Testimony on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
By Wayne E. Vetter, President
Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
May 24, 2000

I would like to thank Senator Smith and this Committee for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony on this very important conservation funding bill. As you all know, conservation funding is one of the most popular issues with voters. You also undoubtedly know that it is extremely difficult to get conservation funding bills passed, or even heard, because there's always something else more critical. This is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity to pass a popular and pro-active bill to guarantee funding for the protection and management of our invaluable natural resources.

This committee can greatly assist us in the implementation of these programs by supporting the amendments suggested by the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies for Title III of these bills. In particular:

Increasing the floor for minimum states from '/~ of 1% to 1%, Implementing a 5-year phase-in period with 90% federal to 10% state match, Remove the 10% cap on wildlife associated recreation spending, Reinstate the provision for up to 10% of the funds to be used for law enforcement, Including wildlife conservation planning language, and Increasing the level of wildlife funding in Title III to $450 million or 10% of OCS revenues, whichever is greater.

Increasing the floor for minimum states from 1/2 of 1% to 1% will have a great effect on small states like mine. This is a more fair distribution of funds since all states, small and large, need to fund a full range of wildlife programs. While our state is small, it is within a one day drive of all the major northeastern cities, and is a playground for many of those outdoor enthusiasts. This money is desperately needed as development and recreational use pressures on our landscape are intense. Remember, green space doesn't cost, it pays. We currently have about 75% of over 500 vertebrate wildlife species found in New Hampshire which don't qualify for state funding. This minor change, which is supported by the state fish & wildlife agency directors, would double the amount of money coming to New Hampshire from $1.75 to $3.5 million. Our total nongame program budget is just over $130,000 annually (including salaries) to manage over 400 species of wildlife. While the CARA funds would be spread over several programs within the Department I think you can understand the impact this amendment could have on New Hampshire and several other small states, with minimal impacts on larger states. I like to say that '/: of 1% will support the infrastructure necessary for a full range of wildlife programs within the state, and the other % of a percent will provide the money necessary to make sure those programs have the dollars necessary to actually do the work.

Second, a 5 year phase-in period where the Title III money would be available with a 90% federal and 10% state match rate would allow all states the necessary time to develop better funding mechanisms for the state side match. We support moving the cost share ratio to 75% federal and 25% state funds after 5 years as it will increase the overall scope of the program by mandating increased state contributions. This is in the best interest of our wildlife resou~rces, but may be hard for some states to achieve in the short term. It only makes sense to assure the federal funds appropriated are used rather than reverted for redistribution simply because a state in need couldn't meet the cost share. This will eliminate unnecessary stress on state fish and wildlife agencies who currently receive no general fund monies and/or have small programs. New Hampshire Fish and Game is one of those agencies.

Third, eliminating the ceiling on wildlife associated recreation projects will allow states to make a "big bang" early by putting programs and facilities in place which will touch large numbers of non-traditional resource users, thereby generating support for fund raising efforts to make the increased match later. Recreation is the springboard for a conservation ethic- it is how people begin their love affair with the outdoors. Recreation related projects may well be one of the best ways of launching CARA activities within our state. To limit those funds may not be in anyone's best interest.

Fourth, reinstating the provision, which would allow up to 10% for conservation law enforcement will recognize the role they play in protecting our resources. State fish and wildlife conservation officers have many opportunities to work with landowners and the public to implement voluntary, proactive fish and wildlife protection and public education and outreach programs. By reinstating this language you will give agency directors the ability to make the decision on how best to use the CARA money, and the tremendous opportunity to increase that face to face contact with the public that conservation law enforcement officers present.

The fifth amendment referenced above requests that planning language be added which will help to guide all states to develop a comprehensive wildlife program with the funds provided, and to strategically prioritize and target Title III conservation funds to most effectively address the unmet needs of a diverse array of wildlife species and their habitats. This language will set the stage for a substantive public input process, which will strengthen the relationship between the public and state agencies, and work towards maximizing the benefits of this program.

And, finally, I ask you to consider increasing the level of wildlife funding under Title III to $450 million or 10% of OCS revenues, which ever is higher. As good as this program is for wildlife, it still falls well short of the estimated $1 billion additional dollars necessary to fully fund wildlife programs in the states. Our profession has perhaps suffered at times in the past by not asking for what is really needed to fulfill our mandates. This is our opportunity to ask, and we are. This would make a good program great.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, and urge you to pass this Legislation and the amendments suggested by IAFWA. Together we can keep common species common.

Wayne E. Vetter, Executive Director New Hampshire Fish & Game Department 2 Hazen Dr. Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3511