[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUYING MORE LAND WHEN WE
CAN'T MAINTAIN WHAT WE
ALREADY OWN: THE NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM'S
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
BACKLOG STORY!
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 26, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-651 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Jeff Duncan, SC Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Steve Southerland, II, FL Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Bill Flores, TX Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Andy Harris, MD Vacancy
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Jon Runyan, NJ
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 26, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Executive Vice President, Defenders
of Wildlife................................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Forster, Dan, Director, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources............................ 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Horn, William P., Counsel, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance......... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Kurth, James W., Acting Assistant Director, National Wildlife
Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Recce, Susan, Director, Division of Conservation, Wildlife
and Natural Resources, National Rifle Association.......... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``BUYING MORE LAND WHEN WE CAN'T MAINTAIN WHAT WE
ALREADY OWN: THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM'S OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG STORY!''
----------
Thursday, May 26, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:46 p.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Duncan, Southerland,
Flores, Runyan, and Sablan.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. First of all, I want
to thank our witnesses and the audience today for your patience
while we were on the Floor working on a very important bill.
So, thank you.
Today, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
Insular Affairs will conduct an oversight hearing on the
operations and maintenance backlog within the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
This is the fifth hearing this Committee has conducted on
this subject, but the first since March 23, 2001. Under
Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so that we can
hear from our witnesses more quickly.
However, I ask for unanimous consent to include any other
Members' opening statements in the hearing record if submitted
to the Clerk by close of business today. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. While much has changed over the past 16 years,
I found it fascinating to review previous testimony. For
instance, at the hearing on July 25th, 1996, the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Chief of Refuges, Dr. Robert Streeter,
testified that, ``We feel that it is time to break that
historic pattern of benign neglect in our National Wildlife
Refuge System. If we were a modern business, we would be well
down the road to bankruptcy.''
Five years later, a new Refuge Chief, who has now been
nominated as the sixteenth Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service testified that ``As we look to the future, our greatest
responsibility and priority is taking care of what we have, the
maintenance of the facilities and equipment that we need to
accomplish our mission.''
More recently, the 2010 report issued by the Cooperative
Alliance for Refuge Enhancement stated that ``Washed out
trails, leaking roofs, closed roads, and broken equipment,
plague the refuge system.''
How did we get to this point? In 1996, when Dr. Streeter
was talking about bankruptcy, the operations and maintenance
backlog was $440 million. When Mr. Ashe was addressing the
Subcommittee, the backlog had grown to $1.9 billion.
Today, the cumulative backlog is $3.3 billion, which
includes more than 1200 invasive species projects, national
fish hatchery projects, 3,342 mission-critical projects, 5,349
operations projects, 5,994 refuge road projects, and more than
12,000 refuge facilities in need of immediate repair.
As a direct result of this backlog, there are miles of
impassable or unsafe roads, millions of refuge acres infected
with invasive species, a severe shortage of law enforcement
personnel and 326 refuges that are either unstaffed or closed
to the public.
When the Congress approved the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act of 1997, a fundamental goal of that historic
law was to establish the finest refuge system in the world. It
is difficult for anyone to argue that we are close to achieving
that goal.
What we need is a new paradigm or vision for addressing
this problem. This is the purpose of today's hearing, to obtain
the views of many of the same organizations who have testified
in the past and to have what may be becoming an overused term,
an adult conversation, on how to address this problem.
While there are no bad ideas, I would caution our witnesses
and the listening public that we are not going to significantly
reduce this backlog by depending exclusively on discretionary
funds.
It is highly unlikely that Congress is going to appropriate
a huge new infusion of taxpayer money. Instead, I would hope
that our witnesses would look at certain suggestions, including
whether a portion of money allocated to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, should be set aside for refuge operations
and maintenance, and whether the Service should limit their
acquisition dollars to conservation easements, and not fee
title acquisition, if certain unstaffed refuges can be managed
or transferred to States, Native American tribes, or other
municipalities under Memoranda of Understanding, and whether
the 44 million Americans who visit a refuge each year would be
willing to contribute more to its upkeep through the Recreation
Fee Program.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
distinguished witnesses, and I now recognize our Ranking Member
from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Congressman Sablan, for any statement that he would like to
make.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good afternoon, today the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight
hearing on the operations and maintenance backlog within the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This is the fifth hearing this Subcommittee has
conducted on this subject but the first since March 23, 2001.
While much has changed over the past ten years, I found it
fascinating to review previous testimony. For instance, at the hearing
on July 25, 1996, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Chief of Refuges, Dr.
Robert Streeter testified that: ``We feel it is time to break that
historic pattern of benign neglect in our National Wildlife Refuge
System. If we were a modern business, we would be well down the road to
bankruptcy''.
Five years later, a new Refuge Chief, who has now been nominated as
the 16th Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service testified that: ``As
we look to the future, our greatest responsibility and priority is
taking care of what we have, the maintenance of the facilities and
equipment that we need to accomplish our mission''.
More recently, the 2010 Report issued by the Cooperative Alliance
for Refuge Enhancement stated that: ``Washed-out trails, leaking roofs,
closed roads, and broken equipment plague the refuge system''.
How do we get to this point? In 1996, when Dr. Streeter was talking
about bankruptcy, the operations and maintenance backlog was $440
million. When Mr. Ashe was addressing the Subcommittee the backlog had
grown to $1.9 billion. Today, the cumulative backlog is $3.3 billion
which includes more than 1,200 invasive species projects; 1,400
national fish hatchery projects; 3,342 ``mission critical'' projects;
5,994 refuge road projects and more than 12,000 refuge facilities which
are in need of immediate repair.
As a direct result of this backlog, there are miles of impassable
or unsafe roads, millions of refuge acres infested with invasive
species, a severe shortage of law enforcement personnel and 326 refuges
that are either unstaffed or closed to the public. When the Congress
approved the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, a
fundamental goal of that historic law was to establish the finest
refuge system in the world. It is difficult for anyone to argue that we
are close to achieving that goal.
What we need is a new paradigm or vision for addressing this
problem. This is the purpose of today's hearing to obtain the views of
many of the same organizations who have testified in the past and to
have what may be becoming an over used term an ``adult conversation''
on how to address this problem.
While there are no bad ideas, I would caution our witnessed and the
listening public that we are not going to significantly reduce this
backlog by depending exclusively on discretionary funds. It is highly
unlikely that Congress is going to appropriate a huge new infusion of
taxpayer money.
Instead, I would hope our witnesses would look at certain
suggestions including whether a portion of money allocated to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund should be set-aside for refuge operations
and maintenance, whether the Service should limit their acquisition
dollars to conservation easements and not fee title acquisition, if
certain unstaffed refuges can be managed or transfer to States, native
American tribes or other municipalities under Memorandum of
Understandings and whether the 44 million Americans who visit a refuge
each year would be willing to contribute more to its upkeep through the
Recreation Fee Program.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished
witnesses. I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking Democratic Member
from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Congressman
Sablan for any statement he would like to make.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon everyone. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world's finest network of protected lands and waters designed
to conserve our fish and wildlife resources.
Refuges are located in every State and in nearly every
territory, including the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. Millions of people visit refuge camps each year to
hunt, fish, and observe wildlife, and the refuge system
generates $1.7 billion in sales for local communities, and
creates nearly 27,000 jobs annually.
The refuge system is under increasing strain from
operations and maintenance backlogs of $3.4 billion. In my own
district, the operating needs require to hire staff to manage
and to develop, and to implement visitor services, education,
and volunteer programs at the Mariana Trench, and the Mariana's
Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuge, are expected to cost over
$380,000.
While the specific refuges are relatively new, the overall
operations and maintenance backlog did not arise overnight.
This backlog has been a growing problem from decades of chronic
under-funding over many Administrations and Congresses, both
Republican and Democrat.
We must find ways to provide additional resources and
support to the refuge system to address this problem, and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who have been
invited to share their creative ideas and solutions on how to
address the refuge system's operation and maintenance backlog.
It is imperative that we also make important legacy
investments in our refuges now to ensure that the fish,
wildlife, and habitats are protected for the enjoyment and
benefit of future generations.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is generated by
oil and gas drilling revenues, are not taxpayer dollars, and
provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with resources that it
needs to acquire lands and conservation easements from willing
sellers and landowners, which can result in operational
efficiencies, and conductivity within the refuge system.
Whether for operations, maintenance, conservation
easements, or land annexations, every $1 invested in our refuge
system by the Federal Government returns about $4 to local
communities.
Supporting the refuge system is a worthy investment to
conserve fish and wildlife, and to protect a critical part of
America's natural heritage, and to support all of the
communities which are present. Again, I thank the witnesses for
testifying today, and I look forward to learning more about
this important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world's finest network of protected lands and waters designed to
conserve our fish and wildlife resources. Refuges are located in every
state and in nearly every territory, including in the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. Millions of people visit refuges each
year to hunt, fish, and observe wildlife; and the Refuge System
generates $1.7 billion in sales for local communities and creates
nearly 27,000 jobs annually.
The Refuge System is under increasing strain from tight budgets and
an operations and maintenance backlogs of $3.4 billion. In my own
district, the operating needs required to hire staff to manage, and to
develop and implement visitor services, education, and volunteer
programs at the Mariana Trench and the Mariana Arc of Fire National
Wildlife Refuges are expected to cost over $380,000.
While these specific refuges are relatively new, the overall
operations and maintenance backlog did not arise overnight. This
backlog has been a growing problem from decades of chronic underfunding
over many Administrations and Congresses, both Republican and Democrat.
We must find ways to provide additional resources and support to the
Refuge System to address this problem and I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today, who have been invited to share their creative
ideas and solutions on how to address the Refuge System's operations
and maintenance backlog.
It is imperative that we also make important legacy investments in
our refuges now to ensure that these fish, wildlife, and habitats are
protected for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund, which is generated by offshore oil and gas
drilling revenues and not taxpayers' dollars, provides the Fish and
Wildlife Service with resources it needs to acquire lands and
conservation easements from willing sellers and land owners, which can
result in operational efficiencies and connectivity within the Refuge
System.
Whether for operations, maintenance, conservation easements, or
land acquisition, every one dollar invested in our Refuge System by the
federal government returns about four dollars to local communities.
Supporting the Refuge System is a worthy investment to conserve fish
and wildlife, to protect a critical part of America's natural heritage,
and to support all of the communities, which we represent.
Again, I thank the witnesses for testifying today and look forward
to learning more about this important issue.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman, the Ranking Member. We
will now hear from our witnesses. Like all witnesses, your
written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. So
I ask that you keep your oral statements to five minutes as
outlined in our invitation letter to you, and under Committee
Rule 4[a].
Our microphones are not automatic, and so please press the
button when you are ready to begin, and likewise, when you are
done, press it as well, unless you want the world to hear what
is on your mind.
I also want to explain how timing lights work. When you
begin to speak, our Clerk will start the timer, and a green
light will appear. After four minutes the yellow light will
appear, and at that time, you should begin to conclude your
statement.
At five minutes the red light will come on. You may
complete your sentence, but at that time, I must ask that you
stop. I would now like to welcome Mr. James W. Kurth, Acting
Assistant Director of the National Wildlife Refuge System, for
the Fish and Wildlife Service; Mrs. Jamie Rappaport Clark,
former Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and now
Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife; Mr. Dan
Forster, Director, Wildlife Resources Division for the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources; Mrs. Susan Recce, Director of
the Division of Conservation for the Institute for Legislative
Action, at the National Rifle Association; and Mr. William P.
Horn, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and former
Chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial
Commission, and Counsel for the United States Sportsmen's
Alliance, who he is representing today. Mr. Kurth of the Fish
and Wildlife Service is now recognized. You may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. KURTH, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Kurth. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Jim Kurth. I am the Acting Assistant
Director for the National Wildlife Refuge System, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important
conservation work of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuges conserve some of the most
outstanding wildlife habitat in the world, and a stunning array
of fish and wildlife. Most refuges, however, are fragments of
what were once much larger landscapes.
Natural ecological functions, such as wildfires, and
periodic flooding, that maintain high quality wildlife
habitats, are often disrupted now. This requires us to actively
manage refuges.
The management, or operations of National Wildlife Refuges,
include many practices, including such things as prescribed
fire, manipulation of water levels and managed impoundments,
controlling invasive species, grazing, farming, and much more.
Our refuge operational accounts also fund refuge law
enforcement, visitor services, and volunteer management, and
comprehensive conservation planning. Our operational needs
total $676 million.
We have reduced that from a previous estimate of $1.2
billion by using a model that includes only our highest
priority staffing and critical project needs. If we don't fund
some of this work, like controlling invasive species, the
problem gets worse and future costs are higher.
Other operational needs are unfunded, and missed
opportunities to deliver more effective conservation, and
better serve the public. We maximize the effectiveness of our
funding through close partnerships with State Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and with an army of 42,000 volunteers.
We constantly are looking for partnership opportunities to
leverage these resources. Managing refuges requires
infrastructure. The refuge system has infrastructure worth $24
billion, and much of this infrastructure is directly related to
providing high quality habitat.
Water control structures, levees, and water delivery
systems, represent 34 percent of our constructed assets, roads
that are important for access and for fire management, account
for nearly 50 percent of those assets.
We have a $2.7 billion backlog of deferred maintenance on
these facilities. The cost estimate for our deferred
maintenance backlog has grown substantially over the last
decade. This is in large part because we have undertaken more
systematic and professional condition assessments, and have
used industry standard cost estimating tools.
In addition, damages from natural disasters like hurricanes
and the recent North Dakota floods, have contributed $241
million to the backlog just since 2005. The ongoing flooding
along the Mississippi River will have a significant impact as
well, as more than 570,000 acres on 27 refuges are currently
under water.
While the cost estimate of the maintenance backlog has
grown, we believe that the condition of our facilities has
improved over the past decade because of the investments that
we have made, but we still have a lot of work to do.
Some question how much land acquisition the Service should
be doing when we already have a large backlog of work on the
lands that we already own. Purchasing land in existing refuge
often lowers the cost of operations. Contiguous blocks of
refuge lands makes it easier to post boundaries, to manage
fires, to provide access and recreational opportunities than on
refuges where the ownership is more scattered.
Finding the right balance on how much more land we purchase
requires our most thoughtful consideration and discernment. But
conserving high quality habitat for fish and wildlife is what
we do in the refuge system. If we hadn't protected special
places, like the Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge along the
Texas coast, the whooping crane may not have survived.
Without the National Key Deer Refuge, we would likely have
no Key Deer. Many bird species in grasslands, and arid lands,
and forests, are declining across the country according to our
most recent State of the Birds Report.
Wetland birds, however, particularly waterfowl, are doing
quite well, and the primary reason why waterfowl are doing well
is our decades of work protecting millions of acres of
waterfowl habitat throughout the flyways as National Wildlife
Refuges.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to continuing to work with
the Committee as we plan together the thoughtful stewardship of
the National Wildlife Refuge System. I thank you very much for
the opportunity to speak. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurth follows:]
Statement of Jim Kurth, Acting Assistant Director, National Wildlife
Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Good morning Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Jim Kurth, acting Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System within
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on the important work funded by the
National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance accounts,
and on the tools we use to protect America's wildlife and natural
areas.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer
a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management
and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans. The Refuge System is
the world's premier network of public lands devoted to the conservation
of wildlife and habitat, and offers about 44 million annual visitors
the opportunity to fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, and
learn about nature through environmental education and interpretation.
And with its widespread presence and history of working with partners,
the Refuge System also plays a key role in supporting innovative
community-level efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect
people to the outdoors through the Administration's America's Great
Outdoors initiative.
The Refuge System includes over 150 million acres of land and
water; natural gems that Americans have protected for themselves and
their children. The Refuge System is a diverse land, wetland, and ocean
conservation system spanning more than half the planet--from Guam,
American Samoa, and other remote Pacific islands, north to the high
arctic in northern Alaska, east to the rugged coastline of Maine and
south to the tropical U.S. Virgin Islands. National wildlife refuges
are found in every U.S. state. In total, the Refuge System now contains
553 refuges and 38 wetland management districts.
The presence of a national wildlife refuge in a community offers
significant economic benefit in the form of jobs and visitor spending
in local stores, hotels, and service stations. According to a Service
analysis entitled Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to
Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, refuge
visitors generated $1.7 billion of annual sales to local economies, of
which 87% was spent by travelers from outside the local area. The
ripple effect from these visitors created over 27,000 jobs and more
than $543 million in employment income.
But the Refuge System is just a part of a growing and massive
outdoor recreation business sector. According to the National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 33.9 million
Americans spent a combined total of $76.7 billion on hunting and
fishing in 2006. Even more popular, wildlife watching was enjoyed by
71.1 million Americans, who spent $45.7 billion. Moreover, research has
shown that permanently protected land in the vicinity of developed
areas significantly increases property values. A substantial number of
national wildlife refuges are located in and around cities, and in
places where development is rapidly occurring. It is clear that
Americans place high value on wild lands and healthy populations of
fish and wildlife. In addition to economic benefits, refuges provide
many environmental services for communities. For example, refuges can
filter rainwater before it enters municipal supplies, reduce flooding
by slowing excess surface runoff, and attenuate storm surges before
they reach coastal homes and businesses. Finally, refuges place
relatively few demands on local infrastructure when compared to more
intensive development.
Because national wildlife refuges offer substantial economic
benefit and unparalleled wildlife experiences, it's no surprise they
enjoy broad public support. Advocacy groups as diverse as the National
Rifle Association, The Wilderness Society, Safari Club International,
and National Audubon Society, among many others, all agree that the
Refuge System is a unique American treasure worthy of continued
investment. But the Refuge System is facing tremendous challenges--from
the threats placed upon wildlife by habitat destruction, non-native
species, and a rapidly changing climate, to a dwindling interest in the
outdoors by many young Americans. The Service is already responding to
these challenges, while also working to cultivate the support of both
traditional and new constituencies, particularly diverse, urban youth.
To amplify our efforts and hone our approach, the Refuge System is now
spearheading a collaborative effort that aims to craft a progressive
vision for wildlife conservation in America. We call it Conserving the
Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation.
Conserving the Future will help ensure that the Refuge System is on
track to achieve its mission, while being prepared to meet the
challenges of our changing world. The Service has been encouraging
everyone--wildlife watchers, outdoor educators, hunters, anglers,
youth, Service employees, refuge Friends groups, other conservation
partners and concerned citizens--to participate in shaping the Refuge
System's future These efforts will ensure that the resources of the
Refuge System are used in a prioritized and efficient manner to reach
the Service's goals as well as outcomes our constituencies are asking
for--such as, continued hunting and fishing opportunities, wilderness
experiences, restoration of degraded lands, thriving wildlife
populations, among many others.
In order to achieve these outcomes, the Service uses a variety of
approaches, such as actively managing and restoring wildlife habitats,
offering technical and financial assistance to private landowners, and
building public support through volunteer programs. One of the most
effective approaches is the protection of important wildlife habitats
via land acquisition or conservation easements. In America, lands with
some form of legal protection are highly fragmented. Many species, such
as salmon or Florida panthers, try their best to navigate barriers,
including hydroelectric dams and 10-lane interstates, but are usually
unsuccessful and are therefore their populations are vulnerable. When
the Refuge System acquires new properties, species such as these
benefit from the renewed connection between protected parcels. These
acquisitions are good for wildlife, but they're also good for people
because the Refuge System only acquires lands in easement or fee title
from willing landowners who are paid market value for their land. For
these people, putting an easement on their property or selling it to
the Refuge System guarantees that the land they love will forever
remain just as they know it; preserved for their children and
grandchildren.
In recent years, a new model of conservation has begun to find
success in certain parts of the rural U.S. That is, a model that finds
shared objectives between the needs of wildlife and those interested in
maintaining traditional working lands, such as for livestock grazing
and haying. Private landowners, conservation groups, states and the
federal government are all working together to protect America's
special places. For example, in the Rocky Mountain Front and Blackfoot
Valley of central Montana, people are working cooperatively to protect
one of the most special places left in the Rockies--an area that
preserves ranching lifestyles while maintaining critical corridors for
grizzly bears and other animals to make their seasonal migrations.
Similarly, in the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas, people are
collaborating to protect an area that is home to some of the last
remaining tallgrass prairie in America. With over 96% of this globally
rare ecosystem already destroyed, preserving what's left ensures room
for wildlife to roam while preserving the rich agricultural heritage of
the region. It's truly a win-win-win when voluntary conservation
easements designed to protect more than 100 species of grassland birds
and 500 plants simultaneously preserve land ownership and property
rights for participating landowners, and keep these properties on local
tax rolls.
Overwhelmingly, Americans support conservation initiatives, even in
the face of economic hardship. Since 1988, Americans have voted to
raise $56 billion for land conservation through bonds, property or
sales tax increases, or other financial mechanisms. Ballot initiatives
have passed in 43 states to date, with an overall passage rate of
nearly 76%, or 1,740 out of 2,299 initiatives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LandVote 2010 by The Trust for Public Land and Land Trust
Alliance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Refuge System's Operations and Maintenance Accounts
The Refuge System prioritizes its project spending in alignment
with its overall strategic goals. Our staff and funding conserve an
extraordinary amount of species and ecosystems. Currently, the Service
is tracking about $3.3 billion in operational needs and deferred
maintenance projects, including about $650 million in operations and
$2.7 billion in maintenance. It is important to note that the $2.7
billion in maintenance reflects the total amount of projects required
to bring all assets up to excellent conditions.
Managing the Refuge System is not unlike running a large company
with hundreds of branch offices. It requires simultaneous attention to
both national and local issues, and a diverse and highly trained
workforce that must work together for the entire operation to run
smoothly. Our workforce contains mostly biologists and professional
wildlife managers, but also contains professional educators, law
enforcement officers, heavy equipment operators, fire fighters, real
estate appraisers, IT and cartography professionals, budget
specialists, and more than a few pilots and boat captains. With fewer
than 4,000 employees working at more than 380 locations spanning all
U.S. states and territories, and with only $3.35 for every acre we
manage, the Refuge System must work hard to ensure its operations are
efficient.
Operations Account
The Refuge System spends Operations money on activities that
contribute to meeting our mission. These are the activities that keep
land and water in suitable condition for wildlife, and provide safe
access and recreational opportunities for visitors. For budget
purposes, the Refuge System organizes its operational activities into
four areas: Wildlife and Habitat Management, Visitor Services, Law
Enforcement, and Conservation Planning. A database--the Refuge
Operating Needs System (RONS)--catalogs outstanding operational
projects, including the staff and equipment necessary to perform
routine management activities. From a refuge manager's perspective,
projects in RONS represent the prospective work and people to get the
job done. These funding increases are for monitoring, restoring, and
protecting wildlife and their habitats, supporting wildlife-dependent
recreation, ensuring a safe environment for people and wildlife, and
creating strategic plans with extensive public involvement that ensure
a collaborative approach to conservation.
The continual improvements being made to RONS have allowed the
Refuge System to be strategic in its allocations by identifying and
prioritizing operational funding increases. While RONS previously
indicated approximately $1 billion in project funding, careful analysis
in the past two years has reduced this figure, primarily by removing
lower priority projects. Making these choices has allowed the Refuge
System to focus on only the highest priority needs. Currently, RONS
contains 5,349 projects that describe a combined total of approximately
$650 million. A portion of these ``projects'' actually represent
additional staff. Such staffing calculations were developed from two
staffing models, both of which used measurable and objective workload
drivers to predict number and location of staff. One model, the Law
Enforcement Deployment Model, was developed by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and determined the number of law
enforcement officers to ensure visitor, staff, and resource protection.
The IACP called for 845 officers. Currently the Refuge System has
approximately 213 officers. The second model--Staffing Model for Field
Stations in the Refuge System, June 2008--calculated the necessary non-
law enforcement positions at refuges across the country.
The majority of Operations funding is spent on wildlife and habitat
management. These activities are at the core of what the Refuge System
does. For example, at Blackwater NWR in Maryland and at many other
refuges, freshwater impoundments are managed with dikes, pumps, canals,
water control structures, and even prescribed fire to obtain ideal
conditions for waterfowl and shorebirds.
Another example of important management funded with Operations
dollars is found in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas,
where refuge lands are restored with operations funds. Here, in one of
the most diverse plant and animal communities in the entire U.S., more
than 95% of the native vegetation has been cleared for agriculture and
other development. Still, more than 500 bird and 300 butterfly species,
including some of the rarest in America, have been documented in this
four-county area. Owing to the biological richness preserved by the
three national wildlife refuges here, southern Texas has become one of
the premier eco-tourism destinations in the country. However, Lower Rio
Grande Valley NWR alone has more than 110 disconnected parcels--many of
which were purchased as farmland and restored back to native
vegetation--scattered along the final 200 miles of the river. This
arrangement may be okay for winged critters like birds and bats, but it
presents huge barriers to animals that walk, slither, or hop.
Strategically acquiring lands from willing sellers and restoring those
lands with operations dollars connects habitats, improves water
quality, and helps nearby Texas cities and towns thrive with the
600,000 annual visitors attracted to this natural spectacle. These
visitors generate approximately $150 million for the local economy,
which is substantial given the median household income in the area is
only $27,000.
Operations funding also allows for proactive work that actually
saves money in the long run. For example, non-native invasive species
(e.g., nutria, kudzu, cheat grass, and verbicina) have a foothold
nearly everywhere in America. These invaders cost us dearly, in terms
of money but also reduced forage for livestock, increased fuel for
catastrophic wildfires, and degraded wildlife habitat. The most
effective approach when battling invasive species is to detect and
eradicate them early, before they gain a strong foothold and spread
quickly. Operations money funds this critical work, which not only
safeguards refuge lands but also surrounding private property.
Maintenance Account
In addition to operational work, the Refuge System also allocates
funding to important maintenance projects. The Refuge System has an
extensive array of constructed facility assets that are vital to
achieving the System's mission. A database known as the Service Asset
and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) catalogs projects for more
than 45,000 assets, which are collectively valued at about $24 billion.
About 35% of the value of this investment is in water management
structures which aid in managing wetland impoundments for an array of
wildlife and recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, and
birding. Nearly 50% is invested in roads, trails, bridges, and parking
areas, allowing our employees to access areas for management and
research, and facilitating access for visitors. About 11% is invested
in buildings that provide office space, labs, visitor space,
residences, and storage for vehicles, equipment, and various supplies.
The remaining 6% of our infrastructure is comprised of items such as
small-scale visitor facilities, radio and communication systems, docks/
piers for equipment transport, and various other items.
About a decade ago, the Refuge System began a more structured
approach to managing its constructed assets, and in general the
condition of our facilities is now much improved. Our data show an
improving trend in the facility condition index for our buildings,
water management assets, and transportation assets. We initiated
comprehensive condition assessments that are completed every five years
by specialists trained in estimating repair costs. Five-year budget
plans were developed to prioritize funding over multiple years using a
criteria-based ranking approach. Collectively, these efforts have
allowed us to gain a much more detailed and accurate understanding of
the condition of our assets and the costs to adequately address
maintenance. In the last 10 years or so, the list of deferred
maintenance projects appeared to grow considerably, from about $600
million to about $2.7 billion. However, much of this growth is a result
of more complete and accurate information rather than changes in asset
condition. It's also noteworthy that the maintenance backlog has
remained relatively stable at $2.5 to $2.7 billion for the last four
years.
Importantly, however, these more detailed cataloging efforts have
had the effect of producing a number which reflects the total amount of
projects required to bring all assets up to excellent conditions rather
than to keep the condition of the most important components of key
assets at a sustainable level.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
allowed many important projects to be completed. This funding
represented an important investment that helped maintain the critical
buildings, levees, water control structures, and more, that we need to
meet both the biological and visitor-related goals of the Refuge
System. The Refuge System received approximately $212 million in
funding from the Recovery Act: 60% was devoted to existing facilities,
29% to new facilities, 8% to habitat improvement projects, and 2% to
youth employment.
Whether through Recovery Act funding or annual appropriations, the
Refuge System uses its available funds in strategic ways for the
highest priority projects. We use a variety of methods to leverage
available resources and promote the wise use of taxpayer dollars. These
include pooling resources with our partners and between refuges,
renting rather than purchasing construction equipment where
appropriate, organizing maintenance action teams composed of staff who
can complete projects for less than contractors, employing youth to
assist with routine maintenance tasks, developing a corps of more than
42,000 volunteers who contribute nearly 1.5 million hours of work
annually, and other means to find the most cost effective way to
complete projects.
The Refuge System has some atypical assets within its overall
maintenance program. Our road system is not a well-defined system of
paved highways but is instead a collection of mostly ``native
surfaced'' roadways often located in environmentally sensitive areas,
which are subject to flooding. These roads may have been built, for
example, as an addition to a levee project and may be under-designed or
unsuitable for substantial vehicular traffic. Determining how best to
maintain such roads is challenging both in terms of design and reliable
and consistent forecasting of long-term maintenance costs. In the last
decade, funding through the surface transportation authorization bill
has made a significant improvement to the condition of refuge roads.
Another asset challenge is management of infrastructure on our many
island refuges in remote areas of the Pacific Ocean, such as Midway
Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Costs to mobilize a construction crew
at Midway are very expensive (generally over $100,000 per event) and
Midway alone has identified over $210 million in deferred maintenance
projects.
In addition, damages from natural disasters, such as floods,
drought or hurricanes affect many refuges--especially those in coastal
or riverine zones. Refuges around the country are frequently in the
crosshairs of natural disasters, whether hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
the North Dakota floods of 2009, or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
These events have had a substantial effect on Refuge System
maintenance.
Since 2000, seven former military sites have been transferred to
the Refuge System. With these properties comes the cost of demolition,
management, and public safety. The current deferred maintenance and
demolition costs for projects on these seven former military sites is
$65.5 million.
In summary, the Refuge System has made significant progress in the
last decade with regard to refining and improving its maintenance
program. We have made great strides toward a more thorough
understanding of costs and needs, and are focusing funds toward the
highest priority needs.
Acquisition of Fee-Title Land or Conservation Easements Can Help
Decrease Operations and Maintenance Costs
Without question, providing high-quality stewardship of the
nation's wildlife refuges takes significant resources, and refuge
managers must make maintenance decisions within a prioritized framework
to ensure key assets remain at sustainable levels. The Refuge System
sometimes faces questions about how its operations and maintenance
backlog relate to its pursuit of acquiring new fee-title land or
conservation easements.
The Refuge System, as part of its official charge from Congress,
has a mandate to ``. . .conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats. . ..'' One of the most effective ways to do this is to
protect areas that hold the greatest value for wildlife. This
approach--acquiring rights to land and water--is a clear priority for
both Congress and the majority of Americans who support preserving open
space and wildlife, as evidenced by the public comments at the
Administration's America's Great Outdoors sessions held last summer
throughout the country. Investment in newly conserved properties
provides more access for hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers;
creates jobs and economic benefit to local communities; increases
survival of wildlife; and helps private landowners preserve their
family lands and lifestyle, such as ranching, in perpetuity. Any one of
these reasons alone is a strong justification for conserving
irreplaceable lands--in some cases, remnants of the last places on
Earth where certain habitats exist, such as tallgrass prairie in the
Flint Hills of Kansas. But an equally compelling reason to purchase
land or acquire easements is that consolidating fragmented lands often
reduces operations and maintenance needs, thereby saving taxpayer
dollars.
Most new acquisitions or conservation easements acquired by the
Refuge System simply serve to fill in the gaps. Many are private
inholdings within or immediately adjacent to an existing refuge parcel.
Private inholdings may seem of small consequence, especially if the
majority of the surrounding land is already legally protected and
managed for wildlife. But those scattered and sometimes small
inholdings can have a disproportionate and often adverse effect on the
ability of a refuge to achieve its purpose. In a real way, strategic
acquisitions or easements can significantly simplify management and
reduce expenses related to signage, fencing, law enforcement patrols,
legal permits, rights-of-way conflicts, fire fighting, road
maintenance, habitat management and restoration, fighting invasive
species, and meet important conservation objectives.
For example, at Laguna Atascosa NWR in Texas, acquisition of a
tract already bordered on three sides by the refuge would result in
significant savings in terms of reduced law enforcement patrols and
maintenance, and improved management effectiveness. The refuge would no
longer require: maintenance for over 3 miles of fencing, which would
save nearly $200,000 over about 15 years; personnel to respond to
frequent cattle trespassing; or maintenance of fire breaks. In
addition, the acquisition would significantly improve the refuge's
ability to properly manage most of the water in the Bahia Grande
basins.
The Refuge System doesn't only acquire land to benefit wildlife,
people, and to streamline management and save money--we also contribute
to national security and a well-trained military. For example, Fort
A.P. Hill is one of the largest military installations on the East
Coast, but is located in a rapidly growing area in northern Virginia.
Urban and suburban development has become a major challenge for
military installations nationwide. Incompatible development--primarily
residential housing and stores--close to an installation's boundary can
limit training and other military operations. And so, in 2009, Fort
A.P. Hill, using its Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program,
partnered with nearby Rappahannock River Valley NWR and other partners
to cost-share the preservation of adjacent lands that hold conservation
and historic value. The ACUB program benefits military installations by
providing buffers between the installations and neighboring
communities. This enables the Army to more fully utilize the
installations for military purpose. In the case of Fort A.P. Hill
nearly 3,000 acres were preserved--a situation good for wildlife and
the preparedness of our nation's military.
Conclusion
The Refuge System is nothing if not creative and focused. Creative
in its use of partnerships to achieve an impressive amount of
conservation work, and focused in its wise use of limited resources to
get the highest-priority jobs done. While we always strive for a
prioritized, efficient approach, it is true that higher budgets allow
us to get more conservation done, and provide higher quality services
to visitors. And during lean times, we are able to make the tough
choices by prioritizing and using our resources efficiently, while
continuing our commitment to excellent public service.
The Refuge System continues to seek ways to streamline management
and find efficiencies. We have many ways to accomplish this, but one of
the most effective ways is to remember, and act upon, the foresight and
wisdom that Congress showed more than a decade ago, when in 1997 the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act ordered the growth of
``. . .the System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the
mission of the System. . .to contribute to the conservation of the
ecosystems of the United States. . ..''
We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this important issue
and hope we can cooperate to identify solutions that address our
highest priority needs while still allowing the Refuge System to meet
its mission.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank you, Mr. Kurth, for your testimony.
Next, we have Ms. Clark of the Defenders of Wildlife. You are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Ms. Clark. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
am Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of the
Defenders of Wildlife, and I really appreciate the opportunity
to testify today.
Defenders has more than a million members and supporters,
and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of all wild
animals and plants in their natural communities. As such, we
have been involved in the National Wildlife Refuge System law
and policy for decades.
We also work to secure strong investments in refuges as a
member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. As
the only Federal land system in the United States dedicated
primarily to wildlife conservation, the refuge system is of
paramount importance to all Americans, especially the 40
million people who, like me, enjoy refuges each year for
vacation destinations, or a break from the everyday city work
life that we are all wrapped up in.
Having served as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
from 1987 to 2001, I am very familiar with the causes and
implications of the Refuge System's operations and maintenance
backlog, and don't take them lightly.
The growth of the now $3.3 billion backlog is due to
consistent budget shortfalls which forces unfunded projects
into the growing list of deferred operations and maintenance
work.
CARE has estimated that the refuge system needs at least
$900 million annually to support and to adequately meet its
annual program costs. Yet, at its highest funding levels, it
reached only about $503 million in 2010.
Because appropriations typically fail to cover increases in
the annual fixed costs--utilities, rent, fuel, things like
that--funding to pay for these rising expenses is deferred from
important programs, further adding to the backlog.
As a result, Refuges are severely understaffed as you
mentioned, and lack the resources to get ahead of today's
conservation challenges, which are quite daunting. Visitor
facilities go without needed maintenance, and employees
struggle to maintain even existing recreational opportunities.
Yet, not surprisingly in today's society, the number of
refuge visitors keeps growing. With visitors spending estimated
to contribute $1.7 billion annually to local communities,
stronger Congressional investments in the refuge system would
pay even greater dividends to the local gateway communities and
local economies.
But there is hope. Recent increases in funding and
improvements, and in oversight and management efficiencies, as
Mr. Kurth mentioned, have reduced the operations backlog by
more than $300 million, and have kept the maintenance backlog
steady at about $2.7 billion for several years.
I will offer the following recommendations to build on this
success. First, it is critical that Congress work each year to
approach a funding level that at the minimum covers the Refuge
System's annual operating needs, and the annual needs adjusted
upwards, to account for the rising fixed costs that happen
every year.
Second, Congress should highlight funding of critically
needed staff positions that enable refuges to leverage
additional resources. As an example, the San Luis National
Wildlife Refuge Complex in California has effectively tripled
its annual operating budget by engaging other stakeholders.
At many refuges, however, personnel are generally spread
too thin to even be able to capitalize on similar
opportunities. Third, Congress and the Administration should
build on the Refuge System's newly initiated inventory and
monitoring program.
Collecting baseline data and tracking trends on each refuge
is essential to accurately determine priority management and
funding needs so that the dollars that are available are
directed to where they will be most effective and have long
range conservation gains.
Standardizing data collection and information management
needs among the various agencies as well will make this even
more useful. Finally, Congress and the Administration must
continue to invest in land acquisition, which benefits the
American people by safeguarding clean air and water, and
providing space for the important outdoor recreation needs,
protecting vital wildlife habitat and supporting local
economies.
Many acquisitions require little or no subsequent
investment, and some actually reduce operations and maintenance
costs by streamlining management efforts. The National Wildlife
Refuge System is a vital part of America's natural heritage.
Continuing to invest by reducing the operations and
maintenance backlog, and making critically important land
acquisition investments will pay dividends for our children and
future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
perspectives on this critical issue, and I am happy to respond
to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clark follows:]
Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President,
Defenders of Wildlife
Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Jamie
Rappaport Clark, Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife
(``Defenders''). I greatly appreciate this opportunity to testify on
behalf of Defenders today.
Founded in 1947, Defenders has more than one million supporters
across the nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of
all wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Defenders has
been substantively involved in National Wildlife Refuge System law and
policy for decades, and actively worked for passage of legislation that
culminated in the landmark National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (``Refuge Improvement Act''). Defenders has also been a
leading voice in the formulation of national policy guidance issued
since passage of the Refuge Improvement Act, including policies
addressing planning, compatibility and appropriateness of secondary
uses, biological integrity, diversity and environmental health,
wilderness, and recreational use. In addition, since 1995, Defenders
has been an active member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (``CARE''), a diverse coalition of 21 organizations,
including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National
Rifle Association, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. Representing more
than 14 million Americans, CARE works to educate Congress and the
American public about the Refuge System and to secure strong
investments in the valuable wildlife, lands, and waters it protects.
As the only federal land system in the U.S. dedicated primarily to
the conservation of wildlife and habitat, the Refuge System is of
paramount importance to Defenders and to all Americans, especially the
more than 40 million people who visit and enjoy national wildlife
refuges each year. Having also served as Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (``Service'') from 1997 to 2001 after a career in
federal service as a wildlife biologist first with the Department of
the Army and then with the Service, I am very familiar with the causes
and implications of the Refuge System's operations and maintenance
backlog. In my testimony, I will highlight these subjects, as well as
offer some suggestions for addressing the backlog.
The Growth of the Backlog
The Refuge System's estimated operations and maintenance backlog
has grown from approximately $1 billion in 1996 to its current total of
$3.3 billion. There are several causes of this rapid growth. Most
important to recognize is the System's chronic and severe underfunding.
With appropriations that have consistently failed to cover annual
program needs, unfunded projects have been forced onto the growing list
of deferred operations and maintenance projects. The longer a project
is delayed, the higher the cost of funding it later.
Also largely unaccounted for in appropriations have been annual
increases needed to cover rising fixed costs, including salaries,
utilities, rent, and fuel. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs
at least $15 million each year just to keep up with these annual fixed
costs. But as funding fails to include these adjustments, money to pay
for these rising costs must be diverted from habitat management,
visitor services, law enforcement, maintenance, or other programs,
further adding to the extensive backlog.
Finally, the magnitude of the backlog's growth since 1996 is
misleading, as some of the increase can be attributed to changes in
quantifying the System's facilities. Earlier calculations were based on
inconsistent assessments that failed to account for basic assets such
as roads and levees. By implementing a more comprehensive and
standardized approach, the Refuge System now has more accurate records
of its facilities, helping to correct earlier underestimates of true
maintenance needs.
Impacts of the Backlog
At $3.3 billion, the current backlog has left personnel struggling
to uphold the System's mission to conserve wildlife for the American
public, as well as to harness its full potential as an economic driver
of local communities. At the end of FY 2010, nearly 12,800 refuge
facilities were overdue for scheduled maintenance or replacement,
accounting for a maintenance backlog totaling more than $2.7 billion.
The operations backlog, at close to $677 million, consisted of
approximately 5,600 project needs, including important staff positions;
more than half of these needs are considered critical to the System's
mission.
These deficiencies have clearly taken a toll on the Refuge System.
Refuges do not have the resources to treat millions of acres infested
with invasive plants and animals. The staff of law enforcement
officers, numbering 213, is barely one-quarter of the 845 officers
recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in a
2005 analysis. In many cases, the System has coped with funding
shortfalls by grouping several refuge units into a single complex,
allowing staff and resources to be shared, though they are generally
spread too thin to adequately address management needs.
The impacts extend to the public as well. Funding shortfalls have
meant that many visitor facilities go without needed maintenance or
repairs, sometimes posing risks to public safety. Severe staffing
shortages also hamstring efforts to expand or even maintain existing
visitor use opportunities such as wildlife observation, hunting,
fishing, and environmental education. Despite these challenges, a
steadily growing number of refuge visitors, approximately 45 million in
FY 2010, indicates that the Refuge System has only begun to scratch the
surface of its true potential to attract the public. Furthermore, with
the Service's Banking on Nature report estimating that spending by
refuge visitors in 2006 contributed $1.7 billion to local communities
alone, Defenders believes that stronger congressional investments in
the Refuge System would pay even greater dividends by further improving
the health of these local economies.
Addressing the Backlog
While the backlog may appear insurmountable and has undoubtedly
held the Refuge System back from fully delivering on its conservation
and public use goals, progress has been made. Steady increases in the
operations and maintenance budget between FY 2008 and FY 2010 have
helped the System to not only keep pace with rising costs, but also
begin to make progress on some of the management challenges that have
held it back from reaching its full potential. Funds from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act have also supported important projects on
the maintenance backlog, which has held relatively steady at about $2.7
billion during the past several years. Meanwhile, the operations
backlog actually declined by more than $300 million as a result of
utilizing new staffing models, updating project information, and
securing partnership opportunities.
These trends show that the combined efforts of the Administration
and Congress can have meaningful, positive impacts on this backlog.
Defenders urges the subcommittee to consider the following
recommendations to build on these important steps forward.
Provide Annual Funding that Matches Annual Needs
CARE has estimated that the Refuge System needs at least $900
million to adequately meet its annual program costs. Yet, its highest
funding level reached only $503 million in FY 2010. To prevent new
projects from worsening the backlog, Congress must work to approach a
funding level that, at a minimum, covers the Refuge System's annual
needs. Each year, that funding must also be adjusted upward to account
for rising fixed costs that would otherwise erode the System's ability
to maintain a consistent level of management from one year to the next.
Support Partnerships and Volunteer Opportunities
With many refuges severely understaffed, available personnel are
generally spread too thin to capitalize on partnership opportunities
that could otherwise improve volunteer involvement and leveraging of
additional resources. In contrast, for example, San Luis National
Wildlife Refuge Complex in central California, being comparatively well
staffed, has been known to effectively triple its annual budget by
engaging in partnerships with other interested stakeholders. These
extra resources have enabled staff to accomplish more of its
restoration work, treat more acres of invasive species, and provide
more successful hunting programs for the public. This situation
demonstrates the great potential that exists when sufficient staffing
is available to foster such partnerships, and how much is being lost at
other wildlife refuges without adequate staffing. We urge Congress to
fund critically needed positions that will provide more refuges the
capacity to harness opportunities like those at the San Luis Refuge
Complex.
Advance a Coordinated Inventory and Monitoring Program
The Service must continue working to identify opportunities to
improve its management efficiency, which should include building on the
Refuge System's newly initiated inventory and monitoring program.
Collecting baseline data and tracking trends on each refuge is
essential to more accurately determine management and funding needs so
that dollars can be directed toward the highest-priority actions.
Standardizing data collection and information management across all
Service regions and among the various federal land management agencies
will maximize the efficiency with which data can be analyzed and
shared, as well as ensure that data will continue to be useful over
time. Congress should work with the Administration to develop a
streamlined and coordinated approach to inventory and monitoring work.
Continue to Invest in Wildlife Conservation and Ecosystem Services
through Critically Important Land Acquisition
The Refuge Improvement Act, passed with overwhelming bipartisan
support, directs the Secretary of the Interior to ``plan and direct the
continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to
accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation
of the ecosystems of the United States, to complement efforts of States
and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their
habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from
conservation partners and the public.'' In addition to protecting
crucial wildlife habitat across an increasingly fragmented landscape,
Defenders believes that land acquisition is a profitable investment
that benefits the American public by safeguarding clean air and water
supplies, providing space for outdoor recreation, and supporting local
economies.
Inholdings, in particular, provide great potential to directly
address operations and maintenance costs. As refuges incrementally
acquire land within their acquisition boundaries, private inholdings
often leave a patchwork of protected land that creates challenges for
activities such as invasive species control and fire management.
Acquiring these lands from willing sellers improves habitat
connectivity, in turn helping to reduce future federal management
efforts and costs.
Conclusion
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a vital part of America's
natural heritage, conserving wildlife, providing clean water and other
ecosystem services, affording abundant opportunities for hunting,
fishing, and other outdoor recreation activities, and serving as a
living laboratory for environmental education and science. Continuing
to invest in the System today by reducing the operations and
maintenance backlog and making critically important land acquisitions
will pay tremendous dividends for our children and future generations.
Defenders of Wildlife stands ready to work with Congress and the
Administration to find efficient and cost-effective ways to reduce the
Refuge System's operations and maintenance backlog. I thank you for the
opportunity to share my perspectives on this critical issue, and I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Next is Mr. Dan Forster,
of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. You are now
recognized for five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAN FORSTER, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE RESOURCES
DIVISION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Forster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to share perspectives of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies on the operations and maintenance backlog within the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
I am Dan Forster, and I serve as the Director of the
Wildlife Resources Division with the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, and am Vice Chairman of the Executive
Committee for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
The Association, and the 50 individual State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, have had a longstanding interest and
involvement in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and were
instrumental in deliberations leading to the passage of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.
The Refuge System has a long history of important
contributions to conservation of our Nation's fish and wildlife
resources, and support some of the fish and wildlife habitats
in the country, as well as outstanding hunting and fishing
opportunities.
Refuges are also important to the local communities for
wildlife dependent recreation. Our Association has consistently
supported appropriate increases to the Fish and Wildlife
Service's budget, and our appropriations recommendations
provided to Congress each year, but let me acknowledge what we
all know, which is that this is a stringent fiscal involvement
in which we find ourselves.
And the States are struggling financially as well. So we
understand the budget constraints to which we seek to advance
conservation. I would suggest that these circumstances compel
even greater cooperation between the Service and the respective
State Fish and Wildlife Agencies in order to prioritize fish
and wildlife conservation needs, while continuing priority
public uses on the National Wildlife Refuges.
Let me reflect for a moment in Georgia. In my own State,
the nine wildlife refuges, comprising half-a-million acres, are
managed with just 44 staff positions. That is a shortfall of 48
permanent and 18 temporary positions as identified in the
refuge system's 2009 national staffing model.
The staffing shortage for permanent positions exceeds 50
percent. Without adequate in-house labor, small projects, such
as repairing a boardwalk, simply don't get done in a timely
manner.
And tough priority-based decisions are being made
concerning roads, trails, water impoundments, hatcheries, and
other facilities, that impact the quality of a visitor's
experience, and sometimes their safety.
In Georgia, the current backlog for deferred maintenance is
56.3 million, and additionally, there are more than 90 mission-
critical habitat projects totaling over 10 million that remain
unfunded in our State.
And while Georgia has not had to endure the wrath of
catastrophes like our neighbors in southeastern States from
hurricanes, oil spills, or floods, we have endured extended
droughts and wildfires.
Even today a wildfire in Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge has burned more than 145,000 acres and is not yet fully
contained. Such catastrophic events further inhibit the
Service's ability to complete day-to-day maintenance work, and
each crises stretches every available equipment operator,
maintenance technician, and biologist from our respective
agencies.
And as a Service my agency in Georgia continues to struggle
to do more with less, we are forging innovative partnerships to
accomplish common goals. We are working together on a greenway-
`blueway project in the heart of Georgia near Piedmont and Bond
Swamp National Wildlife Refuges to conserve land and water.
On the coast, we are working cooperatively through the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, and the Atlantic Flyway Council
to conserve migratory bird habitats, while enhancing bird
watching and hunting on private lands, and State lands, as well
as refuge lands.
And, finally, we joined forces with the Service and others
in the fledgling South Atlantic Landscape Conservation
Cooperative. We believe that the LLC's collaborative science
based approach to large scale conservation efforts is the best
way to ensure that we are spending the right dollars in the
right place.
And as Congress considers how to address the refuge
backlog, I would certainly ask that you look favorably upon
resource needs of some of these important partnerships as well.
Let me conclude simply by reiterating that cooperation with
the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies can result in improved
deficiencies, but States need to be engaged early by the
Service to meet both the local refuge mission, but also
contribute to the conservation objectives of the State Fish and
Wildlife Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here before you today. I
appreciate the chance to speak, and would be happy to address
any questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forster follows:]
Statement of Dan Forster, Director, Wildlife Resources Division,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the
perspectives of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the
operations and maintenance backlog within the National Wildlife Refuge
System. I am Dan Forster, Director of the Georgia Wildlife Resources
Division and Vice Chair of the Executive Committee of the Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. All 50 states are members of the
Association.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies promotes and
facilitates sound fish and wildlife management and conservation, and is
the collective voice of North America's fish and wildlife agencies. The
Association provides its member agencies and their senior staff with
coordination services that range from migratory birds, fish, habitat,
and invasive species, to conservation education, leadership
development, and international relations. The Association represents
its state fish and wildlife agency members on Capitol Hill and before
the Administration on key conservation and management policies, and
works to ensure that all fish and wildlife entities work
collaboratively on the most important issues.
The Association and the 50 individual State fish and wildlife
agencies have a long-standing interest and involvement in the National
Wildlife Refuge System, and its contribution to fish, wildlife and
habitat conservation. We were instrumental in deliberations leading to
the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Improvement Act) and in assisting in the drafting of its
implementing policies. Hunting, fishing and other wildlife-dependent
recreational uses on National Wildlife Refuges are deeply valued by
hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts because of the tremendous
opportunities refuges provide, especially in areas where public lands
are limited. As you are aware, the sale of duck stamps, purchased by
sportsmen and sportswomen, has historically provided the bulk of the
funding for acquisition of refuges across the nation.
The National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history of important
contributions to the conservation of our nation's fish and wildlife.
The Refuge System has grown enormously over the past century and,
today, our National Wildlife Refuges support some of the best fish and
wildlife habitats in the country, as well as outstanding hunting and
fishing opportunities. Refuges are important to local communities for
wildlife-dependent recreation. Through the Improvement Act, Congress
recognized that these recreational activities promote effective refuge
management and help the American public develop an appreciation for
fish and wildlife. The Association and State fish and wildlife agencies
are strongly committed to working cooperatively with the Service on
managing the Refuge System.
NWR System Operations and Maintenance Backlog
The Association acknowledges the significant backlog in this area
and has consistently supported appropriate increases to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service budget in the Association's Appropriations
recommendations provided each year to Congress. The Association was
also a founding organization of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) in 1995. This diverse group of fish and wildlife
conservation organizations, sportsmen's organizations, and
environmental organizations was formed to support and advocate enhanced
funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System, reflecting the value
of the System to all our citizens. The Association supports the works
of CARE to bring attention to the needs of the System, and commends to
you the most recent Annual Report, which synthesizes the compelling
needs of the NWR System.
With respect to the backlog and ways to remedy it, let me
acknowledge what we all know, and that is the stringent fiscal
environment in which we find ourselves. The states have been and
continue to endure budget reductions, staff furloughs, staff reductions
and other measures, so we understand the budget constraints in which we
seek to advance conservation. In this context of reduced and
scrutinized state and federal budgets, I would suggest that these
circumstances compel even greater cooperation between the FWS and the
respective state fish and wildlife agency in order to prioritize fish
and wildlife conservation needs while continuing priority public uses
of the NWRs, the so-called ``big 6''--hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education, and
interpretation. Both the FWS and the States have authorities and
responsibilities for managing fish and wildlife on the NWRS. The
Improvement Act of 1997 gives clear Congressional direction to and
encouragement of that cooperation, creates a framework in which it can
and should happen, and acknowledges the value of state fish and
wildlife strategic plans in informing NWR conservation and public use
programs. Further in my statement I summarize for the record those
particular aspects of the so-called Refuge Organic Act (the Improvement
Act).
Let me reflect here on the work of the Georgia Wildlife Resources
Division with the Fish and Wildlife Service on NWR management to
illustrate needs and opportunities to be realized by closer
cooperation.
In my own State of Georgia, the 9 national wildlife refuges
comprising half a million acres are managed with just 44 staff
positions. That's a shortfall of 48 permanent and 18 temporary
positions as identified in the Refuge System's 2009 national staffing
model. The staffing shortage for permanent positions exceeds 50
percent.
It's important to explain the backlog in operations and maintenance
in the context of the priority public uses for wildlife-dependent
recreation outlined in the Improvement Act. Without adequate in-house
labor, small projects like repairing a boardwalk or information kiosks
that support environmental education, wildlife photography and birding
opportunities simply don't get done in a timely manner. In addition,
tough priority-based decisions are being made concerning annual
maintenance projects on roads, trails, and other refuge facilities that
impact the quality of our visitors' experience as well as their safety.
Freshwater impoundments and associated facilities don't get the
maintenance they need impacting public hunting opportunities for
waterfowl and other priority uses. In Georgia, the current backlog for
deferred maintenance on existing facilities is $56.3 million.
Additionally, more than 90 mission-critical habitat projects totaling
$10.1 million remain unfunded in Georgia.
And while Georgia has not been hit with major catastrophes to the
same degree our neighboring Southeastern states have had to endure from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, to last year's BP oil spill, to
the ongoing floods in the Mississippi Valley, extended droughts and
wildfires have afflicted us. You may remember the record setting Big
Turnaround Fire at Okefenokee NWR in 2007, and today a wildfire at
Okefenokee has burned more than 145,000 acres and is not yet fully
contained. Such catastrophic events further inhibit the Service's
ability to complete day-to-day maintenance work. Each crisis stretches
every available equipment operator, maintenance technician,
firefighter, and biologist from our respective agencies.
The Service and my agency in Georgia continue to struggle to do
more with less. As we face these collective challenges, we are forging
innovative partnerships to accomplish common goals. In the heart of
Georgia, we are working together on a greenway-blueway trail plan to
conserve land and waters that increase recreational opportunities and
eco-tourism in the Ocumulgee River Floodplain near the Piedmont and
Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuges. On the coast, we are working
together on both the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and the Atlantic
Flyway Council to conserve migratory bird populations while enhancing
bird watching and hunting opportunities on private lands, State areas,
and coastal Refuges. On the southern boundary, surrounding our iconic
Okefenokee Swamp, we are cooperating with private landowners to battle
the ongoing 147,000-acre wildfire on the Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge. Together, these help us meet ``the big 6'' priority public
uses.
Finally, to contribute to the conservation objectives my state
agency has and the science capacity my agency needs to meet those
objectives, we have joined forces with the Service and our partners
around the conservation table in the fledgling South Atlantic Landscape
Conservation Cooperative. We believe the LCC's collaborative, science-
based approach to large-scale conservation efforts is the best way to
ensure we are spending the right dollar in the right spot. As Congress
considers how to address the National Wildlife Refuge System's critical
maintenance backlog, please also consider the resource needs of these
important partnerships.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
The Improvement Act, completed after years of bipartisan discussion
and deliberation, truly represents a benchmark in the history of the
Refuge System. It established a statutory mission of the Refuge System
to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish
and wildlife and their habitats. With the Improvement Act, Congress
reaffirmed that National Wildlife Refuges are for fish and wildlife
conservation first, clearly setting them apart from other federal
public lands. In addition, Congress directed the Service that
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority
general public uses of the Refuge System and shall receive priority
consideration in refuge planning and management. No less important is
Congress' direction to the Service to effectively coordinate management
of fish and wildlife within the Refuge System with state wildlife
agencies.
The Improvement Act, and its legislative history, is replete with
explicit Congressional direction to the Secretary of the Interior (and
thus the USFWS) regarding management of the System, its mission,
appropriate public use, and coordination with the State fish and
wildlife agencies.
The mission of the NWR System is articulated in law as:
``The mission of the System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans''.
The law goes on to further articulate that it is the policy of the
United States that:
(A) ``each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of
the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that
refuge was established;
(B) compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate
and appropriate general public use of the System, directly
related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many
refuges, and which generally fosters refuge management and
through which the American public can develop an appreciation
for fish and wildlife.
(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the
priority general public uses of the System and shall receive
priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and
(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-
dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge,
that activity should be facilitated, subject to such
restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable,
and appropriate.''
The law defines ``wildlife dependent recreation'' and ``wildlife
dependent recreational use'' to mean ``. . .a use of a refuge involving
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or
environmental education and interpretation''. These activities have
become popularly known in the jargon as ``the big 6''. Clearly Congress
intended the Secretary to facilitate these ``big 6'' activities as long
as they were compatible. As the Committee Report (House Report 105-106)
further amplifies:
``The term `facilitated' was deliberately chosen to represent a
strong sense of encouragement, but not a requirement, that ways
be sought to permit wildlife-dependent uses to occur if they
are compatible. As Secretary Babbitt stated during the
negotiations leading to H.R. 1420: `The law will be whispering
in the manager's ear that she or he should look for ways to
permit the use if the compatibility requirement can be met.' By
the same token, however, the Committee recognizes that there
will be occasions when, based on sound professional judgment,
the manager will determine that such uses will be found to be
incompatible and cannot be authorized.''
And, with respect to the issue of budget shortfalls and
facilitation of the ``big 6'' uses, the Committee Report contemplated
this circumstance and provide this direction:
``New Section 5(3) defines the term `sound professional
judgment' as the collection of findings, determinations and
decisions that support compatibility determinations. Such
determinations are inherently complex and will require the
manager to consider principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and administration, available science and resources,
and compliance with applicable laws. Implicit within this
definition is that financial resources, personnel and
infrastructure be available to manage permitted activities. The
Committee expects the USFWS to be energetic and creative in
seeking such resources, including partnerships with the States,
local communities and private and nonprofit groups. The
Committee also expects the USFWS to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that lack of funding is not an obstacle to permitting
otherwise compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.''
The law further directs that the Secretary shall, in administering
the System,''. . .ensure effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with. . .. the fish and wildlife agency of the State in
which the units of the System are located.'' And, Congress further
directed that the Secretary, in preparing a comprehensive conservation
plan for each refuge, do so not only consistent with the Improvement
Act, but ''. . .to the extent practicable, consistent with fish and
wildlife conservation plans of the state in which the refuge is
located. . .'' Finally, Congress exempted coordination with State Fish
and Wildlife Agency personnel pursuant to the Improvement Act from the
application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We conclude that
this is very clear statutory direction that management of the System is
done in close cooperation with the state fish and wildlife agencies.
I would direct your attention to USFWS Policy 601 FW 7, entitled
``Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency
Representatives on Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System''.
It says, in part:
``Sec. 4 What is the Service's policy on coordination with the
States?
a) Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, plants
and their habitats depends on the professional
relationship between managers at the State and Federal
level. The Service acknowledges the unique expertise
and role of State fish and wildlife agencies in the
management of fish and wildlife.
b) Both the Service and the State fish and wildlife
agencies have authorities and responsibilities for
management of fish and wildlife on national wildlife
refuges as described in 43 CFR 24. Consistent with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act, the Director of the Service will
interact, coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate with
the State fish and wildlife agencies in a timely and
effective manner on the acquisition and management of
national wildlife refuges. Under the Administration Act
and 43 CFR 24, the Director as the Secretary's designee
will ensure that National Wildlife Refuge System
regulations and management plans are, to the extent
practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations,
and management plans. We charge refuge managers, as the
designated representatives of the Director at the local
level, with carrying out these directives. We will
provide State fish and wildlife agencies timely and
meaningful opportunities to participate in the
development and implementation of programs conducted
under this policy. This opportunity will most commonly
occur through State fish and wildlife agency
representation on the comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP) planning teams; however, we will provide other
opportunities for the State fish and wildlife agencies
to participate in the development and implementation of
program changes that would be made outside of the CCP
process. Further, State fish and wildlife agencies will
continue to be provided opportunities to discuss and,
if necessary, elevate decisions within the hierarchy of
the Service''.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by reiterating that with respect to the System
maintenance and operations in light of budget shortfalls, cooperation
with the State fish and wildlife agencies can result in better
ameliorating the results of budget shortfalls, but states need to be
engaged early by the Service. Both the FWS and State fish and wildlife
agencies have authorities and responsibilities for managing fish and
wildlife on NWRs. A collective discussion between the FWS and the State
fish and wildlife agency can reflect on which respective agencies have
what capability and resources to continue effective administration of
the individual refuge to meet both its mission and its contribution to
the conservation objectives of the State fish and wildlife agency.
State fish and wildlife agencies likely will want to assist (or
continue to assist) in administration of certain programs as hunting
and fishing but many will likely need some provision of federal funding
or at least a cost-sharing of some type. Otherwise, this could become
an unfunded mandate to the states.
We are concerned that the Service's practice (in response to budget
shortfalls) of putting Refuges into ``preservation'' status could mean
no public activities, including the ``big 6'' mandated by Congress,
will be allowed. There needs to be clear direction from the USFWS
Director that the provision of these 6 activities are priority public
uses and all other uses are secondary to them. Let me reiterate again
that we have no argument that the conservation mission of the System is
pre-eminent and that the FWS, in cooperation with the State fish and
wildlife agencies, is obligated to fulfill that mission. But, it is
eminently clear that the ``big 6'' are the priority public uses and
Congress has directed the Service to facilitate those uses.
Finally, the Service is currently moving forward with an enormous
effort to develop a renewed vision for the National Wildlife Refuge
System, with the national conference, Conserving the Future: Wildlife
Refuges and the Next Generation, to be held in Madison, Wisconsin in
July 2011. The Association and State fish and wildlife agencies are
represented on the vision process steering committee, and will
participate in the vision conference, to address the states' priorities
for the Refuge System. The Service's Conserving the Future Conference
provides the perfect forum for facilitating discussions on the issues
raised in this testimony, reaffirming the importance of the Improvement
Act and its direction to the Service regarding management of the Refuge
System, its mission, appropriate public use, and coordination with the
State fish and wildlife agencies, and how best to implement the
Service's new vision.
Mr. Chairman and honored committee members, thank you for the
opportunity to share our perspectives and I would be pleased to address
any questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Forster. And that was perfect
timing, within three seconds of five minutes. You may get the
prize today. Next we have Ms. Recce of the National Rifle
Association. You are recognized, Ma'am, for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN RECCE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES, INSTITUTION FOR LEGISLATIVE
ACTION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Recce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Rife
Association appreciates the invitation that was extended to us
to testify. The growing backlog of operation and maintenance
needs within the Refuge System has been of great concern to the
NRA and its hunter members as far back as 15 years ago.
We helped form a coalition to address this problem that was
just mentioned, which is the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement, and the NRA has been an active participant in that
CARE group over the past 15 years.
We are also here because hunters have been the backbone of
the Refuge System dating back to 1903 when the first refuge was
created. More than $50 million has been generated for the
Refuge System, largely by waterfowl hunters through the
purchase of the Duck Stamp, which has added more than five
million acres of wetland and grassland habitat to the system.
This volunteer citizen based revenue for Federal land
acquisition is unparalleled anywhere else, and exemplifies the
unique role that hunters play in wildlife conversation. Some
might suggest that funding for land acquisition further
exacerbates the problem of financing the management
responsibilities that go with acquiring new land.
The NRA views the Duck Stamp revenue and Congressional
appropriations for land acquisition as a requirement for good
citizen and government investment, and in the present and
future protection and restoration of wildlife resources that
this country is blessed with.
Mr. Chairman, the NRA appreciates the attention that your
Subcommittee is focusing on the backlog, and of particular
concern to us is the impact that it could have on hunting,
which is a wildlife dependent activity recognized as a priority
public use in the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Over half of the 533 refuges which we have today are open
to hunting. What is unlikely is that the refuge system will
become self-sustaining or fully funded with annual
appropriations. More can be done with what is already being
utilized.
First is strengthening partnerships, especially with the
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which Mr. Forster just spoke about.
Second, is the better utilization of volunteers. People who
volunteer their time and labor at refuges contribute around 20
percent of the total work accomplished.
That is the equivalent of 643 full-time employees out of a
workforce of 3,500. One-fifth of the total projects
accomplished by volunteers is an impressive figure, but it is
possible to increase that.
Volunteers are supervised by visitor services staff, but
often times when the money is tight the position is absorbed or
not filled, meaning that all the potential volunteer labor
can't be harnessed.
It also takes staff time to train volunteers to teach and
supervise others, and so the network of volunteers could be
hugely expanded with a small investment in visitor services for
staff.
Further, volunteers are a resource that can be shared by
several State and Federal land managers in a geographic area.
So there would be no loss of opportunity for those who want to
volunteer.
This is an area that needs to be examined closely as many
of the baby boomer generation have retired, or about to retire,
and have the health, education, income, skills, and interest to
do something of value.
Another administrative step would be to expand the
interagency partnership that was created in Nevada in 1997,
where the four Federal land management agencies formed a
Southern Nevada Agency Partnership, or SNAP.
They share resources and agency volunteers, and law
enforcement duties are cross-delegated, and they work together
on long term planning. Another idea that has been discussed is
the issuance of a stamp, the cost of which could be a few cents
above the cost of the current postage stamp, with the
additional funds going to the Refuge System.
The Postal Service recently issued a stamp for
international wildlife. Congress could do something similar for
our native wildlife and the Refuge System. You had mentioned
about fee increases, and I just want to say that I am concerned
about any further increases, because I think that there are a
lot of the public who believe that their taxpayer dollars
already pay for the upkeep of Federal lands, even though we
know that is not the case.
And so I am concerned that there may be resistance to that.
I also believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
other land managing agencies have had ample time to tap the
authorities and resources available to them to raise revenue
through that source, and I think that we might want to be
needing to look elsewhere.
And in closing the refuge system protects resources that
hunters and millions of other Americans cherish, and they have
put a lot of their time and money into protecting that
investment.
The first and least costly approach to reducing the backlog
is for the Administration to find ways in which volunteerism
and partnerships with State and Federal Agencies can be
improved and expanded upon. This concludes my remarks. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Recce follows:]
Statement of Susan Recce, Director, Division of Conservation Wildlife
and Natural Resources, National Rifle Association
The National Rifle Association (NRA) appreciates the invitation to
testify today. The growing backlog of operation and maintenance needs
within the Refuge System is of such concern to the NRA and its hunter
members that we helped form a coalition more than 15 years ago to
address this problem. We have been an active participant in the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) since that time.
Hunters have been the backbone of the National Wildlife Refuge
System dating back to 1903 when hunter-conservationist President
Theodore Roosevelt established Pelican Island as the first national
wildlife refuge. Today, there are 553 refuges, with over half or 322
opened to hunting.
Over the past 7 decades, more than $750 million have been generated
for the Refuge System, largely by waterfowl hunters through the
purchase of the Duck Stamp. This amounts to nearly $25 million
annually. The Duck Stamp was J.N. ``Ding'' Darling's visionary approach
to building a system of federal lands that are set aside primarily for
wildlife and the protection of habitat.
Ninety-eight cents out of every Duck Stamp dollar is spent directly
on purchasing land for the Refuge System. Thanks to the support of
hunters across America, more than 5 million acres of wetland and
grassland habitat has been added to the Refuge System. This volunteer,
citizen-based revenue for federal land acquisition is unparalleled
anywhere else, in the United States or the world, and exemplifies the
unique role that hunters play in wildlife conservation.
Some might suggest that funding for land acquisition further
exacerbates the problem of financing the management responsibilities
that go with acquisition of new lands. The NRA views the Duck Stamp
revenue and Congressional appropriations for land acquisition as a
requirement for good citizen and government investment in the present
and future protection and restoration of natural resources that this
country is blessed with.
That is why the NRA supports CARE's mission to increase the level
of operations and maintenance funding for the Refuge System through
moderate increases in annual appropriations. That mission helps protect
our hunters' long-standing investment in the Refuge System.
Well known is the fact that the operations and maintenance backlog
for the Refuge System is over $3.6 billion; a backlog that can affect
the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide quality
opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent
recreation. The figure is staggering, but what federal land system does
not have a long list of needs with a sizeable price tag at the end of
the column. The National Park Service, as an example, faces in the
neighborhood of $9 billion in backlog needs.
Mr. Chairman, the NRA appreciates the attention your Subcommittee
is focusing on the current backlog of the Refuge System and inviting
suggestions on how to address this burden that hangs over the Refuge
System. There is no question that the size of the backlog means that
many critical elements of running the Refuge System, like wildlife and
habitat management projects, facility upkeep and equipment maintenance,
cannot be accomplished or are severely constrained because of limited
funding.
Of particular concern to us is the impact on wildlife-dependent
activities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing that were
recognized as important responsibilities of the Refuge System when they
were made ``priority public uses'' in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. All those who value this unique system
of lands have a real concern over how to keep annual funding levels at
least minimally adequate.
In the letter of invitation, Mr Chairman, you asked several
questions of the witnesses. The first question is why the operations
and maintenance backlog has increased over seven fold in the last 15
years.
It probably goes without saying that fixed costs are always on the
rise and that it will always be a contributing factor as are costs
associated with deferring maintenance so that repair costs are greater
when the problem has grown larger. But I believe the greatest factor is
due to a better accounting of what assets the Refuge System contains
and, consequently, the costs associated with maintaining those
additional assets.
The partnership that CARE has developed with the Fish and Wildlife
Service over the same period of time could have resulted in this
increased backlog because of the importance that CARE has placed on a
scrupulous accounting of operations and maintenance needs, along with
the accounting of every dollar spent on the backlog. Given that the
span of time under review parallels that of CARE's existence, an
improved tracking system that CARE insisted upon could be the reason
why the backlog increased substantially over the last 15 years.
CARE has consistently asked for concrete date from the Service that
would allow us to understand the backlog and overall needs of the
Refuge System in order to fully function. Our requests for information
have become more finely tuned, and as a result the way in which the
Service collects data has improved. As the Service becomes more
efficient in the way information is collected, the backlog will likely
grow, although in some cases it has declined. As noted in CARE's 20ll
report to Congress entitled, ``Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges''
the operations backlog was reduced from $1 billion to $677 million due
to new staffing models, the updating of project information and the
leveraging of partnerships.
There are also specific impacts on operation and maintenance needs
that have contributed substantially to the $3.3 billion backlog. As
noted in CARE's 201l report, the cost of demolition and management for
7 refuges established since FY 2000 on former military sites added
$65.5 million alone to the backlog. The cost of the cleanup was not
absorbed by the Department of Defense before the lands were transferred
to the Service.
I also believe that the challenges the Service faces and that the
Refuge System has to respond to have also increased like fighting the
spread of invasive species, improving habitat for the growing list of
threatened and endangered species, intensifying land management in the
face of the incursion of suburban development deeper into rural areas,
and responding to contaminants that reach refuges from outside its
borders. The important question is what steps can be taken
administratively or legislatively to reverse this backlog, or at least
to whittle it down.
While there will likely never be solutions that will result in the
Refuge System becoming self sustaining or fully funded with annual
appropriations, I do believe more can be done with what is already
being utilized. First is strengthening partnerships, especially with
the state fish and wildlife agencies. Many state agencies already have
agreements with specific refuges to assist in managing visitor
programs, like hunting, as well as to share in law enforcement
responsibilities and wildlife restoration projects of mutual benefit.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies are in the best position
to speak to that specifically.
Second is the better utilization of volunteers. People who
volunteer their time and labor at refuges contribute around 20% of the
total work accomplished on refuges--the equivalent of 643 full-time
employees for a workforce of just 3,500. One-fifth of the total
projects on refuges accomplished by volunteers is an impressive figure,
but it is possible to increase that percentage with some administrative
adjustments.
For example, volunteers are supervised by Visitor Services staff,
but often times when the money is tight, the position is absorbed into
other duties or not filled, meaning that all that potential in-kind
labor and resource cannot be harnessed and utilized. It also takes
staff time to train volunteers to teach and supervise other volunteers,
so the network of volunteerism could be hugely expanded with a small
investment in Visitor Services staff to manage a team of refuge
volunteers.
This is an area that needs to be examined closely as many people of
the ``baby boomer'' generation have retired or about to retire and have
the health, education, income, skills, and interest to do something of
value. In order to tap this potentially huge pool of volunteers, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has to have the staff resources to supervise
and train volunteers. Further, volunteers are a resource that can be
shared by several land managers in the geographic area so there would
be no loss of opportunity to volunteer or work to be accomplished. It
also may be valuable to have a survey conducted of volunteers and
refuge ``Friends Groups'' to find out what they believe could be done
to increase volunteerism on refuges. I suspect they know more than
anyone else what it takes to recruit and retain good volunteers.
Another administrative step would be to expand to other states the
interagency partnership that has been developed in Nevada. In 1997, the
4 land management agencies, the National Park Service, Forest Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM formed SNAP, the Southern Nevada
Agency Partnership. They share resources and volunteers; law
enforcement duties are cross delegated and they work together on long-
term planning. While each agency has its own mandates, they have a
common goal of assisting each other.
One idea that has been discussed is the issuance of a stamp, the
cost of which could be a few cents above the cost of the current
postage stamp with the additional funds going to the Refuge System. The
Postal Service recently issued a stamp for international wildlife, the
``Save Vanishing Species'' stamp at a cost of 55 cents to be sold for
the next 2 years. This was the result of bi-partisan Congressional
action last year. Congress could do something similar for our native
wildlife. A Refuge System stamp, supported by the power of the 14
million members and supporters that make up the CARE organizations,
could be very successful.
If it involves going to the public, any revenue raised outside of
appropriations would have to be voluntary. Many people believe that
their tax dollars pay for or should pay for the upkeep of federal
public lands. Resistance to the payment of entrance fees has arisen
because of that belief. So, it is unlikely that fee increases will be
well-received. And, I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service, along
with the other agencies, have had ample time to tap the authorities and
resources available to them to raise revenue through that source.
In summary, the National Wildlife Refuge System protects resources
that hunters and anglers and millions of other Americans cherish and
they have put a lot of their own time and money into protecting that
investment. There will always be some level of backlog that annual
appropriations cannot cover. I believe the first and least costly
approach to reducing the backlog that can't be done through
appropriations is for the Administration to find ways in which
volunteerism and partnerships with state and federal agencies can be
improved and expanded.
______
Dr. Fleming. Next we have William P. Horn of the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance, who is now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM P. HORN, COUNSEL,
UNITED STATES SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My comments are
also offered from the perspective of my service as Assistant
Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan, and the
privilege of having served as Chairman of the Wildlife Refuge
Centennial Commission eight years ago.
Now, in relative terms, refuges have been the red-headed
stepchild of public lands within the Interior Department. While
billions of dollars have been lavished on the smaller National
Park System--and I should note that the NPS operating budget is
well north of $2 billion a year--the Refuge System operates on
less than one-quarter of the Park System's funding.
And the Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, is to be
commended for having done a fine job over the years for doing
much more with less, compared to its sister bureau. Despite
these good efforts, the Service continues to fall behind in its
ability to effectively manage the refuge system.
And I think as the Chairman noted in his opening comments,
our debt crisis means that it is highly improbable that this
trend is going to be reversed by any significant expansion in
appropriations.
And I think that these facts mandate a fresh look at how
the refuge system should be operated and should be funded. We
would recommend that Congress consider the following options to
redress the operations and maintenance issues.
One, for there to be thorough scrutiny of funding
priorities, with an emphasis on those actions that do not
increase O&M costs, and those that decrease those costs.
Two, that more efficient means of actually managing refuge
units be identified; and, third, determine if expanded user
activities and associated user fees can enhance management and
operations revenues.
Only a comprehensive effort to look at priorities, cost
reductions, and revenue enhancements, are going to reverse the
present adverse trends. I want to focus on those last two. Now,
personnel costs dominated the refuge operations budget. Present
numbers indicate that the average Fish and Wildlife employee
working for the Refuge System costs over $90,000 a year.
In contrast, most State Fish and Wildlife Agencies have
significant lower personnel costs, and many State Agencies
could likely provide comparable staffing for refuge units for
20 to 30 percent less personnel costs.
We strongly recommend that given the situations that we
face that the Service and Congress look to contracting with
State Fish and Wildlife Agencies to administer appropriate
selected refuge units.
Fish and Wildlife might be able to hire via this
contracting the same number of professional qualified staff for
significantly less money, enabling the Service to stretch its
dollars and still put boots on the ground to effectively manage
the refuge units.
And I would note that the 1997 Refuge Act specifically
includes language authorizing this very approach. Congress
recognized that such flexibility could be important and
anticipated allowing Fish and Wildlife to make the very such
arrangements.
Congress also needs to look at enhancing revenues from
refuge users. Authority to allow refuge entrance and user fees
was enacted in the mid-1980s during a similar period of Federal
budget restraints.
However, the Senate insisted when the bill passed that 80
percent of those fees be dedicated to land acquisition rather
than O&M. We think that given the O&M problems that it is time
to revisit that split, and that is something within the purview
of this Subcommittee and Congress.
In addition, more activities could be subject to reasonable
fees. Hunters and anglers already pay a multiplicity of license
and stamp fees, as well as excise taxes, all of which make up
the backbone of wildlife funding.
Nonetheless, we are prepared to pay additional reasonable
fees to help secure the refuge system. However, it is
imperative that other users who have traditionally paid nothing
for the privilege of using and enjoying refuges step up to the
plate to pay their share, and join the anglers and the hunters.
We believe that more revenue from refuge users is one way
to provide more secure funding to augment appropriated dollars.
This combination of actions can work to put the refuge system
on a more sound financial footing, and the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance stands ready to work with the Subcommittee, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the broader community at-large to
achieve these goals, and to secure the future for our
incomparable wildlife refuge system. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of William P. Horn, on Behalf of the
United States Sportsmen's Alliance
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA), I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding operations and
management funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System. USSA was
organized in 1977 for the purposes of protecting the American heritage
to hunt, fish, and trap and supporting wildlife conservation and
professional wildlife management. It pursues these objectives at the
federal, state, and local level on behalf of its over 1.5 million
members and affiliates.
USSA has been deeply involved in Refuge management issues since it
intervened in litigation in the 70's to defend duck hunting on units of
the Refuge system. USSA was a founding member of the Cooperative
Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) and heavily engaged in the 1997
enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(NWRSIA). My personal involvement and commitment to the Refuge system
extends to my service as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks under President Reagan and the privilege of serving
as the Chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Commission
in 2002-2003.
In relative terms, the Refuge System has been the red headed step
child of public lands systems within the Department of the Interior.
While billions of dollars have been lavished on the smaller National
Park system (the National Park Service operating budget is well north
of $2 billion), the Refuge system operating budget is less than one-
quarter of Parks funding. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to be
commended for having done a fine job over the years for doing much more
with less compared to its sister bureau. Nonetheless, FWS continues to
fall behind in its ability to effectively manage the Refuge system and
the maintenance backlog continues to grow. This trend puts the Refuges
at risk. Federal funding limitations and the nation's debt crisis mean
it is highly improbable that this trend can be reversed by expanded
appropriations. These facts mandate a fresh look at how the Refuge
system should be operated and funded.
USSA recommends that FWS, and the Congress exercising its oversight
authority, carefully consider the following options to redress the
Refuge operations and maintenance problems: (1) scrutiny of funding
priorities including an emphasis on actions that do not increase
operations and maintenance costs; (2) more efficient means of actually
managing Refuge units by contracting out management, pursuant to
applicable federal Refuge management standards, to state fish and
wildlife agencies which can provide management services for lower costs
compared to federal personnel; (3) determine if expanded user
activities and associated reasonable fees can enhance management and
operations revenues; and (4) changes in law or regulations as may be
necessary to authorize or facilitate these kinds of actions. Only a
comprehensive effort to look at priorities, cost reductions, and non-
appropriations revenue enhancements will reverse the present adverse
trends.
Spending priorities must be thoroughly reviewed. We would suggest
that wholesale land acquisition, which can add to long-term operations
costs, be a diminished priority. Increasing land acquisition funding
(via the Land and Water Conservation Fund) 63 percent to $140,000,000,
as requested by the Obama Administration, while the Refuge operations
budget remains flat at $503 million, makes little sense. Land
acquisition via the Duck Stamp funded (i.e., hunter funded) Migratory
Bird Fund and via partnership cost-shared programs such as the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund make sense during a period of
budget restraint. This ensures that opportunities to add important
habitats to the federal conservation estate can be realized. Similarly
providing a reasonable level of acquisition funds via LWCF also enables
FWS to purchase inholdings or take advantage of other unique
acquisition opportunities. A fiscally prudent acquisition program
should focus on unique opportunities to acquire high value lands where
federal dollars are stretched via partnership arrangements that bring
private monies to the table or less costly easements, compared to full
fee purchase, are the target. A smarter acquisition program should
enable significant funding to be redirected, in whole or in part, to
Refuge operations. Such redirection of funding priorities could make a
major contribution to enhancing Refuge system management.
In a similar vein, USSA was struck that ``stimulus'' funding added
to the Refuge system's maintenance backlog. Appropriated federal
dollars were used to construct new visitor centers, creating new
maintenance obligations, at multiple Refuges and fish hatcheries. The
best advice to give a man in a hole is ``stop digging.'' Yet the
Administration keeps digging and making the maintenance ``hole'' deeper
by spending limited federal monies on capital projects creating more
maintenance needs. Different priorities are needed to reverse the
present adverse trends.
Personnel costs dominate the Refuge operations budget. Present
estimates are that the average FWS employee working for the Refuge
system costs over $90,000 a year. This amount reflects salary,
benefits, and associated costs. If a Refuge unit needs five staff to
manage it, the personnel costs come in at $450,000 per year. In
contrast, most state fish and wildlife agencies have lower personnel
costs. USSA conducted an unofficial survey and found that wildlife
professionals are retained by state agencies for substantially lower
costs. Many state agencies could provide the same five staff (with
comparable professional wildlife training) for 20 to 30 percent less
cost. We strongly recommend that FWS look to contracting state fish and
wildlife agencies to administer Refuge units. FWS might be able to
``hire''--via contracting--the same number of professionally qualified
staff for a lot less money. This would enable FWS to stretch its
dollars and still put the boots on the ground to effectively manage the
federal units.
I would note that the 1997 Refuge Act includes language expressly
authorizing this very approach (see section 5(b)(5) P.L. 105-57; 16
U.S.C. Sec. 668dd(b)(4)). Congress and the Clinton Administration
recognized that such flexibility could become important in the future
and anticipated allowing FWS to make such arrangements. Any state
agency hired to provide such management services would do so consistent
with the purposes and mission of the Refuge unit as specified in the
1997 Act. Hence there is no need to worry that a state wildlife agency
contractor would administer a unit in derogation of the applicable
federal legal standards.
FWS and Congress also need to look at enhancing revenues from
Refuge users. Authority to allow Refuge entrance and user fees was
enacted in the mid-1980s during a similar period of federal budget
restraint. However, the Senate then insisted that most of these dollars
(approximately 80%) be directed to land acquisition accounts and only
20 percent to operations. We suggest that this 80/20 split be revisited
and the bulk of such revenues be directed to Refuge O & M.
In addition, more activities should be subject to reasonable fees.
As you know, the hunting and fishing community pays a multiplicity of
license and stamp fees as well as federal excise taxes on equipment.
These monies are the backbone of wildlife conservation funding. We are
prepared to pay additional reasonable fees for Refuge uses to help
secure the system. However, it is imperative that other users--who have
traditionally paid nothing for the privilege of using and enjoying
Refuges--step up to the plate to pay their share. More revenue from
Refuge users is a way to provide more secure funding to augment
appropriated dollars.
This combination of actions--different spending priorities that
minimize the creation of new maintenance obligations, contracting out
to state wildlife agencies to reduce Refuge operations personnel costs,
and enhanced user generated revenues--can put the Refuge system on a
more sound financial footing. Most of these actions are presently
authorized by existing law. However, Congress should take action--in
either the authorizing or appropriations arenas--to direct and
facilitate this suite of solutions. USSA stands ready to work with the
Subcommittee, and FWS, to achieve these goals and secure the future for
our incomparable National Wildlife Refuge system.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Horn. And I want to compliment
all of our witnesses today. I am hearing a lot of very creative
and I think applicable offerings, in terms of solutions,
helpful ways that we can stretch our dollars better, and I
certainly thank you for that.
I also want to point out that we have been joined by other
Members today; Mr. Southerland, Mr. Flores, Mr. Duncan, and Mr.
Runyan. So thank you for joining us today. At this point, we
will begin questions of the witnesses, and to allow all Members
to participate and to ensure that we can hear from all
witnesses today, Members are limited to five minutes for their
questions.
However, if Members have additional questions, we can have
more than one round of questioning. I now recognize myself for
five minutes. Mr. Horn, the Fish and Wildlife Service received
$280 million in taxpayer funds in 2009 under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
They used $91 million of that money to build 15 new refuge
and hatchery visitor centers. Based on your experience as a
former Assistant Secretary of the Interior and Chairman of the
Refuge Centennial Commission, was that a good expenditure of
taxpayer money?
Mr. Horn. Well, Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, let me
put it a simple way. When the best advice that you can give a
person in a whole is to stop digging, and I believe that when
facing a maintenance backlog of the magnitude that flicks the
system at present, to go out and begin to take dollars to
construct more and more hard facilities that frankly increase
your maintenance obligations, it is probably not a good
expenditure.
It would strike me that it would have been a better thing,
and it still would have gotten the job and work effort out of
it were to have spent some of those dollars on dealing with
your present backlog problem, rather than creating new
maintenance obligations that just simply add to that backlog.
Dr. Fleming. So you are saying that why buy more yard if
you don't have a lawnmower for the one that you have?
Mr. Horn. Yes, just as I said, if you are in a maintenance
backlog situation, why would you put in new capital investments
that simply increase your maintenance obligations when you
can't take care of what you have?
Dr. Fleming. And I think that is a characteristic of the
stimulus bill in many ways. We actually created, and in many
different parts, not the least of which is health care, where
we actually now have committed ourselves to even bigger
obligations and liabilities down the road, and this is one good
example of that.
Mr. Kurth, considering this additional deluge of funds from
the so-called stimulus, first of all, how much of this money
was spent on reducing the operations backlog?
Mr. Kurth. The money was spent on a number of different
things. We talked about the new facilities that we constructed.
I would point out that a number of those facilities were
replacing very expensive rental property not located on
refuges, and where visitors did not have access to the refuge
staff. That was one of our criteria.
We also replaced two facilities that were in need, and that
had been damaged by storms, or had cracking foundations. All of
the facilities that were built were replacing existing
facilities that were energy insufficient.
We don't look at these facilities as having added to the
backlog. They have eliminated backlog in many places by
eliminating facilities.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I am glad that you said that. How much
was deferred to the maintenance backlog?
Mr. Kurth. I am going to have to get the exact figure, but
a significant percentage of the Recovery Act funding were
applied directly to deferred maintenance projects, and another
significant chunk of the money went to habitat projects.
So we built some new efficient facilities that replaced
existing ones, and I will find the figure for you in a moment,
but close to $100 million of deferred maintenance, and we also
did a wide variety of habitat problems.
I might note, too, that $34 million went to work on our
National Fish Hatchery System. So part of the criteria was also
that we were looking for projects that were ready to go to put
people to work.
So there were considerations about putting our citizens to
work here that factored in where we chose to select these
projects so that they could be up and running.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. I apologize for interrupting, but I
want to get another question in.
Mr. Kurth. Sure.
Dr. Fleming. In the past five years the size of the Refuge
System has grown from about 96 million acres to 148.8 million
acres. That is about a 55 percent increase. Because of this the
operations and maintenance backlog has increased from $440
million in 1996 to the current rate of 3.3 billion; and billion
with a B.
This is a 650 percent increase. Could you explain to me why
this isn't viewed as totally irresponsible management by the
Service?
Mr. Kurth. In the $3.3 billion figure, there are two
components. One is the deferred maintenance backlog in our
infrastructure, and the second is our operational needs for
staff and mission-critical projects.
I think that we have made progress in both arenas. The 1996
figures were exceptionally low, largely because we were new at
trying to do systematic condition assessments. We didn't start
doing industry standard cost estimating and condition
assessments until about a decade ago.
An what we found is that the costs were much higher than we
had estimated in the past. For example, on half of our assets
that are roads, we used the Federal Highway Administration to
do the condition assessments of our roads, and they knew a lot
more about it.
We found out that we had a lot more deferred maintenance
backlog on our road system. I think that if we would have asked
any refuge manager in the field--and I will tell you that our
facilities are getting better. They are not getting worse.
There is still a lot of work to do. We still have
facilities that are in ill-repair, but we are making progress
because of the investments that we have made. We have a long
way to go though, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Well, I hear what you are saying, but the
numbers though are telling us something a little different. It
seems like we are getting further and further behind rather
than catching up. But I thank you for your answers. I now
recognize the Ranking Member for any questions that he may
have.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon again
everyone. I am also interested in--and I think we are all on
the same page--that we need to give the Refuge System the
attention that they require, but let me start with Mr. Kurth
for starters.
Mr. Kurth, can you please give us an update on the
Service's operations for a monument management plan for the
Mariana Trench in the Mariana National Monument?
Mr. Kurth. We put a notice of intent out to repair that
monument plan, and we asked for comment in advance of that, and
that comment period closed a couple of weeks ago. We are
looking at those public comments now, and over the course of
the next year, we look to work cooperatively, and put a draft
monument plan out so that the public will once again have the
opportunity to comment on that as we strive to put a good plan
in place for the stewardship of the monument.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Again, Mr. Kurth, how do natural
disasters affect the operations and maintenance backlog? You
said that this flooding going on right now will also have
additional costs, and does the Service get compensated for
damages incurred by natural disasters, such as the Mississippi
River flooding?
Mr. Kurth. In the past, and since 2005, our country has
experienced devastating hurricanes, and many significant
floods. Our refuges, unfortunately, are located off the coast.
We have 188 coastal refuges in the system, and many other
refuges are on river systems.
So we get hit pretty hard by these events. We estimate that
the damages to our facilities from those events was about $500
million. Now, Congress has been responsive in making
supplemental appropriations, but they have not covered the
entire damage.
We still have about $241 million of damage to facilities
that hasn't been funded, and we are doing the best that we can
to cope with that.
Mr. Sablan. So are there ways the Service can leverage
partnership opportunities as some have been mentioned, and
volunteer involvements at refuges to address some of the
staffing and operational shortfalls at many of these places?
Mr. Kurth. Yes. I think first and foremost as many people
have mentioned, our close partnership with State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies is essential for us to deliver conservation
to the Refuge System.
And I have worked in nine different States with the
Service, and we have always had a co-dependency with our State
Fish and Game colleagues, and we will work extremely closely
together with them.
Our volunteer workforce is a tremendous asset. 42,000
citizens help us out there, but they do take some management,
and some refuges are maxed out. We do things like provide RV
pads for people to camp, and once you max those out, you have
to build more or you are limited.
Last year, I think you will remember that Congress
authorized the Volunteer and Community Support Act, which
called for us to have a National Volunteer Strategy completed
by the end of this year, and we will be working on that plan
throughout the course of this year to try to find additional
innovative ways, and we look forward to working with the
Committee as we develop and present that plan.
Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you. Ms. Clark, can you tell us why
land acquisition and the operations and maintenance budgets are
equally important in helping the refuges that need attention?
Ms. Clark. Sure. In some instances, it is the flip side of
the same coin. Clearly, taking care of what we have is
critically important, and I don't dispute the challenges
associated with the backlogs, some caused by fuzzy math of a
decade ago, and so now the reporting and management of the
backlog is more transparent and more real.
But at the same time as we deal with the increasing
urbanization in this country, it hardly matters what you do for
wildlife if you don't take care of their habitat. And the
National Wildlife Refuge System has been set aside as the
premier land, where wildlife have those anchors for protection,
and the need to protect habitat where there are willing
sellers, or where there is opportunity to protect these
contiguous areas, is extremely important.
I think that a lot of the priority of land acquisition for
the Service today is rounding out existing refuge parcels, and
dealing with in-holdings, and addressing easements that
ultimately can contribute to reducing the management associated
with things like fire fighting, or invasive species management.
But the need to address landscape conservation efforts
through land acquisition, prioritized in a very transparent
fashion is very important.
Mr. Sablan. I would like to continue this questioning, but
I have run out of time. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Gentleman, the Ranking Member.
Now, I recognize Mr. Flores, the Gentleman From Texas.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding today's
important hearing, and I want to thank all of our witnesses for
appearing today. It is unfortunate that the operations and
management backlog at the National Wildlife Refuge System has
exploded from a level of $440 million in 1996, to over $3.3
billion and 553 refuges today.
We also recognize that the difficult fiscal situation that
our country is in today, and so I am pretty puzzled that our
Administration would only try to make the problem more worse by
proposing to acquire more land.
I am hoping that we can find solutions to this problem to
develop the right balance between operations funding and
capital funding to put the management of the National Wildlife
Refuge System on a sustainable funding path.
And I appreciate some of the ideas that Mr. Horn put out,
but I want to drill into one of these for just a minute based
on something that we have actually been doing at Fish and
Wildlife.
According to my notes, it appears that since 1970 the
Service has completed 40 memorandums of understanding with the
States and municipal entities for the operation of Federal fish
hatcheries.
And, Mr. Kurth, I was wondering if you could tell me how
that has helped to leverage your dollars to go further?
Mr. Kurth. Are you speaking about National Fish Hatcheries?
Mr. Flores. Yes.
Mr. Kurth. Quite frankly, sir, that is not my area of
expertise, and I am not familiar with the details of those
things, but it is certainly common throughout the Refuge System
for us to have memorandums of understanding with State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, local governments, to find areas where we
can cooperate and leverage our resources, and that is a common
practice in the refuge system, and one that we actively pursue.
Mr. Flores. OK. So since I have asked you questions that
are somewhat out of your space, how have those MOUs worked for
the areas that you do have jurisdiction over?
Mr. Kurth. There is a wide variety of them. We have master
memorandum agreements with, I believe, every State in the
Union. Often times those things can be used as tools to find
project areas where we can give money to a State to do a
project if they can do it more effectively, more cost
effectively than we can.
We have a couple of agreements with Tribes, where they do
certain bodies of work on National Wildlife Refuges, and where
we find that to be mutually beneficial. Frequently with cities
and counties, we have memorandums of understandings to provide
refuge law enforcement, where we are understaffed and can't put
the right number of officers.
We work with them to help offset some of their costs to
provide assistance, and pretty much our refuge managers are
looking for any way they can to get their job done in a cost
effective way, and partnerships are an essential part of how we
deliver conservation.
Mr. Flores. So in general would you rate that those efforts
as having worked out effectively to help leverage your dollars,
your taxpayer dollars to go further?
Mr. Kurth. I think that our partnerships have been
extremely successful in leveraging dollars, and we have them
with States, local governments, conservation organizations,
tribes, and that is an essential part of our business.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. I yield back my time remaining.
Dr. Fleming. The Gentleman yields back his time, and next
is the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank everyone for testifying today. Mr. Kurth, I wanted to ask
if--well, I was going to ask you my question, and I just
misplaced it. Hold on here.
Will the Fish and Wildlife Service provide this
Subcommittee with a copy of the Service 2010 Economics Report
on the Fisheries program?
Mr. Kurth. We would be happy to. Again, because the
Fisheries program is different, but with any of our reports, we
would be happy to share with the Committee.
Mr. Southerland. Well, very good. We can delve off because
that is one thing that I would like to have, and that I know
that this Committee would certainly like to have, and we
appreciate your answer there.
One of the things that I would like to delve into, and we
have kind of been talking along these lines, is that since it
is unlikely that the Service is going to receive any new huge
infusion of discretionary funding, what are some creative ideas
for dealing with the problems, the backlog problems that we
have talked about here today, or do we just ignore those and
acquire additional property?
And that does not seem to be a smart way to go, but what is
the discussion going on in the Department, or are there
discussions going on in the Department for creative ideas?
Mr. Kurth. I think all of us in government are looking for
creative ways to stretch our dollars. I mentioned our national
volunteer strategy as something that we are looking at right
now.
For our maintenance backlog, we are more and more using
what we call maintenance action teams, where we will pool our
maintenance professionals from a number of refuges and send
them as a team on-site to keep costs down.
Sometimes they will stay with campers. We are detailing
refuge officers from one refuge to another to stretch out our
limited number of officers to help other stations. We have lots
of agreements with organizations like Ducks Unlimited, where we
cost share habitat restoration. We work with our Friends
groups, who often come up with dollars to help us do projects
that welcome and orient visitors to refuges.
We are open to anybodies ideas on how to do more. We
recognize the tight fiscal times that we are in, and that
conservation has to be something that we do together with
everybody who shares an interest in our Nation's wildlife
heritage.
Mr. Southerland. I would like to bring your attention to
one particular issue. The Palmyra, which is one line of islands
in Micronesia. It is about a thousand miles south of Honolulu,
and obviously you are familiar with this.
The American people purchased these islands in the last
decade, and they have a rat problem. Now, these are islands
that no one--I mean, obviously this is clearly a refuge. No one
goes there. It is a thousand miles south of Honolulu, and the
American people are spending $2.7 million right now for rat
eradication.
I mean, I am looking at a 653-page report right here on how
we should go about killing these rats. You know, this is
difficult for me, and I am going to just take a real deep
breath. It is Friday, and fighting this beast is exhausting.
But I have to tell you why wouldn't we load up a bunch of
cats and just take them down there and unleash them? I mean,
really, $2.7 million? I have one minute, but I am eager to hear
this explanation.
Mr. Kurth. When we protected Palmyra National Wildlife
Refuge, we protected probably the best, most pristine coal reef
ecosystem in the world, and that was a significant objective.
The island itself being infested with rats has--rats have a
decimating effect on nesting birds. Wildlife refuges require
wildlife management, and we can go in one time and eradicate
those rats on that island. That is a one-time cost. I
understand that it is a lot of money, but we can make that
place one of the best places for pelagic seabird nesting in the
world.
But wildlife in this day and age takes management, and I
understand that this is an expensive project. We just did this
two years ago in Alaska on a place called Rat Island in the
Aleutians, where we eradicated the largest rat eradication, and
already there are thousands and thousands of birds returning to
nests on an island where they have been decimated by rats.
So we are in the wildlife management business, and we
respect your oversight on how much these things cost, but we
can make that place a premier bird nesting area, and that is
the business that we are in, sir.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The Gentleman's time has expired. Next is
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for five
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a 653-
page report to talk about, and I really don't have a question
for you guys other than I want to simply thank Mr. Horn for
some of the comments that you made in your written statement,
because like you, I am just dumbfounded that the Administration
has spent good, hard earned American dollars that are paid by
the taxpayers on land acquisition when we can't maintain what
we have now.
And I am a hunter, and so I have taken advantage of being
able to hunt on some of the wildlife refuges where hunting is
permissible, and up against a lot of them, whether it is down
at Mahannah, or there in Santee in South Carolina.
I also understand quite honestly the contribution that
hunters and fishermen make to conservation in this country. As
an auctioneer in my previous life, I raised millions of dollars
for conservation efforts, whether for Ducks Unlimited, the
National Wild Turkey Federation, or even the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation here on The Hill, that promotes these
activities, and the CCA.
I mean, I can go on and on about the hunters and fishermen
that are out there investing their dollars into conservation
organizations that are doing the right thing, and putting up
wood dug boxes, and restoring the national wild turkey, the
wild turkey in this nation, which at one time a distinguished
gentleman named Franklin wanted to make the National Bird.
So, I am amazed that we can continue throwing money not
away, because I don't believe that we are throwing it away to
invest in land, but at a time when you can't maintain what you
have got, and you continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper,
and having to maintain that, you are going backwards.
So we have to stop somewhere, Mr. Chairman. We have to stop
purchasing this land and start taking care of what we have got,
and so I just wanted to point out that, Mr. Horn, you made some
great comments in there.
I am looking for one in particular, and I can't find it. So
what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, as I yield the balance
of my time back to the Gentleman from Florida, because I don't
think that he was finished with his cat comment. Do you need
the time, sir? I will be glad to yield.
Dr. Fleming. Yes, we are all dying to hear more from Mr.
Southerland. So you have the remainder of the time.
Mr. Southerland. Well, let me say this. That is an over-
simplistic idea, but that is how the American people right
now--I mean, now we look. I know that it is a lot more complex
than that. It has got to be. You generated a 653-page report,
and there has got to be some complexity in there.
But I guess I am struggling right now at trying to justify
some of the requests that we are getting, and spending some of
the money that we are spending when the American people--and I
can appreciate your job, and there is a place, and it is
needed.
I am an avid outdoorsman. I grew up in the woods, and I
believe in proper management, but you are not properly
managing. You have more than you can manage, and I think and I
believe that you have to prove faithful in the little things
before you get more.
And we are being asked to give you more. How is that a
responsible ask, and like in the islands that I made reference
to as far as the rats? I mean, how do you justify that with the
American people?
Mr. Kurth. I think that we are in the same situation you
are with lots of conflicting needs.
Mr. Southerland. I am sorry?
Mr. Kurth. I said, I think that we are in the same position
that you are in. We have lots of conflicting needs, and what we
both struggle to do is to identify the most important
priorities and strike the right balance.
And I think that that is where we have to go into looking
at the land acquisition equation in a little bit more depth.
Some of these lands are expensive to operate. Others are next
to cost free. And I think what we need to do is to be very
thoughtful and discern where we can make the strategic
investments in land protection so that wildlife can be
conserved in this country, and our citizens can enjoy it.
Mr. Southerland. Let me ask you one question, because I
know that I am running out of time. Do we have too much land
that we can manage?
Mr. Kurth. We have management that goes undone, but we
still are providing the finest wildlife habitat in the world.
Mr. Southerland. That is fine, and you are doing that, but
do we have too much land to manage?
Mr. Kurth. We do not have too much land to manage, but we
have projects that aren't getting done because we don't have
the resources to do everything.
Mr. Southerland. I would say this. That before you buy
property and you spend $9-1/2 million to acquire property, it
is not unrealistic that these kinds of problems that are going
to cost the American taxpayer a lot more money, those are
vetted out, and just maybe there might be some property that we
want to pass on.
Mr. Kurth. Sir, I think you are exactly right, and that is
where our budget justifications each year for each project
request, we do include in our budget justification what the
operational costs are, and those are there for everyone to
consider when they look at what the appropriate land
acquisition funding should be.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman from South Carolina yields his
time back. Next is Mr. Runyan, the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you
for being here and for your testimony. Mr. Kurth, I understand
that the Service's own report states that the fisheries mission
generates about $3.6 billion in economic output, and supports
about 68,000, and generates nearly $300 million in Federal,
State, and local tax revenues. Is that correct?
Mr. Kurth. I did not hear the first part. Which report are
you referring to, sir?
Mr. Runyan. The Fish and Wildlife Services own report
states that.
Mr. Kurth. On fishing?
Mr. Runyan. Yes.
Mr. Kurth. Again, because my responsibilities aren't on the
fishery side, I am less familiar with that report, but I am
sure that you are quoting it accurately.
Mr. Runyan. OK. And being in the Agency, if that is true,
and we are talking jobs, and we are talking economic output,
and we are talking tax revenue, why in the world would the
Administration propose to cut fisheries by $12 million instead
of creating new jobs? It is mind-boggling to me.
Mr. Kurth. Again, we have difficult choices to make in our
budget. I think what we are looking for in some of the
reductions in the fisheries account, and again I would like to
be able to provide you with a supplemental answer for the
record, because I am not the fisheries program person.
But some of our fish hatcheries were mitigations for water
development projects, and what the Service believes is that we
can get the costs from those mitigation operations from the
Corps of Engineers or whoever did the water project, and that
should not come out of our conservation dollars.
And that if they are mitigation hatcheries, the cost of
mitigation shouldn't be falling on the surface's core
conservation program. So we are looking to find ways to
leverage our fisheries' dollars by sharing the costs with other
responsible parties.
Mr. Runyan. Again, I know that when Dr. Gould was here
several months back, I asked the same question, and something
that is proven as hatcheries, and being able to put this money
back into the system, is land acquisition that important,
especially in a time like now when we have something that is
proven that can generate revenue?
Mr. Kurth. Well, our National Wildlife Refuges have been
proven to generate revenue, and we generate over $1.7 billion
of economic activity because of the recreational uses of
refuges, and it creates many thousands of jobs.
I think that I would like to give you fisheries questions
for the record, because I don't want to outrun my level of
expertise.
Mr. Runyan. I appreciate that, because again, I think that
a lot of us agree that we are in over our head, and we really
have to look at common sense ways to get out of this, and I
think that the fisheries are one of them. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. All right. We are going to enter
into a second round of questioning, and I appreciate the
panelists being here for a little longer. The Chairman had to
step out to another meeting, and so I will reserve myself five
minutes.
And the first question that I have is just a simple Yes or
No, and I am not advocating being necessarily for increasing
this, but if the Congress was to increase the price of a
Federal Duck Stamp would you support allocating a $10 increase
to refuge operations and maintenance? And I would just ask each
one of you that?
Mr. Kurth. We have requested an increase in the Duck Stamp
in our budget, but it was for land acquisition for the
Migratory Bird Commission to allocate. So I don't think that I
am in a position to take any other position than that.
Mr. Duncan. All right. How about the NRA and the
Sportsmen's groups?
Ms. Recce. When the subject of raising the Duck Stamp price
has come up, the NRA has taken a neutral position on it, and so
we would have to get back. Aside from just raising the stamp,
the price of the stamp, but its use for operation and
maintenance, that I would have to get back to you on.
Mr. Duncan. Have you all polled your members on that at all
about an increase in Duck Stamp fees?
Ms. Recce. No, not directly polled. No.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I think that the
issue of the Duck Stamp level and the earmarking of some of
those monies for O&M needs to be looked at in the broader
context of what I addressed in my statement, which is under the
Emergency Wetlands Act of 1986, when passed over here, the
Senate side insisted that there be an 80-20 split on those
dollars going to land acquisition.
And I think that the revisiting of that statutory 80-20
split ought to be part of an examination of what to do with the
allocation of enhanced Duck Stamp revenues as well. I think to
take the Duck Stamp out by itself without looking at that
current 80-20 under the entrance and user fees would be a non-
starter.
But I think that as a comprehensive relook, it makes damn
good sense.
Mr. Duncan. Well, from my personal history being a
sportsman that purchased Duck Stamps, are generally
conservation, and I mentioned that earlier, and they are
generally OK with paying a user fee, a slight increase if they
know that it is going to help the resource.
And if they know that there are going to be more
opportunities, more access to Federal land, more opportunities
to spend days in the field, extra days, time, access to land,
all of those.
But when it is used to maybe wrongly or in ways that they
don't support, then they would not support an increase. So it
is an issue that we may or may not get to, but that is
something that does interest me.
And just another quick question. There are currently 10
National Fish Hatcheries, and that are classified as Hatchery
Management, and State operated facilities. Is there anyone on
the panel who believes that these hatcheries are not being
effectively managed by the States?
[No response.]
Mr. Duncan. So I take that to mean that you all think the
States are effectively managing that? So I appreciate that.
That is the last question I am going to have, and I will turn
next to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I
ask my next question, Mr. Kurth, I would say that those rats
are not indigenous to our islands, and I know that we didn't
bring them there and they didn't bring their own canoes, and so
can we find out who brought those rats there, and who is
responsible and get them off?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sablan. Oh, the United States Navy. So the government
has to pay to get those rats off those islands, and once you
are done, bring them up to the volcanoes that we have there.
But thank you.
Again, Mr. Kurth, can you please tell us how--and give me
some examples of how acquiring land within the boundary of a
refuge can actually be a win-win situation for taxpayers and
wildlife, and by reducing operational costs, and creating
better connected wildlife habitat?
Mr. Kurth. Sure. Let me give you an example that I was
looking at just the other day in the Colusa Refuge in the
Sacramento Valley in California, one of the finest waterfowl
areas, and waterfowl hunting areas in the country.
We recently bought an in-holding right in the middle of
that National Wildlife Refuge, and what it did is that it got
rid of a lot of boundary that we had to fence, and it let us
manage the water facilities there.
There they have managed impoundments, and we did not have
the ability to step the water down from the northern most units
to the southern most one, because we didn't control the land in
between, and it greatly complicated our management.
The landowner wanted to sell, and we have a price that was
agreeable to him, and we got the tract, and now we have a much
more effective way to manage water at a reduced cost and
complication for us.
And I think we have these examples over and over again. I
think that it is not hard to imagine how having a tract right
in the middle of a refuge that is being not managed for
invasive species has implications for us.
So we think that there are lots and lots of examples, and
we would be happy to submit some more for the record if you
would like. When we have bought holdings on refuges, it has
been a win-win situation that has reduced our costs.
Mr. Sablan. I will make this quick because I am running out
of time. So if you have property, and you own the land, and you
have a refuge with four sides to a boundary, and you have
private property there, which also has four sides, and so you
are now responsible for not four boundaries, but eight, right?
Mr. Kurth. Correct.
Mr. Sablan. Because you have to take that private property
and add it to the refuge. And I understand that the United
States has robust populations of waterfowl, and that are
enjoyed by hunters and bird watchers alike. But what role has
the refuge system actually played in this environmental success
story, and would it have been possible without land
acquisition?
Mr. Kurth. The role of acquiring land at National Wildlife
Refuges has been pivotal in the recovery of waterfowl
populations since the Dust Bowl days of the Depression. We
have, I think, an outstanding program that was used and was
implemented to meet population goals, and to distribute refuges
along the various flyways, and we have been at it hard since
the 1930s.
We have a tremendous North America waterfowl management
plan that gives us clear objectives, and because of this
network of wildlife refuges, we have done a great job working
in partnerships with others, like our State colleagues, and
Ducks Unlimited, and our Canadian and Mexican colleagues, of
having stable waterfowl populations at a level much higher than
they were when I started my career.
Mr. Sablan. And, Ms. Clark, do you believe that Mr. Kurth
or the Service has generally struck the right type of balance
with all of its obligations relating to the O&M needs of the
Refuge System?
Ms. Clark. I do. They have a dual challenge, and certainly
are taking care of what they have, and assigning priorities to
kind of transparent management of the system is important, but
not bypassing opportunities like the one in the Sacramento or
the California River Valley, is incredibly important to round
out these refuges.
So clearly we can always do better, and the Service can
always do better, but as I mentioned before, I believe that
these two competing issues are flip-sides of the same coin when
it comes to conservation.
Mr. Sablan. I am running out of time, but can you please
give the Committee what your recommendations are in writing for
addressing the O&M backlog? And I am going to go back to Mr.
Kurth. Well, I don't have enough time, and so thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank the Ranking Member for that,
and we will next go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores,
for five minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kurth, when you
look at acquiring new acreage today, let us assume for the
purposes of my question that the cost is $100 an acre. What is
the cost for the--and I realize that there is no typical
property, but on average based on your experience and what the
agency has today, what is the cost for the next 10 years to
properly maintain that property?
Mr. Kurth. That really has more variables to it and I can't
give you a scientifically credible answer to that. I mean, when
we added the marine monuments, we added 50 million acres, and
there is work to be done out there, but we have not really
added any significant dollars to do that work.
And you can see where huge areas like that would be much
less expensive. They are not actively managed in the same way
that others would. It depends on the condition of the habitat.
If it is infested with invasive species, or rats, like my
friend there, then those costs are higher.
Mr. Flores. What is your best non-scientific answer? I
mean, I am assuming--and I think you pointed out earlier in
your testimony, that when you do an acquisition, you do come up
with an analysis of what the expected maintenance is in the
future, and also if there is deferred maintenance at the point
of acquisition, and what that is going to cost. So you have to
have some feel for this.
Mr. Kurth. Well, every single thing that we do throughout
the Refuge System, we spend less than four bucks an acre on an
annual basis.
Mr. Flores. On maintenance?
Mr. Kurth. On everything, in all of our operations, and in
all of our law enforcement, and in all of our planning, and in
all of our facilities that we maintain maintenance, we manage
every acre in the Refuge System for less an four bucks an acre.
Mr. Flores. Today?
Mr. Kurth. Today.
Mr. Flores. OK. But we are $3.3 billion behind, and so what
would it take per acre to get up to where--well, let us say
that we spent the $3.3 billion first today, and everything was
in an excellent position that the $3.3 billion would get you to
position, what would it be going for? What would the burn rate
be going forward?
I am trying to put it in the terms that I would do if I
were getting ready to build a chain of hotels. I would want to
know what my ongoing maintenance is, and to keep them fresh,
and to keep them properly equipped, and to keep them
maintained? What could I expect?
Mr. Kurth. You know, I don't think I can give you that
figure off of the top of my head. I am also sitting here
recognizing that the President asked for the money that he
thinks he needs, and I am not in a position to ask for more
money than that.
But if we had all of the facilities in a perfectly
maintained level, and no maintenance was past due or deferred,
it would require more money than we have now to maintain that.
Mr. Flores. So more than the $4 an acre that it takes
today?
Mr. Kurth. More than our maintenance budget, which is
around $140 million a year. That level of maintenance funding
is not adequate to maintain the $24 billion of infrastructure
that we currently have.
Generally, the industry standards are about one to three
percent of the capital value of your assets to be put into
maintenance, and depending on the type of assets that you have.
Obviously, some things like complex buildings are more
expensive than fence lines and levees.
Mr. Flores. Well, I think that it is something that the
taxpayers want to know before we commit new capital, new
precious taxpayer capital for new projects, and I think it is
important to know what is the ongoing annuity that we are
requesting from the taxpayers to keep those properties
maintained in a good manner.
Mr. Kurth. That is a fair question, sir, and I would be
happy to give you an answer for the record, and where I cannot
be flippant with figures. We have professionals that can give
you more detailed scenarios on what that is.
Mr. Flores. I appreciate that. I would yield to anybody
else that wants to expand on that line of questioning. I yield
back to the Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. The Chair will next recognize the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Southerland, for five minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forster,
first of all, thank you for coming from Georgia. In working
with the States, is there opportunities that we should be
really seeking to allow the States to have more--I know that
you have your State properties, and your State obligations.
Well, over there, they are under water. I mean, we are
worrying about rats in the South Pacific. So I am wondering,
and what I am trying to figure out is, is there a way--and I am
trying to be serious here, but is there a way that the States--
and obviously if your citizens have the most to benefit from a
well managed program on Federal refuges, is there any synergies
there that aren't being taken advantage of that maybe I am not
familiar with, or that could be taken advantage of because it
is your neck of the woods?
Mr. Forster. A great question, and I would say from the
State's perspective, we are feeling the pain as well. Just in
Georgia, we have experienced about a 42 percent overall budget
cut in the last four years, and what we are trying to do as
much as anything is manage expectations.
We cannot continue to do the same things that we have
always done in light of that. So it has forced us really to
rethink all the partnerships that we are involved in, and it is
not a discreet process. It is more of a dynamic process that we
engage in continuously.
We currently have such a planned meeting with my partner,
Nick Wiley, in Florida, who by the way was raised well in
Georgia, and then migrated to Florida later, and for the
Service to look at this, I don't think it is a one size fits
all that we can just shift this entire responsibility to the
States, but there are opportunities.
And some of those are small, but cumulatively, I think that
if we quantified them, we would find that they are significant,
substantial, and that they are I think broadly applied in all
kinds of creative mechanisms across the United States.
And we have some of the most creative folks in our field.
They can stretch a penny and make copper wire. So we are forced
to do more of that, but it really comes down to priorities
leveraging, and yes, they are some new opportunities.
But I think more than anything, we are going to have to
manage the expectations about what is reality. We are not going
to be able to keep up with the backlog, and so we are going to
have to make some tough decisions.
But with respect to acquisitions, too, even in our State, a
completely hands-off acquisition approach is problematic for a
number of reasons. We have already talked about efficiencies
gained by in-holdings. There are some real jewels out there
that are too important for your State objectives to not think
long term.
We acquired a 10,000-acre piece of property in our State,
which is not a very pro acquisition State, at least in the
recent months, but we required about $28 million of State funds
in light of the budget problem that we are facing, and because
it is an opportunity, it is looked at through the lens of
priorities, and it mounts up.
I think that we have a much lesser focus. We are not going
to be increasing broad scale acquisition projects, but
certainly under some scrutiny, it still makes sense to purchase
some lands in that kind of environment.
Mr. Southerland. Well, obviously as someone who does
appreciate the outdoors, it seems to me that there should be
some--and you are already working on these. I mean, the
partnerships between the NRA and your members, and members of
Ducks Unlimited that I am also a member of. I mean, clearly, we
do want an environment that we can enjoy.
I think that the taxpayers and those that pay the fees, and
pay the stamp prices, I think that there are people that would
even pay more if they thought they could have more access. I
think that one of the things that the American people find
very, very disturbing is that you are going to get my money,
and you are going to buy property that we can't manage, and you
are going to continue to ask for increased budgets, and I can't
take my children hunting or fishing on those properties.
And so I find that that right there is where the American
people feel that they are getting the shaft. So there are
obviously some things that I think could be done with these
organizations, because you represent the people that know how
to treat the land right, and they know how to manage game
right.
But I know that is a different challenge. I really would
like to see the States have more say, because it is your baby,
and have more--well, at least in a working relationship,
because you all are overwhelmed, and United States Wildlife is
overwhelmed. So, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. Any other Members have questions for the
witnesses?
[No response.]
Mr. Duncan. If not, I would like to thank all of our
witnesses for their valuable testimony and contributions here
today. I must say that the rat study has me intrigued. Members
of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to these in writing
as they are submitted.
The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive
these responses. I believe this hearing is the beginning of the
process, and it is my hope that the CARE Group will use the
next six months to nine months to develop a new vision for
significantly reducing the operations and maintenance backlog
within the Refuge System.
I would also like to thank the Fish and Wildlife Service
for all your assistance, and in providing essential background
data for this hearing. Finally, I want to thank the Members,
the Ranking Member, and the staff, for their contributions to
this hearing. If there is no further business, without
objection----
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir?
Mr. Southerland. If anyone wanted to borrow this 653-page
document, that you would be sure to give this back to me on
Monday morning, I will let you use it for the weekend.
Mr. Duncan. If there is no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]