conservation and Stewardship Act, is More Equitable and Will Achieve Greater Conservation Benefits than S. 2123 or S. 25.
S. 2181, the Conservation and Stewardship Act, distributes federal funding more equitably than either version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act by reducing the amount provided for coastal impact assistance and distributing it among other important conservation programs. S. 2181 removes problematic incentives for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activity off Alaska and more effectively restricts OCS impact grants to environmentally beneficial uses. Compared with S. 2123, S. 2181 provides more money for conservation easements and adds funding to protect lands of regional and national interest and urban forests. It also increases funding to protect important cultural and historic resources through the Historic Preservation Fund and adds funding for the Youth Conservation Corps and Forest Service programs to assist rural resource dependent communities. We recommend, however, expanding S. 2181's National Park System Resource Protection Fund in Title VI to cover Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and Indian lands, similar to Title VI in S. 2123. We also think it important to note that even though funding provided to oil producing states in S. 2123 is excessive, the distribution of funding in the bill as a whole is more equitable than in S. 25 which does not fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and does not provide dedicated funding for conservation easements, endangered species recovery landowner incentives, coastal and marine conservation, federal lands restoration or historic preservation.
S. 2181 also addresses major problems associated with both S. 25 and S. 2123 which will be discussed below. We therefore, strongly support and endorse the Conservation and Stewardship Act while acknowledging that a few changes are needed to perfect the bill. We will provide testimony regarding three of the areas under jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee: potentially damaging effects of coastal impact assistance upon habitat, state wildlife habitat conservation, and incentives for recovery of listed species. Because we think an intact and permanently funded Land and Water Conservation Fund is the very core of an effective conservation funding bill, we are including remarks on that as well.
II. S. 2181 would Require Development and Implementation of Comprehensive State Wildlife Habitat Conservation Strategies.
S. 2181, S. 2123, and S. 25 all propose to provide a portion of OCS revenues to fund state wildlife conservation programs a goal that we strongly support. These bills would all accomplish this goal by augmenting state fish and game agency funding through the existing Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (a.k.a. Pittman-Robertson). We strongly support the approach taken in S. 2181 because, of the three referenced bills, it is the only one that requires each state to develop a wildlife habitat conservation strategy that prioritizes the expenditure of federal funds to comprehensively protect biodiversity. H.R. 4377, the House-passed version of CARA, is deficient because it does not contain a wildlife habitat conservation strategy provision.
In 1980, Congressman Forsyth and Senator Chafee co-sponsored landmark legislation designed to provide much-needed financial assistance to state fish and game agencies to begin to better address, in a comprehensive and proactive way, the conservation needs of the array of species that make up our wildlife heritage. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) recognized the many significant values of wildlife species, the majority of which are neither hunted, trapped or otherwise caught. It also recognized that the traditional sources of funding for wildlife management, such as those available through Pittman-Robertson, were so closely tied to game species, that "nongame species" were not receiving adequate conservation attention, and as one result, many were becoming listed as threatened and endangered. This far-sighted legislation sought to do two things. First was to establish a reliable source of funding for nongame management to complement the very successful game management programs of the state fish and wildlife agencies. The second was to ask the state fish and game agencies to develop and implement conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. Although enacted into law, the FWCA was never funded by Congress.
Title III of S. 2181 embodies the spirit and goals of the FWCA it emphasizes the particular needs of species that are not hunted or fished and requires comprehensive state wildlife habitat conservation strategies but with refinements that recognize the fundamental value of biodiversity the full array of species and the natural communities and ecosystems they form across the landscape. It also recognizes that the leading threat to the maintenance of our biodiversity is the continued loss and degradation of habitat, and that without proper habitat protections, game and nongame species alike can become threatened or endangered species in short order.
I was extremely pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see in your letter to me of May 4, 2000, your agreement that Title III language in S. 2181 is superior to that in S. 2123. You stated, "I agree with you, however, that there are elements in Senator Bingaman's competing bill, S. 2181, that would improve on the language of CARA. For example, I will request that language outlining a process to dedicate funds for low population and declining species, be included in CARA as well. This language, expected to benefit primarily non game species, is similar to language contained in Title III of S. 2181." Mr. Chairman, your support will help ensure that this critical language is included in any final bill.
A Strategic Approach to State Wildlife Habitat Conservation
S. 2181's emphasis on sound, comprehensive planning is particularly important. Even with the significant funding levels proposed in all three bills, it will be necessary for the states to strategically prioritize and target how the money is spent most effectively and efficiently to conserve biodiversity. It is certainly not unreasonable or overly burdensome for Congress to require each state to develop write lay out on paper its vision and comprehensive wildlife habitat conservation strategy for spending its share of $350 million annually in federal funds. S. 2181 recognizes the need for a comprehensive, state-wide assessment of our wildlife species, their habitat needs, the threats to these species and their habitats, and the management actions necessary to address those threats. It will ensure that each state undertake an intensive look at what is necessary to conserve all species. Equally important, it recognizes the need for meaningful public participation in the development, implementation and revision of state wildlife habitat conservation strategies. Twenty years after passage of the FWCA, with an ever-growing list of threatened and endangered species now more than 1200 native species, eight-five percent of which are at risk due to habitat loss the need for comprehensive state-based planning efforts has never been greater.
What are the key elements of state-based habitat conservation strategies?
1. They are broad-based, both biologically and institutionally. They cover all animal and plant species, but they can do so through a coarse filter (community-based) fine filter (rare, threatened, or endangered species occurrences) approach. They also should be done in coordination with other relevant state and federal land and resource management agencies.
2. They identify the key habitat areas that must be maintained in current land uses to provide adequate habitat for all natural community types (the coarse filter) and all focal species (e.g. threatened, endangered, or otherwise of management concern, whether game or nongame).
3. They identify the key threats to focal species and essential habitats, and identify and prioritize management options and research needs for addressing those threats.
4. They use the best available data and information, such as state Gap Analysis and Natural Heritage databases and, if necessary, identify additional survey needs where data gaps exist.
5. They establish a practical and informative program of monitoring and assessment of essential habitat and focal species status that can assist the agency in taking an adaptive management approach to conservation. Such programs should be geared to evolving the state's habitat conservation system plan on a periodic basis to address changing conditions.
6. As any good government planning exercise must, they provide for meaningful public participation in the development, implementation and periodic revision of the strategy.
7. They provide opportunities to educate and inform the public on the importance of conserving wild species and their habitats.
Entities in two states Florida and Oregon have attempted such comprehensive, state-wide habitat conservation strategies. In Florida, the effort was led by the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, demonstrating what the state agencies could do with adequate funding of the FWCA. In Oregon, I am proud to say that the effort was led by Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy, but with active participation and support from relevant state and federal agencies, and the private sector. I have brought copies of each strategy and I offer them for the record and your consideration. Each effort has its own unique features but each serves as a prototype for the type of comprehensive, state-wide conservation planning that will be necessary to maintain our nation's biodiversity. This is the kind of far-sighted, proactive, problem-solving approach to conservation that was envisioned in the FWCA and that, with passage of a planning provision such as in S. 2181, can become a reality in all states.
We believe such planning exercises are absolutely essential to the effective and efficient conservation of our wildlife heritage, be it game, nongame, or endangered species. Properly done, such strategies could be the blueprints for biodiversity conservation success, and could provide a common framework for effective coordination for existing or new conservation programs at the federal, state, and local levels.
The habitat conservation strategy provision in S. 2181 incorporates the above elements and is strongly supported by a broad spectrum of wildlife conservation groups. Last year a number of these groups including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Wildlife Management Institute, National Wildlife Federation, National Wild Turkey Federation and Defenders of Wildlife, among others, sent a letter to Congressman Don Young requesting that the very same planning language in S. 2181 be included in the House version of CARA. A copy of that letter is attached to my testimony.
Defenders has recently conducted a survey of state fish and game agencies, natural heritage programs, and state planning offices. More than a dozen states indicated strong interest in developing comprehensive habitat conservation plans. Many states indicated the lack of available funding as a major impediment to completing such plans.
Finally, we note that H.R. 4377, the House-passed bill, limits to 10% the amount of Title III funds that a state could spend on wildlife-related recreational projects. We think that this is a reasonable and appropriate restriction, given the existing biodiversity crisis and tremendous need among state wildlife agencies for substantially increased wildlife and habitat conservation funding. We urge that a similar provision be included in any final Senate legislation.
III. S. 2181 and S. 2123 would Provide Critically-needed Funding for the Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species.
Defenders strongly supports Title IV of S. 2181, the Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Fund, which would provide much needed and dedicated funding to assist in the recovery of those species of wildlife most in need endangered and threatened species. We also support a similar provision in S. 2123. Through non-regulatory incentives other than fee simple acquisition, this money would be available to those private landowners interested in assisting with the recovery of federally listed species. S. 25, however, includes no such provision.
The ESA is the most important piece of legislation ever enacted into law to conserve endangered species and their habitats. Since 1973, the ESA has prevented the extinction of hundreds of species and has helped focus attention on the need to conserve our nation's imperiled biodiversity. We can and must, however, do better. Due in part to improper implementation and inadequate funding, few species listed under the ESA have recovered. If we are to fulfill the goal of the ESA the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend we cannot be satisfied with merely holding species at the brink of extinction. There must be a concerted effort to implement programs and actions that promote the recovery of listed species and their habitats.
Habitat loss is recognized as the primary factor leading to the endangerment of species in the U.S. Much of that habitat is found on non-federal lands. Over 40% of all federally listed species occur exclusively on non-federal lands, and over sixty percent of all listed species' populations are on non-federal lands. Clearly, if we are to recover our nation's endangered and threatened species, we must conserve and restore their habitats on non-federal lands.
S. 2181 and S. 2123 would help accomplish this goal by providing much needed funding for the purpose of enlisting the voluntary participation of private landowners in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Under this provision, $50 million a year of dedicated funds would be available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for the purpose of assisting private landowners in the development and implementation of endangered and threatened species recovery agreements. This provision contains two important standards to guide the types of agreements to be funded, but without being so prescriptive as to restrict innovation. First, the agreement must clearly contribute to the recovery of an endangered or threatened species. Second, financial assistance under this program would be restricted to voluntary activities that are not otherwise required under law; mitigation performed under an ESA incidental take permit or statement would not be eligible.
IV. S. 2181 takes a Significant Step Forward in Preventing Harm from Coastal Impact Assistance and Requiring Environmentally Beneficial Uses of Funds.
It is our view that the overarching goal for the coastal/ocean title of these bills must be protection and restoration of our nation's valuable and fragile coastal and marine resources. To achieve this, there must be no incentives to states or local governments to accept new offshore oil and gas activities, and the money allocated to states and local governments must be spent in ways that help, not harm, the environment. Of the bills addressed in our testimony today, S. 2181 comes closest to achieving these critical goals. Recognizing the need for a small number of changes, we strongly support and endorse it.
A. Incentives for OCS activity
A major issue surrounding the debate over CARA and related bills has been incentives to states and local governments to accept new offshore oil activities. Offshore oil development brings with it water pollution, air pollution, the potential for oil spills, as well as onshore roads, pipelines, refineries and other infrastructure that pose a major threat to coastal and marine areas. The problem of incentives has arisen in the context of the allocation formula of these bills, and in the source of OCS revenues used to fund all programs in CARA.
1. The allocation formula
S. 2123 allocates fifty percent of the $1 billion provided under Title 1 to the seven OCS states based on proximity to OCS leasing; this allocation is revisited every five years. The allocation scheme excludes leased tracts within the moratorium areas on which there was no production as of 1/1/99 from the calculation of which states get money and how much they get, a helpful step forward. However, since Alaska (outside of Bristol Bay) is not subject to the moratorium, the state will have an incentive to accept new leasing, given that the more leasing it has, the greater its share of the $500 million pie.
Compounding this problem, S. 2123 requires OCS states to directly pass through to local governments 50% of the state's total allocable share based in part (50%) on the locality's proximity to leasing. In the past, many local communities in Alaska have successfully fought offshore leasing, succeeding in getting sales canceled or modified in ways that reduce the impact. Local communities were key in getting the governor of Alaska to oppose leasing in Bristol Bay, Shelikoff Strait, Lower Cook Inlet, and elsewhere. The proximity-linked pass through will undermine this opposition by providing a major incentive for local governments and the State to accept more OCS leasing. Without effective state and local opposition, there will be more leasing in Alaska, threatening national parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and marine and coastal areas in the state.
Alaska has more coastline than the continental United States and some of the nation's richest and most productive marine areas. Sensitive areas in or adjacent to OCS areas open for potential leasing include the Bering Sea, one of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the Gulf of Alaska, Glacier Bay National Park, the Tongass National Forest and two dozen national wildlife refuges, parks and forests. These coastal and marine resources constitute national treasures too precious to risk. The incentives for offshore oil activity off Alaska in these bills must be removed.
S. 2181 makes a very helpful step toward this goal by eliminating the pass through to local governments, an improvement we very strongly support. Deleting the pass through not only dramatically reduces the incentive for OCS development, but also eliminates concerns about the uses of Title I money by local governments (see discussion below). In addition, the overall allocation to the OCS states based on proximity is much smaller in S. 2181 ($100 million vs. $500 million in CARA), which has the effect of reducing the incentive. For these reasons, we view S. 2181 as a critical step forward. At the same time, however, we remain concerned that the State of Alaska will continue to benefit financially from accepting new OCS activity under S. 2181. We recommend that this incentive be removed from the final bill.
The approach in S. 25 is similar to that in S. 2123, except that S. 25 does not exclude the moratorium states and their local governments from receiving money based on new production, providing an incentive for the moratorium states and their local governments to eliminate the moratorium and accept new leasing and production on existing leases. For this and other reasons discussed below, we oppose S. 25.
The House-passed version of CARA represents an important improvement over S. 2123 with respect to the allocation formula. The House managers agreed to an amendment that removed the 5-year revisitation of the state allocation, in essence adopting the snapshot approach. Under the House-passed version of CARA, a state's allocation will not change, no matter how much leasing it accepts. There is some remaining ambiguity regarding whether local government allocation is subject to the same snapshot approach, although in a colloquy the managers indicated that was their intent. While we strongly recommend eliminating the pass through to local governments altogether, if there is to be a pass through, clarifying language in the bill itself to ensure the snapshot applies to the local government allocation is essential. Other changes needed to the House-passed bill are addressed below.
2. Revenues Under S. 2181, S. 2123, and the House-passed version of CARA, "Qualified OCS revenues" fund all three Titles of CARA. All of these bills exclude revenues from tracts within the moratorium areas on which there was no production as of 1/1/99, which is a helpful step forward (in contrast, S. 25 does not). However, revenues from leasing and production in Alaska (outside of Bristol Bay) would fund all titles of these bills. As we have noted, this creates a major incentive for various beneficiaries of the bill to support new leasing and development in Alaska in order to provide sufficient revenues for the activities funded by the bill. This is particularly the case if OCS revenues from the Gulf of Mexico start declining and revenues from Alaska are needed to make up the shortfall. As the Oil and Gas Journal noted in January, "oil lobbyists would like to see it [CARA] pass in the hope that it would give inland states a vested interest in ensuring that offshore drilling continues at current levels." We favor removing Alaska revenues from funding any of the titles of these bills in the same way that revenues from the moratorium areas are excluded.
B. Uses of Title I funds and oversight
CARA and its relatives have the potential to become among the most important conservation initiatives of the new century. By providing landmark levels of permanent funding for critical wildlife, land, and historic preservation programs, these bills will significantly advance conservation and protection of our nation's natural heritage. We strongly believe that the coastal and ocean titles of these bills must be equally conservation oriented. To accomplish this, it is crucial that Title I funds be used to help, not harm the environment. Unfortunately, S. 2123, S. 25 and the House passed version of CARA do not achieve this goal.
As noted above, Title I of S. 2123 and the House-passed version of CARA provide $1 billion per year to coastal states, the bulk of which goes to the seven OCS states, (California, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama). These bills require the states to spend the money on one or more uses, most of which are environmentally beneficial. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing in these bills to prevent the OCS states (and some non-OCS states that may be affected by OCS activity in another state) from spending most or all of the more than $700 million they will collectively get each year on environmentally damaging onshore infrastructure, including roads, ports, jetties, groins, and similar activities. While the bills provide for federal oversight, such oversight is of limited utility in the absence of standards in the bill ensuring that the money will be spent in a manner that does not harm the environment.
In addition, we have major concerns about the pass through to local governments contained in both bills. Local governments may lack jurisdiction or expertise to carry out many if not most of the conservation uses permitted in the bill, leaving them with few options other than construction.
Furthermore, both bills give the Interior Department oversight authority over state expenditures of Title I funds, even though the majority of the permitted uses fall under the jurisdiction and expertise of the Commerce Department. Neither bill provides desperately needed funding for existing federal coastal and marine programs. Finally, the 60 day approval process in Title I would preclude meaningful review of state plans under NEPA, CZMA, etc.
S. 25 places virtually no restrictions on the uses of Title I money. While the states may use the money for good environmental projects, there is no requirement that they do so. Indeed, states and localities could use the money for a huge array of purposes. While S. 25 requires the states to develop plans for use of the money and to certify the plans to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary is given no authority to review and approve the plans. We are extremely concerned about allocating huge sums to the states with essentially no controls and no federal oversight.
In contrast, S. 2181 establishes an "Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund" of $365 million and requires coastal states to spend their revenues on an array of environmentally beneficial purposes based on demonstrated conservation and protection needs. The Fund prioritizes state plans supporting state and federal laws governing coastal and marine protection. S.2181 also provides modest funding for federal coral reef protection, a step in the right direction of providing critically needed funding to supplement appropriations for existing federal marine and coastal protection programs. The impact assistance section of the bill requires the OCS states to spend the additional $100 million provided only to them only to mitigate the many environmental impacts associated with offshore oil. Finally, by avoiding the pass-through and giving principal oversight authority to the Secretary of Commerce, S. 2181 helps ensure that funds will be used to help, not hurt, the environment. Thus, S. 2181 represents a very important step forward.
In conclusion, it is critically important that the coastal and marine title of the final legislation be a positive step forward for the environment. To achieve this, the final legislation must adhere to the following principles:
1. The allocation to coastal states and local governments should be principally based on shoreline miles and population. If OCS activity must be a factor, it should be based on leasing as of the date of enactment (the "snapshot approach") to avoid creating incentives for new OCS activity.
2. Revenues funding the legislation should not include revenues from OCS activity in the moratorium areas (with the exception of tracts already in production as of the date of enactment) or off Alaska.
3. There must be clear standards in the bill specifying that Title I funds must be used ONLY to benefit the environment. Infrastructure that does not satisfy this requirement is not an appropriate use of Title I funds. Such standards must be accompanied by effective oversight by the federal agency with relevant jurisdiction and expertise to ensure that the standards in the bill are met.
4. There must be no mandatory pass through as long as the allowable uses in Title I remain potentially destructive and as long as the local government allocation is linked to new leasing; and
5. The bill should include supplementary, critically needed funding for existing federal coastal and marine conservation programs.
IV. S. 2181 would Ensure Full and Permanent Funding for LWCF.
One of the major tools we have available to us to protect the habitat essential to maintain our biodiversity heritage is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Full and dedicated funding for the LWCF has been a top priority for the environmental community for many years and has been a driving force in the various conservation funding proposals currently in play. We strongly support full and mandatory funding for LWCF without any burdensome new restrictions. Of the bills covered in our testimony today, only S. 2181 meets these criteria. Full and guaranteed funding for LWCF is needed both to address the estimated $10-12 billion in current acquisition needs for our National Wildlife Refuges, Forests, Parks, and Bureau of Land Management special areas and to give states and local entities the resources they need to preserve dwindling vestiges of habitat and green space.
The ability to acquire land across a continuum of jurisdictions federal, state, and local is a critical tool in the increasingly difficult battle to preserve what remains of our nation's dwindling wildlife habitat and natural ecosystems. Land acquisition of core habitat reserve areas and green space must serve as the essential anchor for other conservation tools funded in these bills such as easements, private landowner incentives, and state wildlife conservation programs. As our nation's population grows by about 2.5 million people annually, accompanying development and sprawl continue to fragment and destroy habitat. Loss of habitat is the primary cause of species endangerment and will lead to more listings under the Endangered Species Act.
In addition to the 1995 DOI report cited earlier, a1995 report by Defenders, "Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife" found that extensive habitat destruction is reaching the point where the nation faces the loss of not just thousands of species, but hundreds of natural ecosystems as well. The report identified the 21 most endangered ecosystems which include the south Florida landscape, southern Appalachian spruce fir forest, California native grasslands, southwest riparian forests, southern California coastal sage scrub, and tallgrass prairie. The ten states with the greatest overall risk of ecosystem loss were found to be Florida, California, Hawaii, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, and Tennessee; however all states were found to have serious problems.
A secure and adequate stream of LWCF funding is absolutely necessary to help slow this loss before it accelerates further. S. 2181 provides full mandatory funding for both federal and state LWCF, at $450 million each, but still gives Congress oversight by requiring the President to submit a list of proposed projects each year which Congress can then change through legislation. We strongly support this approach.
Concerns with LWCF titles in S. 25 and S. 2123
In contrast, S. 25, which funds LWCF as a percentage of OCS receipts and funds the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program out of LWCF, does not provide full LWCF funding. S. 25 also imposes unacceptable restrictions on federal LWCF projects; restrictions that would limit needed flexibility and could result in unforeseen obstacles and unnecessary delays for high priority projects and "willing seller" landowners.
The first of these restrictions would require subsequent and specific authorization for funding of each federal acquisition in excess of $5 million. This is unnecessary and duplicative, as federal acquisition is already authorized in a number of statutes. And it would put numerous federal projects right back where they are now -- unnecessarily delayed because funding is unavailable. For example, even under the existing acquisition process, landowners are routinely told by the Fish and Wildlife Service that they must wait at least one and one-half to two years for Congress to provide funding. Examples of projects that could be affected are numerous, including some in excess of $5 million proposed in the President's FY 2001 budget such as acquisitions for BLM California Wilderness, Florida's Archie Carr, Florida Keys, Ding Darling, and Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuges, Colorado's Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Virginia's Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, Pennsylvania's Gettysburg National Military Park, Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park and Uncompahgre (CO), Deerlodge (MT), and Coconino (AZ) National Forests.
The second restriction, requiring that two-thirds of yearly funding be spent east of the 100th meridian imposes an arbitrary geographic limitation that could affect new opportunities similar to the recent Headwaters Forest and New World Mine projects and timely acquisitions from willing sellers of inholdings in a number of western states including Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Flexibility must be maintained to take advantage of conservation opportunities where they exist, rather than imposing arbitary geographic limitations on where monies can be spent.
The third restriction would limit expenditure of funds to lands exclusively within exterior boundaries of our current land management systems. While most acquisition takes place within boundaries, federal agencies have been allowed flexibility in this area, for example, where single ownerships transect agency boundaries. Without this flexibility, such landowners would be forced to split their acreage or sell privately. Moreover, this provision would affect the National Forest System's current authorization allowing acquisition of lands adjacent to its boundaries. The ability of the National Forest System to acquire adjacent lands can be particularly important in preventing fragmentation of habitat and establishing wildlife corridors. A prime example of an ongoing project which could be jeopardized by this language is the North Florida Wildlife Corridor or Pinhook Swamp which eventually will provide a linkage between the Okeefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia and the Osceola National Forest in Florida. This linkage would complete a large, regionally significant conservation area providing a stronghold for wide-ranging species such as the Florida black bear, a species that has pushed into areas so small that a predominant cause of mortality is motor vehicle collisions. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor is looked to nationally as an example of a successful public-private-non-profit cooperative venture to enhance the value of protected areas by establishing their connection as one major ecosystem and for this reason was identified as a model for future land acquisitions in the 1993 National Research Council study Setting Priorities for Land Acquisition. This purchase is also important in protecting a recharge area for the aquifer that supplies drinking water for more than 20.5 million citizens of Florida and Georgia and will be open as a recreation area for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, and wildlife observation.
We also have concerns with the LWCF title in S. 2123. We are pleased that S. 2123 does provide the full $900 million for LWCF, split evenly between federal and state programs. However, federal LWCF is singled out to be treated differently from every other program in the bill by still requiring action by the appropriators before monies can be spent. Furthermore, if the Appropriations Committee does not expend the full $450 million for federal LWCF in a given year the unobligated balances do not remain available; thus a subsequent Congress is prevented from making up the prior year's shortfall in a subsequent year. We are also concerned that administrative costs for all activities funded under S. 2123 are limited to not more than 2 percent of their total operation, a provision that could be crippling for the federal LWCF program. Currently, the land agencies' administrative expenses range from 10-20 percent, since the appropriators fund realty staff and other needed activities such as appraisals through the LWCF account. We were also very pleased that S. 2123 removed some of the most crippling procedural restrictions in S. 25; however S. 2123 still contains some potentially problematic procedural restrictions. One of these would require consideration of other alternatives to acquisition before moving forward with federal land acquisition projects and could provide a basis for future litigation and interpretation by the courts that could be detrimental to future land acquisitions. Another would require a willing seller or Congressional authorization before acquisition projects could proceed. While adverse condemnation seldom ever happens, this flexibility should be maintained if needed for quick protection of important national resources.
An additional concern is that neither version of CARA contains a flexible funding program to allow land acquisition for non-federal lands of regional and national significance. These projects, such as the Northern Forest of New England, may go unaddressed because funding available through stateside LWCF is inadequate to meet these needs, especially in regions of low population which do not fare well in the stateside formula. In contrast, S. 2181 provides $125 million for competitive grants to help conserve these critical areas. It should also be noted that the House-passed version of CARA, H.R. 4377, has been amended to include such a program, however no funding has been identified and allocated for it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our organizations believes there is an historic opportunity in the 106th Congress to pass landmark legislation to fund the menu of programs needed to help protect our magnificent natural heritage as we move into the 21st century. We look forward to working with the members of this Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and with sponsors of all the various bills to pass a sound conservation funding bill this year. Thank you.