U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–162 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1235 

COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS TO WILDLIFE 

AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 27, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, prepared statement . 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 4 

WITNESSES 

Frazer, Gary, Assistant Director for Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 15 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 16 

Miller, Robyn, Inland Northwest Conservation Manager, The Nature Conservancy ..................................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Benoit, Jeffrey, President and CEO, Restore America’s Estuaries ..................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Straughn, Debbie, Principal, Grove Valley Elementary School, Edmond, Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................... 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: What’s at Stake? 

by Linwood Pendleton. Executive Summary ..................................................... 85 

(1) 

COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS TO WILDLIFE 

AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Inhofe, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Water and 

Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It is 

nice that Senator Inhofe is with us today. Senator Crapo, who is 

responsible for today’s hearing, this was his contribution to have 

this hearing. 

I was very excited to do this, but Senator Crapo has been called 

to a higher calling today. He has been called to the White House 

in regards to the Debt Commission. So I think Senator Inhofe and 

I would rather be here than at the White House dealing with the 

Debt Commission, but we thank Senator Crapo for his incredible 

leadership on this subject. 

I know he has an opening statement that he wants to put in the 

record, and without objection, his opening statement will be made 

part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing 

on collaborative solutions to wildlife and habitat management. As you know, this 

issue is of great importance to me—particularly with regard to the collaborative 

model of problem solving—and so I am very grateful for this opportunity. 

Idaho is home to some of the most remarkable and pristine ecosystems and landscapes that the United States has to offer. While Idaho’s vast tracts of lands are 

known for accommodating many uses, one of the most important functions for these 

lands is hosting the countless wildlife species that can be found within our borders. 

Idaho is at the front of the pack for its number and diversity of wildlife species. 

Given the abundance and complexity of wildlife issues in Idaho, local, State, Federal and a variety of non-governmental entities have devoted significant time and 

resources to managing our wildlife populations and the lands that accommodate 

them in ways that make the most sense for our State, landowners and in compliance with wildlife and environmental protections. Over the years, such efforts have 

been contentious—both in Idaho and across the United States—and at one point we 
2 

were doing a lot less managing and a lot more fighting than we should have been 

doing. For years, efforts to effectively address public land, habitat and wildlife 

issues ended up in the courts; groups drew lines in the sand and continued to fight, 

and unfortunately that continues to be a problem today. However, significant improvements have been made in the form of collaborative partnerships, so this hearing is very timely. 

Senseless fighting over the management of our treasured natural resources can 

be a thing of the past. Wildlife management partnerships have been utilized for 

quite some time, but I am talking about taking it even further. The collaborative 

model—which requires all parties to come to the table and be willing to compromise—has proven successful and will continue to do so. With this model, local 

communities can come together with all of the stakeholder groups and produce solutions that work for the people, the wildlife, the lands and the government. Furthermore, the collaborative model has shown that people from entirely divergent backgrounds and with differing beliefs can, in fact, work together. I am hopeful and confident that this model will continue to pick up steam and that it will one day be 

used across the country to help address these challenging issues. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Senator CARDIN. And we certainly want to acknowledge the work 

that has been done on the private partnerships on environmental 

issues that the Senator has been one of the leading voices in that 

regard, as Senator Inhofe has. And it is important that we get both 

the public and private sector working together on environmental 

issues. 

The vast majority of our Nation’s land is privately owned, and 

the majority of fish and wildlife resources. Some of our most treasured migratory birds, fish and animals are located on those private 

lands. If we are going to be successful in our efforts to protect these 

species and these places, we all—private, public, individual and organizations, businessmen and conservationists, farmers and fishermen—we all have to work together to make this happen. 

This hearing will focus on several initiatives at the Fish and 

Wildlife Service that promote collaborative solutions to wildlife and 

habitat management. For more than 20 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has initiated collaborative arrangements with public 

and private entities to conserve or store and enhance critical habitats. 

Today’s hearing will focus on three programs: Candidate Conservation Agreements, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs, and the Coastal Program. We in Maryland know the importance of all these programs. They have been critically important to 

protect our most valuable lands. 

I want to comment briefly, if I might, on the Coastal Program. 

Coastal wetlands provide essential nutrients, food and shelter for 

shellfish, waterfowl, migratory birds and more than half of commercial fish. They protect coastal areas from storm damage, help 

stabilize shorelines and improve water quality by filtering waste 

and pollution that end up in our waters. The estimated national 

economic value of coastal wetlands is in the hundreds of billions of 

dollars. 

In Maryland, we depend on coastal wetlands for our livelihood 

and our way of life. So we are grateful for the work the Coastal 

Program has done in my State to protect these vital natural resources. In fact, the Chesapeake Bay was the home of the first 

coastal project. 

Since 2000 the Coastal Programs have completed 203 projects in 

Maryland alone to protect 66,000 acres of Maryland’s treasured 
3 

wetlands. So we are particularly interested in this critical program. 

It has been very successful, and I look forward to hearing from all 

of our witnesses on these three initiatives that are important for 

the protection of our environment. 

With that, I would turn to Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Back in 2005 when Republicans were a majority, I chaired this 

Committee and was pleased to author and see enactment of the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act. That was in October 2006. I 

held a field hearing in Tulsa in April 2005 which featured one of 

the witnesses today, the Grove Valley Principal Debbie Straughn. 

Ms. Straughn established an outdoor classroom through the Partners Program. Former Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall, who 

was, I might say, an Okie, testified along with landowners who 

have benefited from the program. 

The hearing also explored how Partners Program and conservation projects were being developed alongside the agriculture community and others. 

I remember, Mr. Chairman, we had some people from out in the 

western part of Oklahoma, and they actually won awards in this 

Partnership Program for the types of things they developed and the 

results they are getting with conservation programs. So often, Government gets in the habit of telling everybody what to do instead 

of going and drawing out the fact that people who are landowners, 

they are proud, and they want to conserve. They want to do the 

things that Government generally is demanding of them, but I 

would rather come from that way. 

So you remember that, Debbie, because that was a great program. We had all those witnesses from western Oklahoma, and so 

it was good. So I believe all conservation problems could create a 

positive incentive, and that is why this program is a model for cooperative conservation, collaborating with landowners in voluntary 

agreements to conserve and even create habitat for a species. 

I support adequate funding for the Partners Program, but I am 

concerned that the funding Congress provides may be controlled by 

a political agenda, and I don’t want that to happen. The Partners 

Program received $60 million in fiscal year 2010, which was 

around $7 million more than fiscal year 2009 levels. However, $6 

million of the fiscal year 2010 funding was newly designated for assistance in response to climate change. Again, in the fiscal year 

2011, the President’s budget submission another $2 million has 

been requested for the same purpose. 

Consistently, Congress has not enacted climate change legislation for a variety of very legitimate reasons. I just don’t like the 

idea that the Partnership Program, which is working so well, is 

being used for a different agenda. 

The Partners Program has developed more than 41,000 private 

landowner agreements, resulting in positive ecological and economic effects of tens of thousands of acres nationwide, including 

nearly 800,000 acres of wetlands, nearly 2 million acres of grassland and prairie habitat, and over 7,000 miles of in-stream habitat. 
4 

In Oklahoma alone the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program has provided nearly $5.5 million, 

while private landowners have contributed over $16.5 million to restore over 300,000 acres of habitat. That is a four to one ratio, and 

that is what we want. We want people to want to cooperate and 

to put private dollars in, and that is exactly what the Partnership 

Program has been successful in doing. 

So I look forward to the hearing, to the witnesses today, and promoting this program to a greater extent and other programs like 

it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

In 2005, as Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 

I was pleased to author and see the enactment of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Act in October 2006. I held a field hearing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in April 2005, which 

featured one of our witnesses today, Grove Valley Principal Debbie Straughn. Ms. 

Straughn established an outdoor classroom through the Partners Program. Former 

FWS Director Dale Hall testified along with landowners who have benefited from 

the program. The hearing also explored how Partners Program conservation projects 

were being developed alongside agriculture, ranching and oil and gas development. 

The Partners Program demonstrates that conservation, oil and gas development, 

and agriculture are not mutually exclusive. 

I believe all conservation programs should create positive incentives to protect 

species and above all should hold the rights of private landowners sacred. That is 

why this program is the model for cooperative conservation, collaborating with landowners in voluntary agreements to conserve and even create habitat for species. I 

support adequate funding for the Partners Program, but I am concerned that the 

funding Congress provides may be constrained by political agendas. The Partners 

Program received $60 million in fiscal year 2010, which is around $7 million more 

than fiscal year 2009 levels. Six million of the fiscal year 2010 funding, however, 

was newly designated for ‘‘assistance in response to climate change.’’ Again in the 

fiscal year 2011 President’s budget submission, another $2 million has been requested of Partners Program funding for the same purpose. Consistently, Congress 

has not enacted climate change legislation for a variety of very legitimate concerns. 

It is important that the Partners Program remain focused on conservation and that 

otherwise eligible projects for the Partners Program are not rejected simply because 

the Administration wishes to impose a new climate nexus to Partners projects. 

The Partners Program has developed more than 41,000 private landowner agreements, resulting in positive ecological and economic effects on tens of thousands of 

acres nationwide, including nearly 800,000 acres of wetlands, nearly 2 million acres 

of grassland and prairie habitat, and over 7,000 miles of in-stream habitat. In Oklahoma alone, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program has provided nearly $5.5 million, while private landowners have contributed 

over $16.5 million to restore over 300,000 acres of habitat in Oklahoma through 

over 1,000 individual voluntary agreements with private landowners. The rate of 

public to private investment is 4 to 1. 

On that high note, I welcome all the witnesses to the Committee and look forward 

to hearing more about your collaborative efforts. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse, from the coastal State of Rhode Island. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored 

to be here, and I appreciate your keen interest in coastal matters. 

For those of you in the audience, Senator Cardin and I have a 

friendly rivalry about the Ocean State, which is mine, and Maryland. We have more of a sailing and ocean presence. 
5 

Senator INHOFE. And I am not in on either one of those deals. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. He has some lovely photographs of sailing 

in his office that I contend were actually taken in Rhode Island. 

But this is an important hearing, and I appreciate him very much 

holding it. 

I also want to thank Senator Crapo who was one of the instigators, who couldn’t be here right now, but his interest in this is very 

considerable. 

Senator Cardin and I share the characteristic of representing 

States that get a climate change double whammy. Not only do we 

face the terrestrial effects of climate change, and we see it in our 

orchard, for instance, blooming unseasonably in the winter because 

temperatures are unprecedentedly warm, but we also face it at sea 

along our coasts. 

We see it through sea level rise, which even small increments of 

sea level rise can produce really significant effects when, say, driven by storm surge and changing velocity zones under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act and changing development patterns, and 

putting infrastructure at risk. 

We see it in habitat shift as warming coastal waters change the 

habitat and the species that can live there, and we lose our traditional fisheries, and they are replaced with other species that come 

in to take advantage of the changed climate. 

And finally, we are both at risk of ocean acidification, which may 

prove to be the most damaging feature of climate change in terms 

of its effect on our species and on our planet. 

So for those of us getting that or vulnerable to that climate 

change double whammy, the role of the Coastal Program is very 

significant, and I am pleased that Mr. Frazer is here, and we will 

have the chance to discuss it. 

So thank you for your leadership, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Our first witness is Mr. Gary Frazer. Mr. Frazer is the Assistant 

Director for Endangered Species at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He is responsible for carrying out policy development and management of all aspects of the Endangered Species Act. 

Mr. Frazer started his career with the Service in 1984. He has 

served that Agency in many critical capacities and in many places 

across this country. We want to welcome him back to the Environment and Public Works Committee where he spent a year as a Fellow. We will not hold that against you. 

What year were you the Fellow here? We can start with that. 

Mr. FRAZER. Senator, many years have passed since then. That 

was in the late 1980s, so about 1988, 1989. I remember very well 

my first time sitting back behind the dais. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. That is before, I think, the three of us 

got to the U.S. Senate, so welcome. It is nice to have you back. 

Mr. FRAZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. And your entire statement will be made part of 

the record, as will all of the witnesses’, without objection, and you 

may proceed as you wish. 
6 

STATEMENT OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

ENDANGERED SPECIES, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. FRAZER. Good morning, Chairman Cardin and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for the 

Endangered Species Program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify on 

collaborative solutions to wildlife and habitat management. 

My testimony will focus on several programs through which the 

Service works in partnership with Federal, State and private land 

managers to conserve wildlife through habitat protection, restoration and management. 

These programs include the Coastal Program, the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program, and several landowner tools within the 

Endangered Species Program. 

The Coastal Program was established in the Chesapeake Bay in 

1985 and has since expanded to 23 coastal areas around the country. Through the Coastal Program, the Service partners with coastal communities to conserve and restore coastal ecosystems for the 

benefit of fish, wildlife and people. The Coastal Program provides 

technical and financial support through a variety of partnerships 

that conduct coastal habitat assessments and planning, protection 

and restoration activities. 

One of the Coastal Program’s greatest strengths is its boots on 

the ground approach to achieving these conservation goals. 

Through these partnerships, the program leverages a minimum of 

one Federal dollar to four non-Federal dollars. 

A recent Chesapeake Bay success story is the Hail Cove Living 

Shoreline Project at the Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge in 

Kent County on the Eastern Shore. The Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, and the National 

Aquarium led a partnership of 20 organizations to restore 1,600 

feet of shoreline and protect over 200 acres of sea grass beds and 

wetlands that are one of the most important wintering areas for 

waterfowl in the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Coastal Program also co-administers the National Coastal 

Wetlands Conservation Grant Program in concert with the Service’s Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The program annually provides grants to coastal States to acquire and restore 

coastal wetlands. Since 1992 it has awarded nearly $240 million to 

States to protect, restore and enhance 260,000 acres of coastal wetlands. In 2010 the program awarded $19.2 million to support 25 

projects in 11 different coastal States. 

Another flagship collaborative program, the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program, first took root in the Midwest in the mid1980s to restore wetlands on private lands that were severely degraded by agriculture development and recurring droughts. The 

Partners Program is a voluntary citizen and community-based 

stewardship program for fish and wildlife conservation. The program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat improvement and restoration projects on private 

lands that benefit Federal trust fish and wildlife species. 

In 2006, with the support of Senator Inhofe and other Members 

of Congress, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act specifically au-
7 

thorized the assistance to private landowners that the Service carries out through the Partners Program. 

The Partners Program is also working to develop schoolyard 

habitat projects such as the Outdoor Classroom at Deer Creek Elementary School in Edmond, Oklahoma. Principal Debbie Straughn, 

a witness here today, has led the effort to plan, implement and 

maintain the Outdoor Classroom since 1997. Projects like this one 

provide the students with a powerful example of land stewardship 

and provide families and local businesses the opportunity to get involved in creating and maintaining wildlife habitat. 

Finally, the Service’s Endangered Species Program has several 

tools that have been successful in creating partnerships with landowners to conserve species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act or that are candidates for 

listing. 

Candidate conservation agreements, or CCAs, are agreements between the Service and one or more landowners who voluntarily 

commit to manage in a way that removes or reduces threats to candidate species on Federal and non-Federal lands. The Service has 

entered into 110 CCAs over the last 15 years, primarily with other 

Federal agencies and States. Over 160 species of plants and animals have benefited from these agreements. 

Candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or CCAAs, 

are available only to non-Federal landowners and address the concern of these landowners about potential future land use restrictions if the candidate species should become listed under the ESA. 

CCAAs provide assurance that should the species become listed in 

the future, additional land use restrictions or mitigation commitments will not be required. 

Currently, there are 22 CCAAs in place, including one signed recently with Idaho Fish and Game for the greater sage grouse. 

Safe Harbor Agreements are voluntary agreements available to 

any non-Federal landowner that wants to aid in the recovery of 

species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In return 

for agreeing to implement management actions that will contribute 

to the recovery of listed, the landowner receives regulatory assurances that he or she can alter or modify the enrolled property and 

return it to the original baseline condition at the end of the agreement, even if that means incidentally taking the listed species. 

Through Safe Harbor Agreements, landowners could put their 

conservation ethic to work, confident that their voluntary efforts 

will not result in increased restrictions on how they use their land. 

Strong partnerships such as those I have described here are the 

cornerstone for the Service’s work and mission. By building strong 

partnerships and initiating early and collaborative conservation efforts, we can best conserve fish and wildlife and restore and protect 

the habitat upon which they depend. 

The Department of the Interior and the Service appreciate your 

interest in these issues and thank you again for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:] 
8 

TESTIMONY OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENDANGERED 

SPECIES, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

ON COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS TO WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT, BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

AND PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

April27, 2010 

Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for 

the Endangered Species program within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Thank you 

for the opportunity to be here today to testify on collaborative solutions to wildlife and habitat 

management. My testimony will focus on three innovative programs that allow the Service to 

partner with federal, state, and private entities to collaboratively conserve wildlife through 

habitat protection, restoration and management. These programs include the Coastal Program, 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and Candidate Conservation within the Endangered 

Species Program. 

The Department of the Interior (DO!) is a lead federal agency responsible for conserving and 

protecting the Nation's fish and wildlife resources, and the habitats upon which they depend. 

DOl has long recognized that successful protection, management and conservation of wildlife 

species depend on partnerships. Such cooperative conservation provides numerous benefits; 

including engaging the public and localities in stewardship, leveraging federal dollars, 

maintaining private property rights, and utilizing localized knowledge. Partnerships contribute 

significantly to our work. 

Partnerships with local municipalities, private landowners, school groups, corporations and 

numerous other interests arc important because fish and wildlife do not recognize political 

boundaries and jurisdictions. Partnering can avoid duplication of effort, provide for pooling of 

scarce resources, and promote coordinated, focused and consistent mutual efforts toward 

conservation and outdoor recreation successes. 

For example, the FWS Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program are 

voluntary, locally-based habitat protection and restoration programs. Through both programs, 

FWS works with willing partners on a landscape scale to protect, restore, and enhance priority 

habitats that support FWS trust species, including migratory birds, fish, marine mammals, 

threatened and endangered species, and species of international concern. 

Through the Candidate Conservation program, the FWS, in partnership with State and Federal 

agencies, Tribes, private organizations, and landowners, works to reduce the threats to declining 

species and thus prevent the need for listing. By acting early before a species requires protection 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), DO! can maintain management flexibility for 

landowners and reduce the costs of recovery. 

Our challenge is to apply these outstanding conservation programs within a strategic framework, 

so that they are integral elements of a national and international design. We are currently 
9 

building a network of partner-based Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to provide this 

capacity. 

Coastal Program 

More than half of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties that comprise only 17 percent of 

the contiguous United States. Coastal populations are projected to increase to 75 percent by 

2025. Increasing development and corresponding human activity will put enormous pressure on 

coastal ecosystems. The Coastal Program was established in the Chesapeake Bay in 1985 to 

begin address this concern and the resulting impacts to fish and wildlife. Since its inception, the 

program has expanded to 23 priority coastal areas around the country, including the Great Lakes 

and the U.S. Commonwealths and Territories. 

Through the Coastal Program, the FWS partners with coastal communities to conserve and 

restore coastal ecosystems for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and people. The program is designed 

to help conserve and recover FWS trust species by protecting, restoring and enhancing priority 

habitat in coastal areas. 

The Coastal Program provides technical and financial support through a variety of partnerships 

with federal, state, and local governments, tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, 

private enterprise, and private landowners to conduct coastal habitat assessments, and planning, 

protection, and restoration activities. One of the Coastal Program's greatest strengths is its 

"boots on the ground" approach to achieving conservation goals. The program is delivered 

through a network of locally-based field staff who possess expertise in habitat conservation and 

restoration. Through these partnerships, the program leverages a minimum of one federal dollar 

to four non-federal dollars. 

The Coastal Program is implemented strategically with other FWS and partner programs, such as 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 

National Fish Habitat Action Plan, the National Invasive Species Management Plan, and 

numerous threatened and endangered species recovery plans. Delivery of the Coastal Program is 

guided by five-year regional strategic plans that identify fish and wildlife conservation 

challenges, restoration priorities, geographic focal areas, and partnership opportunities. These 

plans are developed collaboratively with partners and integrate the goals and priorities of State 

Wildlife Action Plans, National Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, 

Special Area Management Plans, and other coastal ecosystem management plans. 

The Coastal Program's impact in the Chesapeake Bay is indicative of its success. In the last five 

years, the FWS has worked with partners in the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays watersheds to 

acquire over $17 million in federal, state, local, and private funding to protect 5,000 acres of fish 

and wildlife habitat; restore 2,000 acres of coastal wetlands; restore 4,000 feet of shoreline; and 

restore 3 miles of stream and riparian habitats; and open over 40 miles of coastal streams and 

rivers through dam removals. The FWS manages the Maryland Nutria Project, which has 

eradicated the destructive invasive exotic nutria from over 150,000 acres of wetlands. The 

Chesapeake Bay Coastal Program is also engaged in restoring eel passage in the Potomac River, 

2 
10 

assessing waterfowl populations and habitat, and conducting stream restoration trainings for 

hundreds of conservation professionals. 

A recent Chesapeake Bay success story is the Hail Cove Living Shoreline Project at Eastern 

Neck National Wildlife Refuge in Kent County on the Eastern Shore. The FWS, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited and the National Aquarium lead a 

partnership of 20 organizations, including Vulcan Materials Company, Washington College, and 

Rock Hall Elementary School, to restore l ,600 feet of shoreline, protecting over 200 acres of sea 

grass beds and wetlands that are one of the most impmtant wintering areas for waterfowl in the 

Chesapeake Bay. This project included construction of reef habitat for oysters and mussels that 

are important food sources for diving ducks and Striped bass. The project was the recipient of a 

Coastal America Partnership Award, awarded by the President. 

The Coastal Program also co-administers the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant 

Program in concert with the FWS Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The National 

Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program annually provides grants to coastal states to 

acquire and restore coastal wetlands. Since 1992, the program has awarded nearly $240 million 

to states to protect, restore, and enhance 260,000 acres of coastal wetlands. In 2010, the program 

awarded $19.2 million to support 25 projects in II coastal states. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

In carrying out our mission to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish, wildlife, and 

plants, the protection and management of the habitat on which they depend is essential. Over 60 

percent of our Nation's fish and wildlife habitat is in private ownership, and therefore, it is 

imperative that DOl look for opportunities to partner with private landowners to protect species 

and enhance their habitat while working cooperatively with the landowners to maintain their 

private property rights. 

To achieve this goal, the FWS established the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in 1987 

under the broad authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956. The Program began in the Midwest to restore wetlands on private lands that were 

severely degraded by agriculture, development, and recurring droughts. In 2006, thanks to the 

support of Members of Congress such as Senator Inhofe, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act 

was passed by Congress (Pub. L. 109-294), codifying the FWS's Partners Program. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a voluntary, citizen and community-based 

stewardship program for fish and wildlife conservation. The program provides technical and 

financial assistance to private landowners for habitat improvement projects that benefit federal 

trust species, as well as provides technical assistance to other public and private entities 

regarding fish and wildlife restoration on private land. The program is based on the premise that 

fish and wildlife conservation is a responsibility shared by citizens and government. The 

program works directly with private landowners and communities to protect and conserve 

pristine habitat, and to restore degraded wetland, stream, grassland, and upland habitats. 

3 
11 

Like the Coastal Program, the Partners Program is implemented strategically with other FWS 

and partner programs. Restoration and enhancement efforts are guided by regional strategic 

plans and support the objectives of other Service plans and programs. The Partners Program also 

collaborates with U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), other federal programs, state agencies, tribal and local governments, non-governmental 

organizations, the private sector, and private landowner partners. Projects are often developed at 

a landscape scale priority geographic focus areas to maximize program resources. Most 

importantly, the views and involvement of stakeholders continue to provide valuable guidance. 

The voluntary landowner agreements under the Partners Program also serve to strengthen the 

role of citizens in the public/private natural resource conservation partnership. In addition to 

providing benefits for the Nation's fish and wildlife resources, these initiatives are cost-effective 

and stretch the federal dollar by leveraging non-FWS dollars at a ratio of four to one. 

Projects range in size and scope, depending on local needs and priorities and the goals of the 

landowner. For example, along the Warm Creek in Teton County Idaho, the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program is working with a private landowner, Teton Regional Land Trust, and the 

NRCS to address habitat improvement needs for a variety of wildlife species. This project will 

create prime wintering and brood rearing habitat and will protect and improve an important 

migration corridor for wildlife. Species that will benefit from this project include Columbian 

sharp-tail grouse, trumpeter swans, waterfowl and other migratory birds and a variety of other 

species including deer, elk, and moose. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is also working to develop Schoolyard Habitat 

projects. These projects provide students with a powerful example of land stewardship and 

provide residents and local business with opportunities to get involved in creating and 

maintaining wildlife habitat. Students create these projects with technical assistance from the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for teacher training and project guidance. Students are 

fully engaged, from planning and design through planting, providing every student at a school 

the ability to observe, learn from, and experience nature, enhancing their connection to the 

outdoors and instilling a sense of environmental stewardship. 

The Arthur Middleton Elementary School in Maryland transformed an unused part of their 

schoolyard and storm drain into a wetland that can also be used as an outdoor classroom. More 

than 600 students planted over 13,000 Maryland native plants, creating a wetland that will also 

be used as a teaching area, which will allow the students to conduct experiments, create art or 

write essays. The project provides a vegetative buffer and integrates into the County's effort to 

reduce pollutants that runoff from impervious surfaces into local waterways and the Chesapeake 

Bay. More than 600 schools have been involved in this program nationwide. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has grown tremendously since its inception and is 

recognized as a model in the new era of collaborative conservation. Over 42,000 private 

landowners throughout the country arc currently involved with the program. The voluntary, 

incentive-based approach to restoring habitat on private lands has led to the restoration of more 

than 3 million acres of upland habitat and 975,000 acres of wetlands. 

4 
12 

Candidate Conservation 

Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the FWS has enough information 

regarding their biological status and threats to propose protection under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), but whose listing is precluded by higher priority listing activities. Candidate species 

are not subject to the legal protections of the ESA. Therefore, DOl focuses on proactive 

conservation efforts for these species that can, in some cases, eliminate the need to list them 

under the ESA. 

Implementing conservation efforts before species are listed and their habitats become highly 

imperiled increases the likelihood that simpler, more cost-effective conservation options are 

available and those conservation efforts will succeed. By taking early conservation actions 

before a species is listed, resource managers and property owners have more flexibility to 

manage these species and use their land. 

One approach that is proving successful in benefiting candidate species is the development of 

formal voluntary conservation agreements. The FWS employs two types of volunteer 

agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) and Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs). CCAs are agreements between the FWS and one or 

more parties who voluntarily commit to implement specific actions designed to remove or reduce 

threats to the covered species on federal and non-federal lands. To date, the FWS has entered 

into over 100 CCAs over the past 15 years, primarily with other federal agencies and states. 

Over 160 species of plants and animals have benefited from these agreements. Some CCAs have 

been sufficiently effective in removing threats that listing the covered species was ultimately not 

necessary. Federal, state and local governments, as well as tribes, private property owners, and 

other entities are currently participating in CCAs. 

Conservation of candidate species on non-federal lands is also essential because many species 

rely heavily, or even entirely, on such lands. CCAAs address the concern of these landowners 

about potential future land use restrictions. A CCAA provides non-federal property owners who 

engage in voluntary conservation activities for a particular species with the assurance they will 

not be required to implement additional conservation measures. Should the species become 

listed in the future, additional resource usc limitations will not be required unless they agree to 

such additional conservation actions. Currently, there are more than 100 CCAs signed with the 

FWS in 21 states and 15 multi-state agreements. 

Both CCAs and CCAAs can apply to a single species or multiple species and vary widely in size, 

scope, structure, and complexity, and in the activities they address. These voluntary agreements 

reduce or remove identified threats that are imperiling the identified species. Examples of 

beneficial activities include reducing habitat fragmentation rates, restoring or enhancing habitat, 

expanding or establishing habitat connectivity, reestablishing populations or augmenting existing 

populations, and control of competitive, invasive plants or animals. 

Recently the National Park Service and FWS prepared a CCA to cooperate on the conservation 

of Guadalupe fescue. Guadalupe fescue is a rare grass found only on one site in the United States 

at Big Bend National Park in Texas. The agreement calls for monitoring the known population, 

5 
13 

establishing a conservation team of experts for the species, educating staff and visitors, and 

monitoring and controlling exotic plants and animals. The plan also calls for cooperating with 

Mexico to conserve its known populations and search for new ones. Studies to determine the 

possible need for prescribed burns or other management activities to maintain and improve 

habitat will be conducted. The agreement also calls for performing genetic studies. In situations 

where a candidate or at-risk species is found on both non-Federal and Federal land, a CCA and a 

CCAA can be used in a complementary fashion to address threats and management needs on 

both ownerships. An example is the innovative New Mexico agreement for the lesser prairiechicken and the sand dune lizard between the FWS and the Bureau of Land Management. The 

agencies and the Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management are administering 

CCAs for oil and gas lease holders on federal lands and CCAAs for state and private landowners 

to benefit these two species. Partners are now taking actions to reduce or eliminate threats to 

both species on all land ownership types. In return, private landowners receive assurances that 

their operations will continue regardless of whether the species come under the protection of the 

ESA, and operators on federal lands will receive a greater degree of certainty that their 

operations will not change. 

Several examples of CCAs and CCAAs include: 

• In Idaho, the Sou len Ranch is proving that sheep and cattle can coexist with the southern 

Idaho ground squirrel on 43,000 acres. This 2002 CCAA with a single family led to a 

programmatic CCAA in 2005 for the same species that will facilitate other ranchers in 

four counties providing conservation management. Also in Idaho, the Idabo Department 

of State Lands has a 22-year CCAA for the Columbia spotted frog, another candidate 

species. 

On February 12, FWS approved the nation's first CCAA for the greater sage grouse in 

Washington, Adams, Gem, and Payette Counties, Idaho. This CCAA will be 

administered by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and was the result of a 

cooperative effort undertaken by a voluntary "local working group" established to help 

conserve the sage grouse. 

• The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has a 20-year CCAA for the Columbian 

sharp-tailed grouse on !56 acres of land they manage. Also in Oregon, Three Mile 

Canyon Farms has an agreement for 25 years for three listed species and one candidate, 

the Washington ground squirrel on 95,000 acres. 

• The State of Montana has a 50-year programmatic CCAA for the Western cutthroat trout 

on private land and is enrolling multiple ranchers under this umbrella agreement. Also in 

the State, multiple landowners are participating in a 20-year agreement for the fluvial 

Arctic graying, a fish, on over 13,000 acres along the Missouri River. The Service's 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has been a major facilitator of this agreement 

which is receiving substantial funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The Three Forks CCAA will benefit the Colorado River cutthroat trout in Colorado and 

Wyoming for 10 years on 27 acres. The Four W Ranch in Wyoming has a 10-year 

6 
14 

agreement for three listed bird species and a candidate mammal species, the black-tailed 

prairie dog, on 3370 acres. 

Candidate Conservation Agreements are most successful when the threats that lead to candidate 

status are clearly understood and addressed early enough so that practical, economically feasible 

solutions can be implemented by interested land managers and owners. These voluntary 

cooperators must be willing to address threats, modify their management actions, and implement 

necessary conservation activities on the lands they control. Only in a few instances are the 

efforts of a single party sufficient to preventing listing of a candidate species. 

Regional or range-wide conservation efforts that identify threats and essential management needs 

of a species are more likely to be comprehensive enough to prevent listing. Time, resources, 

and commitment are needed in order for candidate conservation agreements to be successful. 

Safe Harbor Agreements 

Safe Harbor Agreements are voluntary agreements with private and other non-federal 

landowners to improve habitat or otherwise aid the conservation of endangered or threatened 

species. Currently, the several hundred landowners who participate in these agreements have 

enrolled more than four million acres in such agreements. Many of these agreements are 

programmatic in nature, enrolling multiple landowners in programs administered by state 

agencies, resource conservation districts, conservation organizations, and other partners. Safe 

harbor agreements have contributed significantly to the ongoing recoveries of species such as the 

northern aplomado falcon and black-capped vireo in Texas, and the red-cockaded woodpecker in 

the Southeastern United States. 

CONCLUSION 

Strong partnerships are a cornerstone of DOI's work and mission. DOl welcomes the myriad of 

partners who share common goals and interests in conserving the nature of America. By 

building strong partnerships and initiating early and collaborative conservation efforts, DOl can 

best conserve endangered and threatened species and restore and protect the habitat upon which 

they depend. 

Chairman Cardin and Subcommittee Members, DOl remains committed to building partnerships 

and collaborations with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, and other partners. We 

appreciate your interest in these issues and thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

7 
15 

Senator Benjamin L. Cardin 

I. As was noted in the written testimony, the Service has several programs involved 

in coastal habitat management and restoration. Will you describe in more detail the 

unique role the Coastal Program plays and how its efforts are coordinated with 

other programs within the Service as well as at EPA and NOAA working on coastal 

habitat restoration? 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Coastal Program was established in 1985 

to integrate the Service's activities in high-priority coastal watersheds. The Service has 

several grant programs involved in coastal habitat protection, restoration, and 

management such as the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program and the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants. In contrast, to these grant programs 

the Coastal Program is a direct Federal assistance program that is primarily delivered 

through cooperative agreements. The Coastal Program works with partners on a 

voluntary basis to carry-out coastal habitat protection and restoration projects. By 

providing technical and financial assistance, the Coastal Program collaborates with 

partners to design and implement conservation projects that benefit Federal trust species. 

EPA and NOAA also have programs to support coastal habitat restoration that include 

nationally competitive grant programs. The Service takes a comprehensive landscapescale approach to conservation design and delivery that can be described as communitybased. The Coastal Program is delivered through locally-based field staff with 

restoration expertise. These staffers see a project through from start to finish. 

Implementation of the Coastal Program is guided by regional and watershed strategic 

plans developed collaboratively with Federal, State, local and non-governmental partners 

(e.g., other Service programs such as the Endangered Species Program and the Joint 

Ventures, the 28 National Estuary Programs funded by EPA, State Departments of 

Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, NOAA, etc.) These plans integrate the 

priorities and goals of partners, and include geographic focal areas in the 23 coastal areas 

where the Coastal Program works. The Coastal Program field staff is also engaged in 

working with numerous regional teams, where they bring the Service's coastal protection 

and restoration priorities to the broader conservation and coastal management 

communities. 

2. The Coastal Program provides critical assistance to our coastal communities that 

are feeling the effects of climate change and its importance will only increase as 

these impacts worsen. Our coasts are the nation's first line of defense against the 

impacts of a changing climate including sea level rise and stronger storms. Yet, the 

Department of Interior did not include the Coastal Program in its climate change 

initiative. Can you assure me that the Coastal Program will be included in future 

Interior initiatives including the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the 

Great Outdoors Initiative recently announced at the White House? 
16 

Congress provided in FY 20 I 0, $20 million for the Climate Change Adaptation Initiative. 

The funds will be used to stand-up the first 9 of21 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

(LCCs). LCCs are conservation-science partnerships between the Service, federal 

agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities. They are fundamental units 

of planning and science capacity to help us carry out biological planning, conservation 

design and delivery, monitoring, and research we need to inform a strategic response to 

climate change. The Coastal Program works with partners to deliver conservation at the 

landscape scale. The LCCs will help the Coastal Program to accomplish the right things, 

in the right places, at the right times, based on sound science. The Coastal Program's 

emphasis on community-based conservation and collaboration, leveraging non-Federal 

and private sector funds, flexibility to work on public and private land, and schoolyard 

habitat program embodies many of the core principles of the Great Outdoors Initiative. 

3. Please provide the subcommittee witb a state by state funding history for the 

Coastal Program. 

The Coastal Program supports 23 offices in high-priority coastal areas in IS of the 36 

U.S. coastal States, Commonwealths and territories. Thus, not all coastal States have a 

Coastal Program office, however, some offices focused on large coastal ecosystems 

service more than one state. The Service allocates Coastal Program funds to the Regions 

and the Regions distribute their allocations to the 23 Coastal Program field offices to 

address regional priorities. Below is a chart showing the Regional allocations FY 2006-

FY2010. 

FY06 

FY07 

FYOS 

FY09 

FYIO 

Rl 

1,769,828 

I 836024 

1,866,750 

1,932,522 

2,039,669 

1,256,204 

I 299101 

1,278,478 

1,324,107 

1,392,146 

Rl: WA,OR,HI,GU,AS,CNMI 

R2: TX 

R3: WI, MI. IL, IN, OH 

RJ 

682,896 

722 945 

734,137 

777,761 

840,462 

R4; NC, SC, GA, FL, MS, AL, LA 

R4 

2,780,403 

2,908458 

2,792.449 

2,923 857 

3,118,712 

RS: ME, NH, MA, Rl, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA 

R7: AK 

R8; CA 

R9: Washington Office 

Senator James M. lnhofe 

RS R7 R8 R9 

3,783,787 685,826 1,028,659 892,000 

3 906.207 724 425 1,089046 923,409 

4,027296 733,663 I 108,564 1,398,097 

4 147,752 775,309 1.174.278 I 552.347 

4,334,753 835,504 1,720,469 1,496,573 

I. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Partners Program has received 

several million dollars newly designated for "assistance in response to climate 

change." The President's Budget for FYII requests another $2 million of Partners 

Program funding for tbe same purpose. Can you please provide some examples of 

Total 

12,879,602 

13,409,615 

13,939433 

14,607.934 

IS 778,287 
17 

"climate change adaptation" projects undertaken with grants from tbe Partners 

Program, and bow these differ from past grant awarded projects? Have new project 

eligibilities been created to accommodate this new funding set-aside? 

In FY 2010 the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program received $6 million in funding to 

assist in responding to climate change. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program habitat 

restoration projects represent a key component of a strategic, on-the-ground response to 

climate change, enhancing ecosystem and population resiliency to predicted changes. The 

requested increase of$2 million in FY 2011 will be targeted at delivering projects on 

private lands that provide adaptation to and mitigation for climate change. These projects 

implement cost-effective measures to restore, enhance, and manage fish, wildlife and 

plants and their habitats. Emphasis will be placed in focus areas identified in the strategic 

planning process. These projects will be designed to help achieve population and habitat 

objectives established at landscape scales for species the Service considers most 

vulnerable and sensitive to climate change. 

This increase will enable the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to expand 

implementation of habitat restoration and enhancement projects in cooperation with 

private landowners within Landscape Conservation Cooperatives created through the 

Service's Climate Change program. To accomplish this, the Program will continue work 

with the States and Territories in support of their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategies, and with universities and other partners to assess the benefits of habitat 

restoration and enhancement practices on private land for the benefit of Federal Trust 

Species. 

For example in Oklahoma, Partner funds were used to control invasive species in Lesser 

Prairie Chicken habitat through individual landowner agreements and through a 

cooperative agreement with the Oklahoma Department Wildlife Conservation. Removal 

of invasive juniper improves the sustainability of the native grassland as habitat for the 

Lesser Prairie Chicken by reducing habitat fragmentation, increasing carbon 

sequestration rates, and reducing ground water transpiration which contributes to 

maintaining ground water and live water streams. In Wyoming, funds have been targeted 

at work on river and riparian restoration projects that will help to reduce the temperature 

of cold-water streams to benefit high priority native cutthroat trout species that may be 

threatened by warming water temperatures. 

Climate change projects are cooperative, partnership-based projects typical ofthe 

Partners Program habitat conservation business model and thus it was not necessary to 

create new eligibility requirements to accommodate climate adaptation funding. What 

differentiates these projects is that they are directed toward species that are most likely to 

be impacted by climate change. i.e., the priority of species most sensitive to climate is 

raised. 
18 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Frazer, first thank you for your testimony, but more importantly, thank you for your service, your longstanding service on these issues. We very much appreciate that. 

In your statement, you talked about one of the important coastal 

program in Maryland, and we could duplicate that in many other 

parts of the Chesapeake Bay and the watershed. It has been a 

critically important partner in our Chesapeake Bay efforts. The 

wetlands are critical to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay 

and to maintain the wildlife balance. So I thank you for bringing 

that up. 

I want to talk a little bit about the need for authorization. The 

Coastal Program is not authorized. The Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program was authorized in 2006. From a congressional 

point of view, authorization allows us to speak with definitive authority as to what we intend the program to be and to give it some 

permanency. 

But from the point of view of the Administrator, could you tell 

us how the authorization of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in 2006 has worked? And whether there would be an advantage to get congressional authorization for the Coastal Program? 

Mr. FRAZER. The Service has found that the codification of support for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has helped to, 

first, institutionalize the program within the organization, as you 

said, but also clarify the congressional intent; helped us to focus 

our budget requests and our program delivery along those lines; 

and also to help us respond to requests from parties to have us 

take the program in different directions and to respond to other 

things that may not be central to the core mission. 

So we have found actually that organic legislation, that authorizing legislation helped us to maintain the focus and priorities that 

we had and that Congress established for the program. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that is helpful. We are now looking at 

an authorization for the Coastal Program, and we will be reaching 

out to get not only the input from Members of the Senate and the 

House on this, but also the Administration to see whether we can’t 

establish the more permanency of the program through an authorization. So we invite your participation in that. 

Mr. FRAZER. We would be happy to work with the Committee on 

that. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I want to talk a little bit about the candidate conservation agreements. This was added to the Endangered Species Act as a common 

sense way to try to work out private agreements that could preserve wildlife diversity and perhaps even avoid the need for listing 

if we can do enough private conservation agreements. It was looked 

upon, as you suggested, as another tool in the tool box in dealing 

with protecting diversity in the species in this country. 

What I want to just explore a little bit, if I might, is how you 

go about goal setting and accountability as you look at these candidate conservation agreements to make sure that they in fact 

carry out the congressional intent of preserving diversity and are 

not used just as a way of avoiding the need to list where listing 

is essential. 
19 

Mr. FRAZER. When we enter into discussions with any landowner 

or land manager on developing either a candidate conservation 

agreement or a candidate conservation agreement with assurances, 

it is with biological goals in mind up front, to address the threats 

that those candidate species face, to the extent that we understand 

them, and to reach agreements on a management of individual parcels such that if all habitat within the range of the species was 

managed in a similar manner, that there is at least a strong likelihood that those threats would be remediated such that the species 

would no longer be facing the need for listing. 

So we have those clear biological goals and kind of a conservation 

design in mind before we solidify any agreement with a landowner, 

recognizing that individual landowners are contributing their slice, 

their piece to that overall effort. But it is important for us to have 

those clear expectations and objectives in mind. 

Senator CARDIN. And I take it based upon that science available, 

these are not political judgments. These are scientific judgments. 

Mr. FRAZER. They are not. And because these are candidate species, oftentimes we don’t know everything that we want to know, 

and so we are using the best information available and exercising 

professional judgment as well as creativity in developing these 

agreements. 

Senator CARDIN. So where is the accountability? What type of review process is in place to make sure that the expectations are 

reached? 

Mr. FRAZER. Well, it is an explicit agreement between the landowners and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The CCAAs, the conservation agreements with assurances, actually have associated 

with it a permit that would become effective once the species is listed. And so there is a regulatory aspect as well. And so certainly 

the Service would look to ensure that the conservation agreement 

was carried out, consistent with the original terms, before that permit would become valid. 

We have not had issues of enforcement or lack of compliance as 

a significant problem in our delivery of the program thus far. We 

find in general that landowners are very supportive of doing work. 

They want to have assurance about what their future commitments 

and liabilities will be, but they are strong land stewards and find 

these tools to be helpful to them to understand what it is that they 

can do to contribute to conservation, and then what return the 

commitment from the Fish and Wildlife Service will be. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you have been there for a long time, so you have 

worked in these programs, and that helps us out a little bit up 

here. You looked at things in the past that have worked and 

worked very well. My concern is if something is working real well, 

I don’t want to change it. And you happened to be involved in 

something that is working well. 

You made a brief reference to some of the things like Safe Harbor agreements. Would you like to elaborate on that or give us any 

examples that might be helpful? 
20 

Mr. FRAZER. We have a number of successful examples of safe 

harbor agreements, one most recently that we entered into is in the 

State of Idaho, where the Hixon family enrolled 7,800 acres of their 

lands on the Ox Ranch into a 10-year agreement to benefit the species. It is one that serves to address conservation of this small 

ground squirrel, with ongoing ranching. 

We find in many cases the interest of ranchers to stand their 

ground on the land, be able to run economically viable ranching operations is very compatible with the long-term conservation of listed species. 

Senator INHOFE. So what you are saying is, if they are doing it, 

and it is successful, that is where the safe harbor would come in. 

You are not going to interfere with something that is working well. 

Mr. FRAZER. Right, and there may be some cases in which they 

would manage their land in a slightly different way, put in a rotational grazing system, do some restoration of water resources of 

other sorts of things that are very much consistent with the ranching operation, but that will also benefit listed species, and that 

would bring those in reconciliation. And then to have assurance 

that those programs, those activities will be in compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is exactly what we experienced in 

2005 in our hearing. Because, you know, I think you would agree 

with me, landowners want to do this. They are interested in the 

conservation, whether it is species or anything else, as opposed to 

someone saying you are not going to do it unless we force you to 

do it. 

Mr. FRAZER. It has. 

Senator INHOFE. I mentioned that I was concerned that several 

millions of dollars have been newly designated for ‘‘assistance in response to climate change.’’ What climate change are you talking 

about, or are they talking about? I am not blaming you for this because you inherited this, so tell me how you are spending those 

millions of dollars. 

Mr. FRAZER. Senator, as you know, we are facing some very difficult and constrained budget environments, and so the Fish and 

Wildlife Service last fiscal year and in the current fiscal year request has had to put together some pretty tightly constrained requests. 

The fact that we included funding in our budget request for the 

Partners Program to support climate change adaptation I think is 

really a reflection about the utility, the value and the performance 

of that program and the importance of habitat management on private lands to accomplish the conservation goals of protecting wildlife and maintaining wildlife into the future in the face of a rapidly 

changing physical environment. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, yes, if it is rapidly changing, and that is 

my point. I won’t ask you, because there isn’t time to get into this, 

but for the record in writing if you would respond as to how specifically you are spending that money, and to what you are observing 

in terms of rapid changes and all that. Would you do that? 

Mr. FRAZER. We would be happy to. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be good. 
21 

One of the things you are doing real well, in my experience, and 

I keep lauding these compliments on what is going on in your department, is working with the State people. My State people tell 

me that you have a relationship that is very, very good and very 

cooperative. Would you agree with that? How do you happen to be 

doing this? Because I know that I hear just really good things from 

all of our State people on how this is being run. 

Mr. FRAZER. We do work very hard. The State Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies are the other entity in our larger governmental system 

that really has responsibilities, like the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

for conservation of fish and wildlife. They, in most cases, have actually the management authority for many of the species that we 

deal with in the Endangered Species Act before they actually get 

listed. 

They are great partners in every aspect of any other program 

that we do. We work very hard through the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies and through other just personal contacts to communicate effectively, to make sure there are no surprises and to 

talk about our common goals. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is the partnership we are talking 

about. You have the Federal, you have the State and you have the 

landowners, the stakeholders. I think that is working very well. 

Just real briefly, are there any bureaucratic obstacles out there 

that have inhibited your fully implementing your Partners Program? 

Mr. FRAZER. Well, Senator, we can always use more resources to 

support more partnerships and such. But in terms of the bureaucratic obstacles, this program was designed from the very inception 

to be creative, to be flexible, to be able to be responsive to the need 

and has done a tremendous job in doing so. It continues to reinvent 

itself and take new directions every day. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Frazer, I have a couple of questions 

that relate back to my home State of Rhode Island. As you know, 

Rhode Island’s rivers were our workhorse in the industrial revolution. A lot of damage was done to them in that role, and now we 

are developing them as a resource for a modern economy with an 

important quality of life component for businesses that seek to relocate to Rhode Island and bring jobs there. 

Restoring the rivers is a real priority, and things like fish ladders 

are very important. Your program has supported a fish ladder at 

the Palmer River, which is one of the last two shad runs off of the 

Narragansett Bay, and projects like that that are actually on the 

ground we find very helpful and tangible and real. And I am wondering what part of the budget goes to those sorts of projects? If 

you have a hard dollar number and a percentage number, I would 

be interested in that. And if you don’t have it off the top of your 

head, I would be happy to have you take that back as a question 

for the record. 

Mr. FRAZER. I will have to get back with you. We do, through the 

Coastal Program, those boots on the ground, those biologists that 

really are trying to identify the needs and developing the conserva-
22 

tion design and bringing partners together. And those partners involve multiple sources of funding even within the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

So there are several different funding lines that are in many 

cases brought together to support some of those fish passage 

projects that you referred to. We would be happy to try to give you 

a good estimate of where those dollars are and how much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That would be helpful. Fish passages, eel 

grass beds, those sorts of things that are really tangible make a 

significant difference and I appreciate you getting back to me on 

that. 

It means a lot to Rhode Island. Over the weekend, I was at a 

dam on the Providence River in East Providence with a guy named 

Keith Gonzalez, who has organized a group of people. There must 

have been 30 or 40 there that day to literally stand in the water 

below the falls with nets and scoop herring. And then a fireman’s 

bucket brigade style passed the net up the dam and around and 

into the slack waters behind the dam so that the herring can move 

on to their traditional spawning grounds. The tide wasn’t quite 

right for it, but they wanted to do it as an activity around the 40th 

anniversary of Earth Day. 

So these things really matter to us, and I would appreciate all 

of the attention that you can give to them. And we have an awful 

lot of dams in Rhode Island from times gone by that could use this 

attention. 

The other question I have for you has to do with the Department 

of Interior Climate Change Planning and Funding Initiative. We 

don’t find the Coastal Program explicitly included in DOI’s Climate 

Change Initiative. And for the reasons I spoke to at the beginning 

of the hearing, that is quite a concern. 

Rhode Island, like Maryland and other coastal States, not only 

suffers the terrestrial effects of climate change. We see it in changing habitat patterns. We see it in our orchardmen seeing winter 

blooms, potentially putting at risk their crops. But we also have to 

face the coastal consequences of climate change, and it is a little 

bit discouraging if the Coastal Program is being overlooked in that 

context, because for a coastal State, the coastal effects of climate 

change could actually be the most severe ones. 

Even if you get a few inches of sea level rise, in Rhode Island, 

for instance, Narragansett Bay is a triangular wedge driving northwards up into Rhode Island, and just a little bit of additional sea 

level, if it is all being driven northward by a storm or hurricane 

and it starts piling up on itself, by the time it hits the Providence 

hurricane barrier, that extra inch or so is now stacked up to the 

difference between a bad rainy day in downtown Providence and 

another flood and another set of plaques on our downtown buildings showing here is where the great flood of whatever year 

brought the waters to. 

So I would encourage you to find a way to put the Coastal Program into that initiative if it is not in it already. 

Mr. FRAZER. Senator, I think that that is a concern that many 

program people within the Fish and Wildlife Service have, but it 

is a function of how the Service is trying to build our climate 

change capabilities here. We are really focusing upon building an 
23 

organizational capability that will support all programs in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to do landscape level biological planning and 

conservation design. 

The reality is that the Coastal Program was one of the first entities that we had in the organization that actually had that as part 

of their core mission. So I think that the money that we are investing here in building that larger capability and reaching out to other 

partners—State, NGO, other Federal agencies—is going to very 

much involve our Coastal Program folks. And those folks are going 

to inform those efforts tremendously. 

And then the other significant investment is in science, to address climate change impacts and needs. And again, those are 

needs and benefits are going to accrue to the Coastal Program I 

think disproportionately to some others because of the character 

and nature of the environment they work in and the mission that 

they have. 

We don’t have a specific label for the Coastal Program. We expect 

that those investments that we are making for climate change are 

going to benefit all parts of the organization, and the Coastal Program in particular I think is going to be a very large part of that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am glad to hear that. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Let me just follow up on your point about these fish ladders and 

invite you up to the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna. As you 

know, Susquehanna headwaters are in Cooperstown, New York, 

and flow into the Chesapeake Bay, a major source of fresh water, 

the major source of fresh water for the Chesapeake Bay. It is also 

a great area for spawning of fish. 

The problem is the Conowingo Dam would stop those fish from 

returning for spawning, and a fish elevator was put in. And it is 

an incredible sight to see, and I invite you up to take a look at it, 

because you have dams and this may be one of your answers. It 

is working very well on the Susquehanna. We always try to help 

our friends from Rhode Island. 

It is an automatic system. It is an elevator. I don’t know the biology—maybe Mr. Frazer can help me on it— but the fish go into the 

water and are then picked up like a traditional elevator and they 

swim out upstream. It works. 

Mr. FRAZER. It does. 

Senator CARDIN. But it is an incredible restoration of the Susquehanna. 

Mr. FRAZER. We are doing many much smaller and less technologically complex fish passage projects up in Rhode Island streams. 

Our Directorate met there a couple summers ago, a couple of 

springs ago, actually, and went out to see some of the projects. And 

to see alewife now crowding a small stream that they had been excluded from for many years is a great sight to see. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Frazer, thank you very much for your testimony and for your work. We look forward to continuing to work 

with you on this. 

Mr. FRAZER. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. We will now turn to our second panel. I am 

going to introduce the first two witnesses, and then turn to Senator 

Inhofe for a witness from his State. 
24 

First, Mr. Jeffrey Benoit, President and CEO of Restore America’s Estuaries, an alliance of 11 community-based conservation organizations that work to restore and protect estuary habitats. Mr. 

Benoit began his career as a coastal geologist and went on to become Director of NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management. Mr. Benoit’s 28-plus years of leadership in coastal 

conservation make him an invaluable resource for us in protecting 

our coastal lands in Maryland and beyond. 

I would also introduce Ms. Robyn Miller. We welcome Ms. Miller, 

Conservation Manager from The Nature Conservancy in North 

Idaho. You have come a long way, so we thank you for making the 

effort to share your expertise in this area and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

With that, I would recognize Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

I have already mentioned a couple of things about Ms. Straughn. 

It is very unusual, Debbie, that we have the witness coming back. 

And so it shows that we hold you in a very high regard. 

I say to my panel members that Ms. Straughn, she headed up 

the Outdoor Classroom thing at a school called Deer Creek, and it 

was so well done that she has now moved over to the current Grove 

Valley Elementary School and is doing the same thing. But to show 

you the cooperation we are getting, I hope in your opening statement you will touch upon what is happening with Tinker Air Force 

Base, how they are working in here with you also. 

And so this really is a partnership in what is going on, so she 

has done a great job, and now we are just expanding her talents 

to other institutions. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

We will start with Ms. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF ROBYN MILLER, INLAND NORTHWEST 

CONSERVATION MANAGER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

Ms. MILLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. On behalf of The Nature Conservancy, I appreciate 

the opportunity to provide testimony on collaborative approaches to 

habitat and wildlife management. 

I am Robyn Miller, Conservation Manager for The Nature Conservancy in northern Idaho. And today my comments are going to 

focus on three areas. Why collaboration is a valuable tool for fish 

and wildlife habitat management. I will provide an example of a 

collaborative partnership in Idaho called the Clearwater Basin Collaborative, and also mention a couple of programs of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service that support local collaborative efforts. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. 

Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the 

lands and waters they need to survive. Our on the ground conservation work is guided by science and occurs in all 50 States and 

35 other countries. 

Our science has shown that there is great overlap between rural 

landscapes where people live and work and priority areas important for fish and wildlife. Even in a State like Idaho with large 
25 

tracts of public lands, it is the private working lands, the farms, 

ranches and forests, that offer disproportionate value for wildlife. 

In these landscapes, the fate of wildlife and the fate of our rural 

communities are often intertwined. Therefore, effective conservation must find a way to address the needs of both the human and 

natural communities. 

True collaboration is not easy, and it is not quick, and frequently 

is it quite humbling. However, the results of collaboration can and 

should be conservation that takes a broad view and sees humans 

as an integral part of the landscape and provides more widely accepted, and hence stronger protections for fish and wildlife. 

My written statement provides you with several concrete examples of how this works. Today, I am going to highlight one of these 

collaborative efforts in Idaho, the Clearwater Basin Collaborative. 

The Clearwater Basin in north central Idaho is one of the most 

biologically rich and diverse drainages in the Columbia Basin. It 

supports over 19 native fish species and 340 wildlife species. In 

2008 Senator Crapo convened the Clearwater Basin Collaborative 

and continues to play a key role in fostering dialogue to address 

the natural resource challenges of this spectacular landscape. 

For the past 2 years, representatives of local government, the 

Nez Perce Tribe, timber industry, recreation, conservation organizations, and economic development have come together working toward broad-based solutions to preserve our rural economies, protect 

our intact landscapes, and restore healthy forest ecosystems for 

fish and wildlife. 

I can tell you that sitting at the table with the Clearwater Basin 

Collaborative is an incredibly powerful experience. It is moving to 

see people who have literally spent decades fighting each other, 

coming together and instead building trust around a vision for the 

landscape, a vision of healthy, resilient forests, clean rivers, ample 

opportunity for recreation, and thriving local communities. The 

challenges are great, but it is our commitment to this broad vision 

that ensures our collective success. 

Last, I would like to highlight two programs of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that also support collaborative efforts on the 

round. We heard some of that from the previous witness. The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program is a competitive grant program providing support to collaborative partnerships 

focused on the acquisition, restoration and enhancement of coastal 

wetland habitats. Although we don’t have any coastal wetland 

habitats in Idaho, The Nature Conservancy has been successful in 

other areas of the country, and my written testimony talks about 

some of those examples. 

Likewise, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is based on 

the premise that fish and wildlife conservation is a responsibility 

shared by citizens and government. It has exemplified cooperative 

conservation as an innovative, non-regulatory voluntary partnership program that helps private landowners restore important fish 

and wildlife habitat. Again, examples of how our organization has 

been involved with that program are included in my written testimony. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to talk about our experience 

working collaboratively to create solutions for fish and wildlife 
26 

management. Collaborations are far from perfect, but they are essential in developing strategies that are adapted to local conditions, 

gain broad community support, and ultimately produce more sustainable and more effective outcomes for fish and wildlife. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:] 
27 

Worldwide Office 

4245 North Faiifax Dril'e 

Suite 100 

Arlington, Virginia 22203~1606 

Statement of Robyn Miller 

Conservation Manager, North Idaho 

The Nature Conservancy 

Before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

April27, 2010 

TEL 103 841-5300 

FAX ?OJ 841-1283 

www.tnc.org 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of The Nature Conservancy I 

appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on collaborative solutions for wildlife and 

habitat management. 

I am Robyn Miller, Conservation Manager for The Nature Conservancy in North Idaho. My 

comments today will draw from my experience serving on the Steering Committee for the 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative, which has brought together community, timber industry and 

conservation leaders. Our shared goal is to conserve and restore the ecological and economic 

health of a four million-acre watershed in north central Idaho. Senator Crapo has played a key 

role in convening and fostering this dialogue. 

My testimony will focus on three areas: 

• Examples of our experience participating in collaborative partnerships for wildlife 

conservation in Idaho and Montana; 

• Critical elements of successful local wildlife conservation partnerships; and 

• Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that support local collaborative 

efforts, such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the National Coastal 

Wetlands Conservation Grant Program, with examples of projects in Maine, Maryland, 

Vermont and Washington. 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to the 

conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 

communities that represent the diversity oflife on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they 

need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all fifty states and in 35 

other countries and is supported by approximately one million individual members. Our 

conservation work is guided by science. 
28 

The Value of Local Solutions for Wildlife Conservation 

The Nature Conservancy's experience conducting biological surveys across the continental 

United States has documented the overlap between rural landscapes where people live and work 

and priority areas important to wildlife. Even in a state like Idaho, which has large tracts of 

public lands, private working lands-ranches, farms and forests--offer disproportionate value 

for wildlife. 

In these landscapes the fate of wildlife and the fate of rural families and communities are 

intertwined. Successful wildlife conservation on private working lands depends on our ability to 

accomplish two critical objectives. First, lands that currently support key wildlife populations 

should remain in ranching, farming and forestry uses and not be converted to other uses that 

leave little room for wildlife. Second, we need to provide incentives to landowners willing to 

implement land management practices that meet the needs of wildlife. This may be as simple as 

building wildlife friendly fences that do not cut off animal migration corridors or as complex as 

prescribed burning in landscapes that are adapted to natural fire. In other words, effective 

conservation must find ways to address the needs of both the human and natural communities. 

Collaborative processes accomplish just that. 

Examples of Collaborative Partnerships for Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative, Idaho 

The Clearwater River in north central Idaho flows west from the Bitterroot Mountains along the 

Idaho-Montana border, and joins the Snake River at Lewiston, Idaho. The Clearwater Basin is 

one of the most biologically rich and diverse drainages in the Columbia Basin supporting more 

than 19 native species of fish and 340 terrestrial wildlife species. 

In October 1805, the Lewis and Clark Expedition descended the Clearwater River in dugout 

canoes, putting in at "Canoe Camp," five miles downstream from Orofino, Idaho. Today, the 

same rugged mountains and rivers that Lewis and Clark witnessed continue to support diverse 

native wildlife, world-class fisheries, and the local economies. However, management of this 

habitat has long been contentious among government agencies, conservation groups, timber 

companies, and local communities creating an environment where few interests feel they are 

achieving their goals. This divisive and litigious atmosphere is putting the health and viability 

of both our communities and forests at risk. 

In 2008, Senator Mike Crapo (ID) convened the local Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC) to 

address the wildlife and natural resource needs of this spectacular landscape. For the past 

eighteen months, nearly 25 individuals representing local government, the Nez Perce Tribe, 

timber industry, recreation, conservation organizations, and economic development have come 

together looking for broad-based solutions that preserve the rural economies, and restore healthy 

forest ecosystems for fish and wildlife. 

2 
29 

While the Clearwater Basin Collaborative aims to address a broad range of interests, the long 

term viability of the Basin's fish and wildlife are central to its vision. For example, the 

legendary elk herds of the Clearwater Basin have been in steep decline over the past two 

decades. All members of the CBC agree that using tools such as prescribed fire and timber 

management to protect and restore elk habitat are vitally important to the future of this culturally 

important species. Likewise, the salmon, steelhead, and native trout of the Clearwater Basin 

hold great value for the Nez Perce Tribe and all the communities in the Basin. 

Within the next year, the Clearwater Basin Collaborative will come forward with a blueprint that 

will seek to sustain the local timber industry, protect intact forests, and implement landscapescale restoration activities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat 

Owyhee Initiative, Idaho 

Owyhee County covers five million acres in the comer of southwestern Idaho and is one of the 

largest intact expanses of sagebrush habitat remaining in the United States. Home to the 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and generations of ranching families, it sustains important populations of 

sage grouse, redband trout, bighorn sheep, mountain lions and mule deer. Owyhee County has 

also been at the center of increasingly sharp conflicts over wildlife habitat, public lands grazing, 

and motorized recreation. 

In 2001, the Owyhee County Commission had the courage and vision to break this pattern of 

conflict and litigation. The County convened a group of ranchers, Tribal leaders, recreationists 

and conservationists with the ambitious goal of developing a plan to sustain "a flourishing 

community of human, plant and animal life." Senator Crapo has advised and championed the 

Owyhee Initiative from its outset and continues to play a key role as we move toward 

implementing that vision. 

The Owyhee Initiative achieved a remarkable victory in March, 2009 with the passage of the 

Owyhee Public Land Management Subtitle of the federal Omnibus Lands Act The Act created 

Idaho's first wilderness and wild and scenic river in nearly thirty years. Just as significant, the 

Act establishes innovative approaches for managing off-road vehicles, protecting cultural 

resources important to the Tribes, and providing greater science capacity to inform land 

management decisions. These outcomes would not have been possible without a collaborative 

approach. 

The benefits of collaboration extend well beyond shaping federal land legislation. The 

relationships formed through the collaborative have led us to work together for on-the-ground 

actions to help wildlife in Owyhee County. The Nature Conservancy, Owyhee County and local 

landowners have used funding provided through the USFWS and the Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation to complete sage grouse habitat enhancement projects. We are also cooperating on 

controlling the expansion of juniper and the spread of invasive weeds two key threats to sage 

grouse in Owyhee County. 

3 
30 

Blackfoot Challenge, Montana 

The Blackfoot Valley is a 1.5 million acre watershed in western Montana. The Blackfoot River 

is a 132 mile long free-flowing, clear and cold river that provides crucial habitat for native trout. 

The Blackfoot Valley is at the southern end of the "Crown of the Continent" one of the wildest, 

most diverse and intact ecosystems of the world- found at the narrow waist of the Rocky 

Mountains where Alberta, British Columbia, and Montana meet. In the early 1890s, 

conservationist and Glacier National Park advocate George Bird Grinnell dubbed this 

transboundary region the "Crown of the Continent," highlighting the region's geographical 

importance as the headwaters of the continent, spilling cold, clean waters to the Pacific Ocean, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Hudson Bay. 

The Blackfoot Valley provides important habitat for grizzly bears, wolves, Canada lynx, 

wolverines, and a myriad of other species found in the high density of prairie pothole wetland 

complexes which support a number of rare and endemic wetland dependent plant species. The 

Blackfoot Valley provides crucial wildlife connectivity to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

and the Bitterroot, Salmon, Selway Wilderness Complex. The Crown of the Continent and the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are among the few intact ecosystems in the lower 48 United 

States. To illustrate this point in the Blackfoot, Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition would be able to encounter today all the species and communities that were present 

on his journey east through the Blackfoot Valley in 1806. 

Conservation efforts in the Blackfoot Valley are successful because of the longstanding tradition 

of collaboration among landowners, public land management agencies, conservation 

organizations, businesses and other stakeholders. The Blackfoot Challenge is a landowner-based 

group that coordinates management of the Blackfoot River, its tributaries, and adjacent lands. It 

is organized locally and known nationally as a model for preserving the rural character and 

natural beauty of a watershed. Although its charter dates to 1993, Blackfoot landowners have 

played an instrumental stewardship role since the late 1970s-bringing conservation easement 

legislation, walk-in hunting areas and recreation corridor management to Montana. USFWS 

work in the Blackfoot Valley, under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, was an 

important catalyst and cost-share partner for improving fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. 

Today, the Blackfoot Challenge partnership has grown to more than I 00 private landowners and 

representatives from 27 state, federal and non-governmental organizations -- including TNC as a 

founding member. Educational workshops and tours throughout the year to encourage local 

involvement and ownership in resolving resource problems in the watershed. 

Since its founding in 1993, the Blackfoot Challenge has worked to protect 89,000 acres of 

private lands under conservation easements, restored 3 8 miles of streams and 62 miles of riparian 

habitat on 39 tributaries of the Blackfoot, improved the conditions of2,600 acres ofwetlands and 

2,300 acres of native grasslands, and removed barriers to fish passage on 460 miles of streams. 

4 
31 

All of this was accomplished through a diverse, community-based partnership. 

Elements of Successful Wildlife Conservation Partnerships 

Each of these conservation stories share common clements which are key to their success: 

• Local people with strong ties to the land who have looked beyond their differences to 

gain trust, share ideas, listen and develop the best possible outcomes. 

• Members of a collaborative process commit to common goals. This requires difficult 

compromise. This effort is worthwhile because the end result will reflect better outcomes 

than any one group or individual could accomplish on their own. 

• For collaboration to be effective, it must reflect improved management of natural 

resources and on-the-ground conservation. Sound collaboration finds practical solutions 

that reflect local conditions as well as governing law. 

• Collaboration is rightly thought to be of a place- where people developing resource 

solutions live and work. The collective knowledge represented in a collaborative covers 

ranching and forestry, community needs, conservation biology and recreation, where 

migratory birds congregate and where hunters access forests, what ranchers need for their 

cattle and what forest companies need to stay viable. 

Collaboration is frequently humbling. Often, organizations and individuals focus on one specific 

set of issues. Despite the best of intentions, a conservation organization may not be aware of the 

economic and social concerns of communities that depend on forest harvest. The industry may 

not know about stream conditions needed to protect a fish population. The collaborative process 

helps the participants move beyond their own parochial views and truly comprehend the 

perspectives and knowledge of partners who share the landscape. The result can, and should, be 

conservation that takes a broad view, that sees humans as an integral part of the landscape, and 

that provides more widely accepted and hence stronger protection for fish and wildlife. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programs that Support Collaboration 

Local representatives of the USFWS are key members of many wildlife collaborative efforts 

throughout the nation. Congress has provided the Service with a range of tools and programs 

that can foster local collaborative solutions for wildlife habitat protection. We would like to 

highlight two programs of the USFWS that we believe provide key assistance to partnerships: 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant 

Program. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (16 U.S. C. 3741) 

Since 1987, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has exemplified cooperative conservation 

as an innovative, voluntary partnership program that helps private landowners restore wetland 

and other important fish and wildlife habitat with financial and technical assistance. The 

5 
32 

program is non-regulatory, voluntary, citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish 

and wildlife conservation. It is based on the premise that fish and wildlife conservation is a 

responsibility shared by citizens and government. 

Example - Delmarva Bay, Maryland: 

The Nature Conservancy in Maryland has a significant wetland restoration partnership that 

includes the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The Nontidal Wetlands & Waterways 

Division of the Maryland Department of the Environment is also providing significant funding 

and support. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the USDA's Natural Resources 

Conservation Service provide project design and oversight services. The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service also provided funding through a Wetland Reserve Program easement. 

The Nature Conservancy has restored more than two dozen seasonal wetlands and one large 

"Delmarva bay" on 330 acres of former farm fields in Caroline County at our Jackson Lane 

Preserve. Researchers have documented more than 50 species of dragonflies and damselflies on 

the site, more than 70 bird species and almost 30 species of amphibians and reptiles. 

The Jackson Lane Preserve is a 300-acre forested natural area that protects almost a dozen 

"Delmarva bays," seasonally flooded depressional wetlands also known as coastal plain ponds. 

Once found in abundance across a large area ofthe Central Delmarva Peninsula, Delmarva bays 

are thought to have originated as wind-blown features at the end of the last ice age. The 

hydrology and chemistry of Delmarva bays is intricately and dynamically linked to local 

groundwater systems. 

Example- Lake Champlain and Connecticut River Valley, Vermont: 

The Nature Conservancy in Vermont is working to protect and restore critical waterways in the 

Lake Champlain and Connecticut River valleys in part through collaboration that focuses on 

restoring river banks on agricultural land. Farmers benefit from grants for developing alternative 

watering systems for livestock, fencing cattle out of streams, planting trees to stabilize the banks, 

and improve stream crossings. This, in turn, enhances riparian and in-stream habitat, helps to 

lower stream temperatures for aquatic species, improves water quality (which is a particularly 

high priority in the Lake Champlain basin), and reduces the threat from exotic invasive plant 

species such as Japanese knotweed that disrupt the delicate balance of life. Japanese knotweed, 

one of the worst river bank invaders in Vermont, is shunned by native insect life and ignored by 

deer and beaver. Even its root system fails to anchor the soil of the river bank. Fish and turtles 

who search for insects in its silent shade leave hungry, and during each successive rainstorm 

nutrient rich soil from the floodplain is washed away downstream. 

Funding contributions for these restoration efforts, facilitated by the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, include The Nature Conservancy, the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the 

6 
33 

Lake Champlain Committee, the State of Vermont, US Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and local watershed groups. 

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program (The Coastal Wetlands Planning 

Protection and Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S. C. 3951-3956 (Supp. 1991) 

The goal of the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program is to conserve important 

coastal wetland ecosystems nationwide. This competitive grant program provides support to 

collaborative partnerships focused on the acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of coastal 

wetland habitats in order to maintain water quality and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat. 

Coastal States which border the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and Great Lakes are 

eligible. The only exception is the State of Louisiana, which has its own coastal wetlands 

program under the Act. States receiving funds include California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. 

Example- Puget Sound, Washington: 

A recent grant in Washington State to Whatcom County and The Nature Conservancy 

exemplifies national benefits from a local project. The Nature Conservancy and Whatcom 

County will purchase a 146 acre parcel that includes 4,200 feet of natural shoreline and 94 acres 

of wetlands. An adjacent 130-acre parcel was recently purchased by the County and Whatcom 

Land Trust and provides match for the grant requirement. The two properties together will 

create a new County pedestrian-oriented park and natural area rivaling the best existing shoreline 

parks in all ofPuget Sound at Lily Point-- situated on the southeast comer of Point Roberts, 

Washington and bordered by Canada to the north. Lily Point's strategic location, its relatively 

large and undeveloped natural shoreline, and its combination of mature Pacific Northwest 

maritime forests, riparian vegetation, eroding cliffs and ecologically rich tidelands give this 

project regional and international significance. The Fraser River Delta, of which it is a part, is 

one of the most important migratory shorebird and waterfowl areas on the West Coast of North 

America. Archaeologists date the earliest human occupation of this area at 9,000 years ago. A 

Spanish explorer reported "an incredible quantity of rich salmon and numerous Indians" at Lily 

Point in 1791. This site was added to the National Register of Historical Places in 1994 as a site 

of National Cultural, Traditional and Spiritual Significance. 

Example- Kennebec Estuary and Gulf of Maine: 

Many who live on the shores of the Gulf of Maine appreciate its biological wealth and bounty. 

Coastal watersheds like the Gulf of Maine provide concentrated habitat for endangered species, 

waterbirds, and diadromous fish -- and it's in coastal watersheds that increasing human 

population and development pressures continue to intensify. Habitat loss, fragmentation and 

degradation, wetland and associated upland loss, overharvesting, oil spills, pollution and other 

cumulative effects of development threaten the natural resource values of the Gulf of Maine 

watershed. Cold oxygen-laden waters subject to constant movement, mixing and upwelling 

7 
34 

create a nutrient-laden Gulf of Maine marine environment-- historically, one of the world's most 

productive continental shelf communities. Coastal wetlands also purify water and help provide a 

defense against rising sea levels. 

The Kennebec Estuary in Maine is an excellent example of how large partnerships effectively 

integrate USFWS partner grants for habitat restoration. The Kennebec Estuary (mid-coast 

Maine), is one of the largest freshwater tidal estuaries on the East Coast north of the Chesapeake 

Bay and is comprised of Merrymeeting Bay and the Lower Kennebec River. The project area 

harbors one of the nation's largest intact systems of saltwater, freshwater, and brackish tidal 

marshes and provides critical breeding, migrating and wintering habitat for several endangered 

and threatened species, shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, and diadromous fish. 

ln 2008, the Maine Wetlands Protection Coalition submitted a successful $1 million Large North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) grant to permanently protect wetland and 

upland buffer habitat in the Kennebec Estuary. The USFWS Gulf of Maine Coastal Program 

plays an active role in the Maine Wetlands Protection Coalition, participating in strategic 

decisions, identifying high value wildlife habitat for protection through GIS habitat analyses, and 

maintaining a database to track the progress of land protection. Gulf of Maine Coastal Program 

also wrote the biological components ofthe grant proposal, edited the financial components of 

the proposal, and created the habitat maps that accompanied the proposal. The proposal 

complemented previous land protection initiatives in the Merrymeeting Bay and Lower 

Kennebec region (including five previous NA WCA grants, three Coastal Wetland Grants and a 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant) to expand and link existing conservation lands. The 

federal grant was matched with $3,215,000 from private partners (like The Nature Conservancy) 

and as a result over 2,000 acres are being protected. Just last month, the partnership was also 

awarded a new Coastal Wetlands grant. 

Conclusion 

America's wildlife and their habitats face unprecedented threats from forces as diverse as 

invasive species, climate change, and habitat fragmentation. The scope of these threats calls 

upon federal wildlife managers to develop new solutions that are equal to the challenge. 

The Nature Conservancy believes that collaborative approaches that harness the energies oflocal 

partners can play an important role in these solutions. True collaboration is not easy or quick. 

But, the examples discussed above demonstrate that collaboration is essential in developing 

strategies that are adapted to local conditions, gain broad community support, and ultimately 

produce more sustainable and effective outcomes for our fish and wildlife. 

8 
35 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Ms. Miller, for your testimony. 

Mr. Benoit. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BENOIT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

RESTORE AMERICA’S ESTUARIES 

Mr. BENOIT. Good morning, Chairman Cardin and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Jeff Benoit, President and CEO of Restore 

America’s Estuaries. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our 

collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program, one of the vital programs woven into the fabric of working 

partnerships needed to restore and maintain the water quality and 

ecological integrity of our Nation’s coasts and estuaries. 

Restore America’s Estuaries has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation’s greatest estuaries. We are a national alliance of 

11 community-based organizations that protect and restore coastal 

and estuarine habitat. Our 11-member organizations represent 

such estuaries as the Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay and Tampa Bay. 

As you know, estuaries are among the most biologically productive and economically valuable places on Earth. Unfortunately, estuaries are in a perilous state due to increasing levels of stress 

from development and climate change. Our challenges may be 

daunting, but through collaborative efforts like the partnership 

that we have with the Coastal Program, significant progress has 

been made, and we know this is only the beginning. 

But what makes for a successful partnership? First, it is important to realize that successful partnership does not just happen. It 

takes hard work and requires planning, dedication and constant 

nurturing. 

There are three essential components that must exist for a partnership to be successful: a long-term commitment to work together; 

a willingness to share knowledge, expertise and/or capacity; and 

shared goals. If any of these elements are missing or weak, the 

partnership is doomed to fail. 

Fortunately, we have enjoyed a strong partnership with the 

Coastal Program for many years, and we offer the following recommendations which, if implemented, would significantly strengthen the effectiveness of the program both within the Service and for 

working with partners on the ground. 

Our first recommendation: authorize the program. We believe 

that authorizing the Coastal Program into law is the most important action the Congress could take to improve the effectiveness of 

this important program. Congress would declare that protecting, 

restoring and enhancing habitat for the Service’s coastal dependent 

trust species is a priority and that the Coastal Program plays a 

vital role in that effort. 

And further, authorizing the program would provide assurance to 

Coastal Program partners like ourselves that the program will continue to be around for time to come. And through codification, Congress also would help ensure the fidelity of annual Coastal Program appropriations. As we work to increase the pace and scale of 

restoring habitat nationwide, funding fidelity is crucial to ensure 

that Coastal Program dollars are spent wisely and for the purposes 

intended by Congress. 
36 

Recommendation two: enhance the commitment to partnerships. 

Currently, each region of the Fish and Wildlife Service has individual discretion over whether they employ dedicated Coastal Program coordinators or liaisons, thus creating a confusing lack of 

order and access to the program across the regions. We believe that 

in order for the Coastal Program to be truly national in scope, each 

region must have full-time liaisons that are dedicated solely to the 

Coastal Program. 

Recommendation three: better integration with Department of 

the Interior initiatives. As part of the DOI’s Climate Change Initiatives, the Service has launched an integrated effort to strategically 

link science, planning and conservation services through the landscape conservation cooperatives. Since coasts will experience the 

first signs and impacts of sea level rise and other climate change 

impacts, the Coastal Program is uniquely situated to translate the 

science of LCCs and to deliver on the ground habitat restoration 

to priority habitats. 

And the recently announced Great Outdoors Initiative is another 

opportunity to integrate Coastal Program services with Department of the Interior programs. 

And fourth, our final recommendation: realign responsibilities for 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. A somewhat odd relationship 

has developed over time between the Coastal Program and the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA. Implementation of Service 

responsibilities for preparing maps under CBRA is administered by 

the Service’s Branch of Resource Mapping and Support, but funding for CBRA, over $700,000 for 2010, comes out of the Coastal 

Program. The annual funding level for CBRA is never explicitly expressed by the Service, which adds additional uncertainty to funds 

actually available for the Coastal Program. 

We strongly recommend that all budget and implementation responsibilities within the Service for the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act be aligned under the Branch of Resource Mapping and Support. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Benoit follows:] 
37 

RESTlli\E 

t\1\IERIC\'S 

ESTLli\R!FS 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

JEFI'' BENOIT 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, RESTORE AMERICA'S ESTUARIES 

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT HEARING BEFORE THE 

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management 

April27, 2010 

Good morning Chaimmn Cardin, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Subcommittee. I 

am Jeff Benoit, President and CEO of Restore America's Estuaries. I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss Restore America's Estuaries' comments regarding coastal and estuarine protection and 

restoration through our collaboration and partnership with the USFWS Coastal Program (CP). 

We believe that the CP is one ofthe vital programs woven into the fabric of working 

partnerships needed to restore and maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of our 

nation's coasts and estuaries. Most of our accomplishments at Restore America's Estuaries are 

due to working in partnership with government, non-profit, and for-profit entities. We are proud 

to consider the CP as one of our leading Federal partners. 

We strongly urge the authorization of this program, but before I present our full set of 

recommendations, I would like to provide you with a little background about Restore America's 

Estuaries and discuss several issues of interest to our organization. 

RESTORE AMERICA'S ESTUARIES 

Restore America's Estuaries has been working since 1995 to restore our nation's greatest 

estuaries. Our mission is to preserve the nation's network of estuaries by protecting and restoring 

the lands and waters essential to the richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America's 

Estuaries is a national alliance of 11 community-based organizations that protect and restore 

coastal and estuarine habitat. Our 11 member organizations include: American Littoral Society, 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound-a 

program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston 

Bay Foundation, North Carolina Coastal Federation, People For Puget Sound, Save The BaySan Francisco, Save the Bay-Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have 

over 250,000 members nationwide. 

Restore America's Estuaries is results-oriented. We join with government agencies, corporations, 

civic organizations, scientists, and local volunteers to conduct restoration projects with real 

impacts. Since its creation, Restore America's Estuaries and its II member organizations have: 

• Invested about $36 million in local restoration projects; 

• Restored more than 56,000 acres of estuarine habitat; 

Testimony of Jeff Benoit 

President and CEO of Restore America's Estuaries 

2020 N 14111 Street, Suite 210 Arlington, Virginia 22201 

703-524-0248 
38 

• Built more than 300 oyster reefs and planted over 2.6 million oysters; 

• Mobilized more than 250,000 volunteers, including more than 80,000 young people in 

coastal restoration and education activities each year; and 

• Convened the largest biennial national conference for the coastal restoration community. 

At the national level, Restore America's Estuaries has been a leader in bringing all sectors of the 

restoration community together to advance the knowledge, science, policies, and best practices in 

coastal and estuarine habitat restoration. Restore America's Estuaries engaged in a 2-year 

initiative to create a multi-sector consensus document, A National Strategy to Restore Coastal 

and Estuarine Habitat, which outlines the objectives and methods for reaching the goal of 

restoring one million acres of our nation's coastal and estuarine habitats. In a previous effort, we 

worked closely with the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation to build a consensus 

framework for habitat restoration through a collaborative process between scientists and field 

practitioners to define scientifically sound and technically feasible principles of estuarine habitat 

restoration. These principles are delineated in the publication, Principles of Estuarine Habitat 

Restoration. 

Recently we have convened two Blue Ribbon Panels of Experts that are helping to advance the 

pace and scale of coastal habitat restoration. One panel is investigating requirements for 

establishing nationally recognized carbon offset protocols for carbon sequestration through 

coastal wetlands restoration. The second panel is considering methodologies for quantifying the 

economic benefits associated with coastal habitat restoration. 

IMPORTANCE OF ESTUARIES 

Estuaries-where freshwater from a river mixes with saltwater from the ocean-are essential 

both ecologically and economically. Estuaries are among the most biologically productive, 

economically valuable, aesthetic, and densely populated places on earth. 

Ecological 

Some of the invaluable ecological services they offer include: providing vital nursery habitat for 

two-thirds of the commercial shellfish and finfish populations and habitat for nesting and 

foraging coastal birds; stabilizing shorelines and buffering against erosion; and providing flood 

control. In addition, they provide opportunities for people to recreate and to appreciate and learn 

about the natural environment. We would like to submit for the record a recent RAE publication, 

Hope For Coastal Habitats: People. Partnerships & Projects Making A Difference, which 

profiles people, organizations, and projects that have drastically improved ecological services 

through habitat restoration in watersheds across the United States. 

Economic 

Restore America's Estuaries convened a panel of internationally renowned experts to help us 

understand the economic value of coastal and estuary resources. These authors were asked to 

research and summarize our knowledge of coastal economic value. We would like to submit the 

Executive Summary of this report, The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: 

What's at Stake, for the record. 

2 
39 

Their findings were astonishing-far beyond commercial fishing and tourism, healthy coasts and 

estuaries are essential for protecting more than $800 billion of trade each year, tens of billions of 

dollars in recreational opportunities annually, and more than 45 percent of the nation's petroleum 

refining capacity. Through this research, we found that with only 13 percent of the land area of 

the continental U.S., estuary regions of the nation comprise a disproportionate share of the 

nation's economy, with 43 percent of the population, 40 percent of the employment, and 49 

percent of output. It is clear that much of the U.S. gross domestic product (GOP) is generated in 

these narrow ribbons along our nation's coasts. In fact, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

found that over half of the nation's GDP ($4.5 trillion in 2000) is generated in coastal counties 

and adjacent ocean waters. 

Responding to Climate Change 

Healthy estuaries help counter climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and 

providing natural flood protection. Scientists have found that tidal salt marshes are particularly 

effective in helping to counter climate change, and recommend tidal salt marsh restoration as an 

important strategy to capture and hold carbon from the air. According to scientists, every acre of 

restored, healthy salt marsh captures and converts at least 870 kilograms of carbon dioxide into 

plant material annually-equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions from driving 2,280 miles. 

Coastal habitats will also play an important role in adapting to climate change, particularly sea 

level rise. Restored tidal salt marshes provide a natural buffer against erosion and reduce the 

need to build seawalls to protect developed shoreline areas against sea level rise. Coastal 

wetlands also provide natural flood control, and help shield communities from ever-stronger 

storm surges as a result of climate change. 

THREATS TO ESTUARIES 

Estuaries and their associated natural resources and important ecosystem services are in a 

perilous state due to an increasing level of stress. The coast is the fastest growing region in the 

country, with the coastal zone losing land to development at a pace faster than the rest of the 

country. This affects the quality of coastal watersheds and, as a result, the health of estuaries and 

coasts. These valuable coastal areas are threatened by coastal sprawl, which seriously degrades 

coastal water quality, reduces access to coastal waters, mars the aesthetic beauty, increases flood 

control costs, eliminates recreation opportunities, and alters estuaries. 

In addition to physical impacts (e.g., wetland loss, shoreline armoring, and sea-level rise) to 

these ecosystems, nutrient and other chemical pollution (e.g., pharmaceuticals and personal care 

products), invasive species, and over-harvesting of resources are major causes of declines in the 

productivity and health of these systems. 

Estuaries around the country have lost varying degrees of habitat and biological function. For 

example, between the 1950s and the 1990s, the Galveston Bay system experienced a net loss of 

nearly 35,000 acres of its wetlands due to a variety of human and natural causes. In addition, 70 

percent ofthe eel grass beds and 50 percent of the salt marshes around Narragansett Bay in 

Rhode Island have been lost due to human activity, and the Raritan Bay area in lower New York 

Harbor has lost over 80 percent of its original wetlands. In New Jersey, only a mere 2 percent of 

the historic native oyster populations have survived after suffering from disease, over3 
40 

harvesting, and habitat destruction. In the Chesapeake Bay over 16 million bushels of oysters 

were harvested in the early 1900s, but the harvest has collapsed to only 45,000 bushels in 2006. 

In Long Island Sound more than 40 percent of the original wetlands are gone. The story 

continues on the west coast as well. San Francisco Bay has lost 95 percent of its original 

marshland, and in the Puget Sound region more than 500 streams, rivers, and Jakes are impaired 

by poor water quality partly as a result of degraded habitats that are no longer able to filter 

pollutants. 

A growing threat to our nation's estuaries is climate change. The impacts of climate change will 

exacerbate the already increasing stresses on our sensitive coastal resources. Estuary wildlife and 

the habitat they depend on are threatened by changes in rainfall, temperature, sea level, soil 

conditions and air pollution. For example, altered rain and snowfall patterns throughout the U.S. 

will affect the volume and timing of fresh water flowing into our estuaries, consequently 

changing salinity and sediment conditions, which will impact sensitive habitats and 

species. While no one knows how precipitation patterns might be altered, changing fresh water 

flows would affect the distribution and abundance of some shellfish such as oysters, as well as 

rare species, which depend on high salinity salt marsh habitats. 

Sea level rise is of particular concern. As sea level rises, the frequency and duration of coastal 

flooding and inundation will increase, severely impacting sensitive coastal resources and 

adjacent properties. For example, in San Francisco Bay, sea level rose about seven inches over 

the la~t century at the Golden Gate, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 

2006 California Climate Action Team project it could rise another two to three feet by 2100, 

which could cause coastal flooding of Bay wetlands and shoreline cities. 

Our challenges are daunting, but through collaborative efforts like the partnership we have with 

the USFWS Coastal Program, significant progress has been made, and we know it is only the 

beginning. I would like to now turn your attention to the USFWS Coastal Program, first to 

highlight what we consider to be successes of the program, and then identify several areas for 

programmatic improvements. 

COLLABORATION WITH THE USFWS COASTAL PROGRAM 

RAE has enjoyed a collaborative relationship, a partnership in our view, with the Coastal 

Program for many years. The nature and scope of our partnership spans the national and local 

levels as we work with CP headquarters on long-term issues, and locally the program works with 

our member groups through Regional CP staff to conduct on-the-ground habitat restoration. 

It is critically important to realize that successful partnerships do not just happen; it is hard work 

and requires planning, dedication, and constant nurturing, often through personal relationships. 

There are also three essential components that must exist for partnership to be successful: 

• A long-term commitment to work together; 

• Willingness to share knowledge, expertise and/or capacity; and 

• Shared goals. 

If any of these elements are missing or weak, the partnership is doomed to fail. 

4 
41 

As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program recently worked with RAE member 

Save The Bay- San Francisco as well as the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to 

restore salt marsh on Bair Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a variety 

of species, including the endangered California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse, 

and a number of birds that traverse the area on their journey across the Pacific. 

On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member Chesapeake Bay Foundation to 

choose and prepare a site to plant redhead grass near the Magothy River in Maryland. This is a 

good example of the invaluable technical assistance that the Coastal Program is able to provide 

to a non-governmental organization, which can then better restore habitat for numerous 

migratory bird and interjurisdictional fish species. 

In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE member Galveston Bay 

Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore breakwaters on Snake Island Cove. This efrort 

has led to the protection of 200 acres of estuarine marsh from erosion and the creation of a 65 

acre calm shallow water area conducive to seagrass restoration. 

The Coastal Program also is essential in efforts to restore fish passage of anadromous fish 

populations and restore riverine habitat. RAE member Conservation Law Foundation worked 

with the Coastal Program and other regional partners to support the removal of dams along the 

Penobscot River as well as install fishways to restore native Atlantic salmon. 

MAKING THE COASTAL PROGRAM MORE EFFECTIVE 

The Coastal Program has grown significantly in relevance and geographic scope since it first 

began as a pilot program in 1985 in the Chesapeake Bay. It now has a local presence in 22 

locations, including the Great Lakes. It provides critical financial and technical assistance to a 

variety of government and nongovernmental organizations for habitat restoration and protection 

that contributes to the recovery and protection ofUSFWS Trust Species. Restore America's 

Estuaries is proud to be one of the many partners working side-by-side with the Coastal Program 

to achieve on-the-ground habitat restoration. 

In a 1994 Memorandum to USFWS Regional Offices, the Acting USFWS Director referred to 

the Coastal Program as " ... the keystone of the Services coastal activities". Now, 16 years later, it 

is time for the Program to be fully authorized by Congress, and embraced by the Service. 

We offer the following recommendations, which if implemented, would significantly strengthen 

the effectiveness of the Coastal Program, both within the Service, and for working with partners 

on the ground. 

Recommendation #l Authorize the Program 

We believe that authorizing the Coastal Program into law is the most important action that 

Congress could take to improve the effectiveness ofthis important program. First and foremost, 

by taking this action Congress would declare that protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat for 

the Service's coastal-dependent trust species is a priority, and that the Coastal Program plays a 

vital role in this effort. This is incredibly important at a time of fewer funds and competing 

5 
42 

programs. Further, authorizing the program would provide assurance to Coastal Program 

partners that the program will continue to be around for a long time to come. 

Through codification, Congress also would help ensure the fidelity of annual Coastal Program 

appropriations and that the Program has the resources it needs to be effective. Transparency is a 

paramount concern in efforts to ensure the biggest bang for the buck in completing restoration 

projects. As we work to increase the pace and scale of restoring habitat nationwide, funding 

fidelity is critical to ensure that CP dollars are spent wisely and for the purposes intended by 

Congress. 

In addition, Congressional authorization would help ensure that Federal efforts to protect and 

restore coastal habitat are complimentary and that mission creep by other Federal agencies does 

not jeopardize the program's efficacy and unique role. Numerous Federal agencies currently 

conduct restoration work on our nation's coasts, but each has a distinct mission that yields 

different yet meaningful outcomes. The Coastal Program's mission requires that their work 

specifically benefit Federal Trust Species, so they may select and conduct their restoration 

projects very differently than that of another agency but yield just as successful results. 

Recommendation #2 Improve Capacity 

Although the Coastal Program has a presence on the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf Coast of 

Texas, and in the Great Lakes, there continue to be gaps in the network. These gaps limit the 

Coastal Program's ability to support conservation partnerships and deliver the program in several 

critical coastal areas. 

We applaud the addition of a new central California office which hopefully will be established 

this year, but a number of other regions currently lack capacity such as the mid-Gulf (LA, MS, 

AL). The CP is an effective, well-received program and ~hould be represented in all coastal 

areas, including the Great Lakes. It is therefore critical that CP establish a long-term capacity 

building plan to close these gaps and provide assistance in all coastal regions of the U.S. 

Recommendation #3 Enhance Commitment to Partnerships 

Currently, the Coastal Program lacks a staff structure that is homogenous across the nation and 

reflective of a national program. Rather, each region of the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

individual discretion over whether they employ dedicated CP coordinators, thus creating a 

confusing lack of order across regions which results in CP winners and losers. 

We believe that in order for the CP to be truly national in scope, each region must have full-time 

liaisons that are dedicated solely to the Coastal Program. Only then will the program be able to 

enhance partnerships equally across the regions that yield significant on-the-ground 

achievements. 

Recommendation #4 Integrate With DOl Initiatives 

Several new initiatives underway by the Department of the Interior (DOl) and USFWS provide 

opportunities for making use of the CP on-the-ground conservation delivery service. As part of 

DOl's Climate Change Initiative, the USFWS has launched an integrated effort to strategically 

link science, planning, and conservation services through the Landscape Conservation 

6 
43 

Cooperatives. Since coasts will experience the first signs and impacts of sea level rise and other 

climate change impacts, the CP is uniquely situated to translate the science ofLCC's and deliver 

on-the-ground habitat restoration to priority habitats. 

The recently announced Great Outdoors initiative is another opportunity to integrate CP services 

with DOl programs. Existing and future restoration projects often involve the direct participation 

of volunteers. Families, school classes, scouting groups, and corporate employees turn out to 

help with marsh grass planting, stream clean-ups, and invasives removal. The connection 

between individuals and the outdoors could not be any stronger. DOl should recognize and 

embrace existing programs like the CP that already work so well to bring families and youth to 

conserve and restore the natural environment. 

Recommendation #5 Provide Adequate Funding 

Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal ecosystems that bridge land and sea 

has never been more important due to the accelerating pace of environmental change now 

occurring. While environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years, the CP 

has been a key program aimed at on-the-ground habitat restoration. For a relatively small 

program (approximately $13 million annually) that leverages $3 non-Federal dollars for every 

Federal dollar spent, the CP is one of the most cost-effective habitat restoration programs within 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

A challenge has been that without adequate funding, it is difficult for the CP to expand its 

activities and begin to tackle the more than $3 billion restoration backlog that currently exists. 

Thus, it is critical that the CP budget begin to narrow this gap if we hope to have a meaningful 

impact on habitats nationally. 

As mentioned under Recommendation #I, it is also critical to improve transparency of the CP as 

good business practice to ensure the wisest use of taxpayer dollars. 

Recommendation #6 Realign responsibilities for the Coastal Barriers Resources Act 

A somewhat odd relationship has developed over time between the Coastal Program and the 

Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA). CBRA, first enacted in 1982, designates various 

undeveloped coastal barrier islands, depicted by specific maps prepared under the auspices of the 

USFWS, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System). Areas so designated 

are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal financial assistance that might support development. 

Implementation of USFWS responsibilities for preparing maps under CBRA is administered by 

the USFWS Branch of Resource Mapping and Support, but funding for CBRA, over $700,000 

for 2010, comes out of the Coastal Program. The annual funding level for CBRA is never 

explicitly expressed by the Service which adds additional uncertainty to funds actually available 

for the Coastal Program. We find this unacceptable. We strongly recommend that all budget and 

implementation responsibilities within the USFWS for the Coastal Barriers Resources Act be 

aligned under the Branch of Resource Mapping and Support. The CBRA authorization expires 

this year (20 I 0) and we believe this realignment should be considered during reauthorization. 

7 
44 
45 

Acknowledgements 

Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) is indebted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for providing the funding for 

this publication. 

·nw N.C. Coasml Federation, a RAE member group, produced the publication. Frank Tursi was irs editor and lead writer and Christine Miller copy edited 

the storic.~ and supervised tht' design and priming. Christine also wrote some of the :;;orics. Both arc federation staff members. Howard White of the R.i\£ 

qaffalso contributed swrie.'>. 8 Dot Graphics in Raleigh, N.C., designed the publication. 

We thank the following people who graciously gave of their time to be interviewed: 

Clay Bernick, environmental management administrator, Virginia Beach, Va.; Lisa Calvo, watershed cnordioawr, Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine 

Research Reserve; Meredith Comi, oyster program director, N .YJN .J. Baykeeper~~ Chri~ Cryder, director of restoration -.md stewardship, Connecticut Fund 

for rhe Environment and Save tht' (long Island) Sound; Lanra Rose Day, executive director, Penobscot River Restoration Trust; Christy Everett, Virginia 

assistant director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Troy Helds, executive director, Mid-Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancemem Group; Karen Wilson Forget, 

executive directo;, Lynnhaven River Now; Dr . .Eugene C. Gasiorkiewic:t, professor emeritus of biological sdencfl, University ofWisconsln-Parkview; 

Andy Good, vice president of US programs, Atlantic Salmon Federation; Pam Holy, president, Chiwaukee Prairie Preservation Fund; Dr. Hugh Iltis, 

professor emeritus of botany, University of'v:'isconsin-Madison; Curt johnson, director of programs, Cunnenicut Fund fur the Environment and Save the 

(Long lsland) Sound; Bill Johnston, permit administrator, Virginia Rea.tfl, Va.; Sarah King, former project manager ofNonh Riwr Fauns, N.C. Coastal 

Federation; Tommy Leggett, VIrginia oym'r restoration and fisheries odem:ist, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Harry Lester, president, Eastern Virginia 

Medkal School, and co-founder ofLynnhaven River Now; D3vid Lewis, executive director, Sav~ The (San Francisco) Bay; Marla Martinez, restoration 

ecologist, Save The (Narragansett) Day; Serena McClain, associate direcwr, River Re-:torarion Program, American Rivers; Todd MH!er, executive director, 

N.C. Coastal hderation: Doug Myers, director ofKien,;e, People 

conservation for snuthwest Whcon.>in, 

Project,Ca!iforniaCoasraiConservancy;and 

Citation: Ttmi, FT, C. Miller, H. 'White. Hope for Coa.1tal Habitats: J>topk, Parmmhtps & Projects making t:1 diffirmce. 2009. Restore America's Estuaries. 

Photo; Sunset on Bogue Sound in North Carolina. Courtesy of Cheryl Burke. 

Printed on te(:yded paper. 
46 

We are, all of us, from the sea. We are continually lured back to its edge to share our 

kinship with it. Some of us set down stakes. But many come to nourish their youthful 

spirit by fishing, sailing or swimming. We come to relax by a placid marsh or to admire 

the sun rising above rhc ocean's horizon. 

By 207S, it i$ cMimarcd, rhree-quaner,l of our nation will live- within 50 miks of the mast. Without delay. we must 

solve the conundrum nf developing co,m!ines while aho protcrting and restoring the very fubitat that duws us dwre. 

ll1ell 

of rcstor;ltion projects as pan of a nathmal campaign to restore the ]l('ahh of our JUtion's emurie$. 'They luve put 

thousandsofvo!unteerstowotk 

Amert'can4tf-orat Society 

Highlands, N.J. 

www.!rrt()ratsociety.org 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Annapolls,Md, 

W\WI.Cbf.Of\l 

Coaiition to Restore COastal 

Louisiana 

Baton Rouge, La. 

www.crc!.org 

Conservation Law Foundation 

Boston, Mass. 

W\\!W.ctLorg 

Galveston Bay Foundation 

Webster,TeK 

wwv:.ga!vbay.org 

North Carolina Coastal Federation 

Ocean, N.C. 

ww.nccoast.org 

People For Puget Sound 

Seattle, Wash 

www.pugetsouhd.org 

Save The Bay- San Francisco 

Oakland, Calif. 

www.savesfbay.org 

Save The Bay - Narragansett Bay 

Provldence. RJ. 

WWW,Savebay.otg 

Save the So.und, a program of 

CT Fund for the Environment 

New Haven. Conn. 

www.savethesound.org 

Tampa Bay Watch 

TierraVerde,Ha. 

www.tampabaywatch.org 

Acknowledgements ~ Credits 

?~HilmspH'a!IOfl,co//alJI.)(atron, ttme,a 

wi!lmgness 10 wolf\ ami tvildllif] from 

" No·th Rive; Farms, No>t~ Ol~ol~na 

Q ChlwaukeePraifie.Wtccmsirl 

"Soe\ll&lySaltPondsResroratmn. 

Gallfcmia 

Shellfish Beds 

Beach Dun~/Barrier Islands 

W,tnt to Know More: 
47 

Publications like this one are usually depressing. Coastal 

ecosystems in America are in trouble. \Vetlands continue 

to be filled. Underwater grass meadows continue to 

disappear, Oyster and clam beds continue to be polluted. 

Writing about them, then, invariably leads to long lists 

of sratlstics that catalog the losses. 'lhe accompanying 

downward trending chans reinforc~ the numbers. They 

all combine to leave readers numb and feeling hopeless. 

"I his isn't one of those kinds of pnhlications. You will 

Our activ!tles can have dramatic and sometimes ctestn .. •ctive effects em vita! 

coastal habitats. Here are just a few of the major ways: 

• A!terlngthelandscapedlrectly,suchasdraln!ngwetlands,dredgingthovgh 

she!l!iShbeds{lrbul!dozlngsanddunes. 

• Contaminating water with b-acteria and roxie substances from stonnwater that 

runsoffroatls.parklnglotsandothertypesofconstructedsurfaces. 

• PollUting water w!th excessive nutrients from agricultural and home fertilizers 

andfromdomesticsewage. 

• Bullding dams on rivers, which block fisn from migrating up cr downstream. 

4 

risheries hJbitar. 

You'll also sN: Reswre Amerka\; Estuaries mentloo~d often in <he 

stori,•:-.. 'ihe non .. profit coalition of 11 comerndon group~ across the 

acresof.coa:nal habiratacrossthecountry. 
48 

A 

NATIONWIDE' 

• Atcurrentratesofcoas!aldevelopmentmorelhanone·quarterolthenation'scoastal 

\andSWIIIbealterWby2025 

• MOfethan60percerrtolourcoastalnversandbaysaremGderatolytoseverelydegradeQ 

bynulnentrur\Qrf 

• Morethan13.00Gbeacheswereclosroorunderpollutf0nadvisonesrn2001.anmcrease 

ot?Opercentlromtllepreviousyear 

• :ntlleU.S .. asealevtllriseolonefootcouldeirmrnate17-43percentottoday"swet!ands 

Alaska·Morethanhalfofc:..+:ertsobstructftshpassagB,f:xxonVa!dezoilspill 

contammate<J1,500milesolcoastfmein198ft 

• SanFranCiSC08ay:96 

percentofhlsloncwetlands 

antlr,pananhal!ilatdamage<J 

ordestroye<J 

• SouthemGahfornla 

Estuariftl'wetlandse!iminated 

by/5to90percent 

• HawawCoastalplmnwetlanrJsdecreasedby31 percemovera 

200-yoarpenod 

• Mostestuam;stost20to100percentof 

seagrasshabitat 

• MorethanhalioJoyster·producrngareas 

petmnnenllyortemporarrlyclosed 

• Louis1anG Marshtlmswloia!ootbaHficld 

)(]stevery30mmuwssfnce1930 

• A00ut90percentofcoostalrrwshesditche<!!tlcontrol 

lnOSQW\Ui.\Sby1930S. 

• Marne·Only52percentofspawningandnurseryhabitatlor 

AtlantH:.salnxmremairJS 

• N;nmganMtt Bay. 33 percent of shel!~sr1 OOds closed to 

tlarvestduetopatMgens. 

• lo111Jlslm1dSound:Tidalweti<lndsOOcreasedbymore 

than35percentoverthepa;>tcootury.alldbedsofsubmerged 

aquat~evegetatlondeueastx!by65perc;;ntsincettle1950s 

• DotawmeEs!t~aJy~Morettlan2.5 

percentolhistOIIcwetlandslostand 

morethanalhirdoft!dalwet~ll(ls 

mvadedw1thPIJragm1tes. 

• Che:>apeake&!y:60percerrt 

olllistoncwetlands,88percent 

otsubmerge{1grassbedsa!ld98 

percentolnaliveoysterreefslost 

• fromEuropeansettlomenlto19B0.78 

percentolw€tlandslost 

• Nearlyhaltofprotectedbarrierislandbeaches 

anddunesaMmtactsaltwaterafldlreshwater 

marsheshavealsobrenlo.st • SmpanandAmericanSam(:><r64percentarxJ25pe.rcentol 

estuanl\ilwe1iandslost,respec11Veiy • Tampa Bay Neariy80percentolseagrass 

andnalfofsaltmarshanctmangmve!labitatkls\ 

• SouthCarol·na:Aboutone-thrrdafshel!fish 

areaspermanBntJyclosed 

• Nor1hCaroHr:a:AJmost58.000acresot 

shellftshbe(lspermanenltyortempomn~JCiosed. 
49 

William Byrd led the parry that surveyed the North 

Carolina-Virginia state line through the Dismal Swamp 

in 1728. He summed up what most settlers of America)s 

coast thought of the vast stretches of marshes, swamps 

and bogs that confounded them. 

"Never was rum, the cordial oflife, found more necessary than it was in this dirty place," Byrd wrote in his 

history of the survey. 

• Slowfloodwatars 

Protectup!andsfromeroslon 

• Improve water qua!Hy 

• Provklesettlngforrecreationar~dstudy 

• He!pmatntall'}strorrgeconomy 

• Provide habitat for marry fish. wUdHfe and Dlant species (Many endangered 

species Inhabit wetlands or wetlands play an important pa1t of thek life cycle) 

• Rechargegrounctwater 

• Produceproductsusedbyhumans:timber,peat.Hsh.rice.cranberries. 

blueberries, hay for livestock 

6 

\X!lm we now call "wetlanJs" were co1\sidered wastelands in Byrd's day. 

concluded, was a JtJined one. 

e>tualies ami the abundanr sea life they support wouldn't exist. 

THE BENEFITS 

nemalmigrations. 

crt.lWI\'1, m.1king the nurshc~ the nursery l"or man} !-pccies of fish. 'hdlfish 

;Jndorher<.xiHeTh. 

in th~ estuary\ plumbing system- holding water o•· slowly releasing 1t 

THE TRENDS 

havcdi(fered. 

kth' or the 221 million acres of wetlands rha1 cnlonlsts fouad in what w-ould 

hecome the lower 48 \tate> were gone by the 1980s. In more than 20 states 

more thJn half of the wn!and acre> WNe lost. Some stares haJ lost almost 

,1!1 their wetlands. States around the Great Lakes, !ikt fndi,lna .-tnd ll!!nois, 

had loot more thJn 80 percent of their wetLwds. Ynu will reaJ later about 
50 

states lost an average of 60 acres of wetlands eve!}' hour fur 200 year;-, 

Similar estimates done since the late 1 980s have found thar while the 

at 

After the bears mauled the \.Yater sampling machines for 

the third or fourth time, the scientists decided to put up 

two docade5 after President George H. \X: Bush committed the country to a the electric fence. 

"no net-loss'' policy on wetlands. 

Historically, most wetland> were drained and convened to cropland, 

pastures and fure..'itS. In Glifornht, for instance, almost 7\lO,OO(} acres of 

wetlands were mrncd into rkt fidds. Bur the U.S. Fis~ and Wild!ifi.> ServiG: 

'lherepottt•ndswithawarning: 

Ctro!m~ .. 'lcientbt~ h.1d w <.knmJCm how much ,<grkultural runolf the 

diJthetrick. 

lkm, bobcats, deer, coyotes, raccoons, a myriad of birds and b!ul.' crabs 

"!be runoff from :\'onh River Fa.rrns and the Mljaccnt, 44,000-acrc 

7 
51 

The N.C. OMslon of Marine Fisheries opened 209 acres of previously 

closed oyster beds ln North River and Ward Cteek, a tributary a! the river. State 

inspectors found that bacteria levels had dropped enough to safely reopen 

portionsoltherlvet 

The act1on came after several hundred acres of wel!ands had been restored 

at North Rlver, lhis ls a welCome trend, As restoration work continues. file 

project's partners are hOping for more good news, and more -oysters 

8 

dit-ched .J.!ld rmn~:J to farm fields in the 197fh J.nd '80s. Much of the hacttr~a 

anJ othn pollutants will !x natura!!y n'moYt:'d befon., entering the riv~r, 

".<\t the tim~ thh land was ditched :md drainnL no one realized how 

much impact runoff had on dnwnsm:am w.ntr quality.' ~aid Todd Miner, 

ffi\'11t.ll Pwtecrinn Agency. the U.S. D(·parnnnlt of Agrirulwn:, N.C. Stare 

l:nivcr:.ity, Duke Universlry. furmer~, prh~HC foundations and investors, a 

huntmg group, a priva1e mitigation !and bank. students and !oc..:tl resident~. 

AH bring sweat equity, money or hmh ro the dtDrt. 

whJt rhe~-'relearningin scit!Kedass, 

an encounter she had out at the farm one day when she was leading a tour. 

up and agent!emangotout. 

rould.Hewng.1tat." 

,onwlhin['; had 10 he dorw w ck~n ttp rhe W.lter if the fi~hing wa<o to revive. 

told dw Gtrttrtt Neurs"nmes in 200). 

f le cominue> tO work on the restoration, and be-> gotten his rwo 

reen,lged daughters involveJ, as wdl. 

of the :-\onh River:' he explained. 'Tve been 
52 

explorCrs sailing ',Jong the weste;n shore of Lake Mich.igan. 

Unending fields of taU grass came down to the water's edge, 

trampled in spots by wandering bison. The ground was covered by a riot of blooming native wildflowers. 1l1eir colors 

depended on the season- yellow puccoon and purple shooting stars in the spring, black-eyed susans and golden coreopsis in the summer and a grand show of goldenrods, asters and 

red, gold and brown Indian grass in the fall. Aldo Leopold, 

one of America's great naturalists and himself a native of the 

prairies, would later cal! it the "calendar of colors." 

But there is a place, just across the Wisconsin line, where a remnant of 

"'Ibis was one of the first projects in the state nf\X'i:.consin whrrc a 

Con.>ervancy. ~People were a big part of this.'' 

Rm, first there wa~ 1h1· icc ·nw Chiwaukt<' is a gift of glaciation. lt 

of Wisconsin's campus io nearby Parkside. 

as you climb rhe grade," hr said. 'It makes for a very unique hahitat." 

Chiwoukee. Prairie - "54 

thrive here. Twenty-six r:ue plant 

species, l 0 of which are lisreJ as 

endangered or threatened, grow 
53 

to be (Omaned .mJ evemua!ly ncgotLHtd with,'' RIChw- ,aid 

le!lwgo 

Program fH; given rht ,lt,H~ mol\' than 5100,0(10 w nunagc it' ponion nf 

theprJirk 

!l,e Sr:mi;i\ conquht.ldor.', C:t\iorkinviu nl'tC'- uod to -eomp!.1in tiHI 

~:~,;;~l:1;~1i::, ':~~.-~~~~~(-~~·~~~: ;~i~:.:~ i.:v::::~~ t~~~~: :~~~cl;;i;· ~:~r:~~.:~:~;:)l~(~·r r_: 

bdktkkk •' 

Before :he Europearl settlers arrived. ihe prairies or No:th Ame1ica bumee 

regc:lzrly.ughtllingsp-arkedflresthatcould bumi1undredscfacres.Nat1v0 

Americansputtheprairieslothetorchtodrivegame.protecttheirviFages 

easetravelandencourage(FOVtthofnuts,berriesnndseeds 

Asaresult.theplantsanJammalsofthepralltesadantedtofHeardtimve 

Wiihitasoarto1!heirlifecycles.Firerecyclesnutrientsfromthethatchinm 

mesoll,sootherplantscanusethem,anddirectheatingofseedsiqsoil 

Stlmulmesgerrnination.lfllhespnPg fiHHJiackensdsoiiabsorbsthesun'sheat 

andwarmsquick1y.•:lhicl1helpsplan!sgetanearlystari.Burningalsohelpsto 

controlshruilsa•JcltreBsthalinvadetheprairie.WithOutburning,marJyofthe 

pralneswouldeventuallyt~lrnmtcforests 

diversity a~d to control i;~vading species, explained s:evn Richter of the 

Wisconsin Chapter ol The Nature Conservar1cy, whicll owns a lid manages. a 

portio~• of the Chiwaukee Prairie. These so·called '·prescribed burns·· ;m; less 

freouent in the Chiwaukee because of ~he railroad, W'lich runs tllroug·1 ;!le 

prwrm. Sparks c:·eateD by lhe v-:tleets milit1g along on the trac~s frequen11y 

Richter said. "That's usually enough., 

10 

In the gathering dusk of a s_orirtg night i11 1965, Phil Sander and AI Kramcwt 

stcorJ atoo the ernliank:nenl that anchO~ed tile rail• cart line to tne sllO!B ollake 

MIC'<ig;m So1ead below \11em was !he last unwuche(! prwne in W1SCOI1Sin, 

·n ~1e purple of blooming shoot1ng stars 

"We'Nerestrugglmgwithourfearsandtrvmgtonmveataroirnoortar,l 

I was 

seekngillssuoporlandls:IOnglysuspectllewasseekmgr:->meWeneedeci 

Wehadtomake 

Tn,;tvohaaknowneachothe;foraboutayear.draw'llogeth0rbytl1eirlove 

of w11C1 places and oi th1s place m part1C~1!ar What they d1rJn t know that night 

~l\ :ne ':JIIroad tracks 1-vas tllat tillS p;aine 'N0Uiei keep tner:\ bCtJ;'lei togetiwr fo1 
54 

~Phit,~ Kr:arnp'ert asked 'finally, ''is there Myth if\{! vve can tiD to s8.ve it?" 

huildingahouseinthepralrieorevenplantlngcropsthere 

Chicago, about 50 miles to the south. rnough lots were platted and sold< the 

Depresslon1ntervened.Afewpalatia!houseswerebuiltalongthelakeandpartof 

tnego!ICOlJrseopened,butmostolthep1ansdiedwithtllestockmarke! Aboutall 

that's!eftofthemisaname 

'People think 'Chiwaukee· is an Indian word,' explained Eugene C, Gasiorkiewlcz.f1e'saretiredprDf\',ssoraitheUniversityofWisconsin·Parksidein 

Kenoshaandpubfished \tmfirst,8ndnostcomp!eteplanthstl~rtheprairiB. "!t 

was a marketing ploy," he went on. "ihe prairie is halfway between Chicago and 

Milwaukee. The developers came up with the word in hopes of attracting buyers 

fromthoseclties.Thelndianshadnothingtodowi!hit' 

Overtneyears.otherdevelopmentplansfortheprairiealsocameanuwenl,but 

anannourJcemen!inear!yi965hadanominousring.Developerssaidtheywould 

bui1aamassivemarlnalor1,000boats,alargemotetanctagolfcourseinpartof 

theChiwaukee nearthel!linoisstateline 

ThatwouldbelheendofthepmiritLHughlltisknew_Hewasabotanistatthe 

time at 1he Univ.ersity of Wisconsin's maill campus in Madison. "As someone wrw 

was very fTHJCh irJterested in the flora of W1sconsm, I Kfl!lVJ the Chiwaukee Wi\s 

absolutsly fabulous: litis, now 84, said. "The marina would have rlestroveo a very 

specla!place,and!wantedtori\isealit!leheilaboutlt' 

He started with the Kenosha county commissioilers who had to rezone the 

prairietornakewaytorthemarina.!HisandOrieLoucks,anotherMadlson 

professor, drove two hours m a blinding snowstorm to attend the commissioners' 

rezoninghearir~ginFebruary1965.Krampertrememberedlltisarrivingiateand 

slafldingbeforetheboardwithmeltingsnowdrippingfromhiscoat 

"YouarerezoninglandinPieasantPrairiefownship,"lltistoldlhr.commissioners.'·Yourchildrenwillask,'IAftlatlsapleasantprair!e?'andyouwillhaveno 

answer-loryouwillhavedestroyediL" 

Othersalsospokeagainstlherezoni:Jg.Mostwerelo.."":alpe(lp!e,butsomedrove 

l 0 miles from Racine r:r all the way from Milwaukee and Marquette. lt did no good, 

ThewmmissionersrewnedthelanrJ 

Meetrn.g in ttle haUway af!erwards, opponents fanned an irnpwmptu cmnmillee 

anclappo~ntedKramperttotwadil 

handsome.'' litis said "Bnthewasaooodchoice Hewasagreatbtg guy.oozmn 

1be sluice wheel was mrned on July 19, 2004, and one 

of the most ambitious wetland-restoration projects in the 

country took its symbolic first step with a rush of briny 

water into thr southern rip of San Francisco Bay. For the 

first tim~ in more than circulated 

through stagnant to begin the long 

process of remaking marshes. 

Fran-::isro Bay wi!! be a bener place. 

wi!! h;wc to work with rht• nmurJ! systems that we have, but re~toting thes,; 

Llnds will k•ad w vast cro!ngica! improvement~ ... 

trCJsur::rhat,upports.mnwrmousdiveroitynfllsh, 

pLum. Aboltt 120 fi,h >pecks, mamma! >pcdt·s. 30 

Near!yha!fthe 

~treams. Today, it is ~urrol1nd~d by th<: founh-!arge;;t metropolltan area in 

11 
55 

rta!iy nm neres>myto Jo any phnting,' Lewb ;ald. "()m commumryobasn! 

re,wr.1th.ln t~ fixmed on r<:>storing crltkal h,lbttat lfl tb~ high manh and lew!"$ 

that kn:e heen overgrown with w~·ed1 and exmk pbnr~., 
56 

estuaries help keep rhc water clean, protect th~ 

shoreline from J.amaging \vavcs and attract a \Vide :upy 

of othn marine creatures that COffi(' to the home 

ilw<.:ncbr.llc> ~ntl nwl~ th,tn '1U \rtcc' nfti.,h .111d; u:,t,l, .:.Hl'. on H'Lh 

thuc. \hrimp .md lnHII fdt like f'ub1~,, hkr;wt\ .n~c! tn.Hhi,h L:l(l on the 

habitat fornumerou.1 >ped~\ 

r.ra>' hnh 

RedS ,llso ouhilm:: mean> ku1k\ ;mel (kueaw ew11nn 

oy1tt'r ~hdls ('<ln hhx k \\~IV~\ and rnlnc'' rro\lO!l ,md wrbidin· 

untt' tit\' ~h.,Jiuw w~te! whne oy>l~f~ g1ow with ~ugh level> oi'batterLl tlut 

Jnddwnlwwmeunqff:tnel! 
57 

14 
58 

;::;.;:; ·;:., .... ········· ·······'········· ...... ····· ·· ,, .. , .... :: ········ ·· 'l".;;im:::nm;lr•·• 

••••• ·'·· • • '······ •••••••••· •• ,,.;, •• , ·:: :+::·:: "'' ;;::;; ::;;;tm:::i ;;;:mm 

:::::.:·::::·::::::·::::::·::·:::w::::::::::::::::::::::::o::::·'·"····:·:·::::·:::··.·::·:.··:h .. ;;;;:;:ji;;;::;:: 

· ········'······' ·'······ ···· ··· ·· ·i;: ;;:;;:.m:;;r;;;;:;.;:;i;,;.;,;;;;mr,·;;::;;:;;;lo::;: 

lolKs w·rro just lOOKed at me ·mcreaUiousJy,' ne said ·m 2006 ·Tna enwonmental 

pra!essionals,agencypeopleandresearchscientistsmostlythoughtwewere 

out•n!eftlield.TheyihOughtoysterbedswerefromabygoneeraand!osttothe 

estuary forever." 

Tl1eBaykeeperdidlirodemi1USiaStlcallles.ltsoysterprogranhasrecelVed 

oqgoingfundlngandsupport!rorntheAmericanllttoraiSocietythrougilthe 

NOM-Ril[ pmtnmsh1p a'1d the H~,-CsJn R.ver FoundatiOn. It alSo gotsigG.f1Cant 

sCittMrc S<Jpport from NOM's Nansr:al Varme F:si1er1es Service and aporoval 

iro1:> tl1e N.J. Department of Erwironmental Protecnon and the U.S. Army Corps of 

FngineerstobuildanoysterreefinNewJerseywaters 

Meredith Comi. who curren!ly 11sacts the prugram for U1e now-mdependen\ 

Tlmt they will grow was another sign of progress. Nnw there am indfcatlons that 

ttwyaf-ermtural!yreproducmgonatleastonereel 

Similar programs pin thew ultimate success on the re-opening of polluted 

sheJif:sh waters. Ths!'s nc! likely to happen anytilm~ soon around New York. so 

"Wehaveeducatedthousanc!sofpeopleaooutoystersandtllepollutionoftfle 

"The watBrmen and baymen want lo see !his work, They are 

owrh;ggestadvocates Ourgardenersalsobeccmebigadvocatesforcontro!llng 

pollutiOn.Tiloseareal!measuresofoursuccess ·· 

15 
59 

In southern New Jersey, along the shores of Delaware 

Bay, there are dozens of reminders of the region's long 

connection to the Eastern oyster: Old boat-building 

sheds that once turned out the sturdy schooners that 

plied the bay's waters for oysters, remnants of shucking houses and packing plants, towns with names like 

Shell pile and Bivalve. Talk to the old-timers and 

tell you about the work songs chanted around 

ing tables, about the boxcars heading north packed with 

oysters, about oyster stews hearty enough to tvard off the 

cold of rhe darke-sr December night. 

'l11ty ,m• all p,m of J rich hi~WtT when rhr oyqn \\";;~king. 5adl}~ it 

is .a story unlmowa to mo'it of the-- chi!dre.n who ,ltt<'nd the a:-el\'s sdwok 

Usa Calvo is trying to change All rhat. 

Calvv hi!d an idea in 2006. At the timt' she "'~·1' a. rf.w,wcher at 

Rurgers Uniwr~ity\ Ha,kin" ,ShdJfi,h Re~earrh LJ.Iwratnry in <outhnn 

>Iht oy,'ter, sh>:" thought, coulJ h(' a war to rcKh ''ut tn kids and 

tca(h them abom a healthy Delaware Bay and ab0ut the impon~,nce of 

reswrlng it;, habit,n. lt aho could pur them in touch with thdr history 

16 

··:, b.-·c ,_\·w,ty:; b-:·ct! ·m'<C1'~·,wcti h~ :;dc•~cc .,,_i;u,w<h:m,'' '.\\'<c :<<d~~. ·''i \-:"'" 

n:;;e~n.:h bm I fdt a connKtion to education. I juH thought it \vao a good 

opportunity w do >orne rduc-ation." 

\Vith [,,det·al t\mding, induding svme NOAA money through Restore 

America\ Fstmries via the American Littoral SodCt)\ Calvo rook her 

Project PORTS (Prumoring. Oyster Re~wnnion 'Ihough Schools) ro l 0 

oc-hoph in 2007. Sht• has added hlur more since. 

gr::1dc kvek Sh~· works with individual te.Khers and their (·lasses or with 

entire >chook ''for kinderg,mners, it may just b<" a touch rank," C1lvo 

explains. "Older chi!dn"n get to hold oystt-rs and e·xamine them nn tht< 

imide and outside and learn abour invertebrates." 

Hn curriculum guide .1llows reacher$ muse th-: oyster as a vehicle 

to w,1.1:h b,tl<i'" m~th and science concepts ,md history :and language am. 

By inwrporaring sden(e with lnca! historr pupib can benrr appreciate 

.111d understand the eompkx:iry of an impnn,mt loca.l environ menu] 

pn1bkm -the dfc-line of the Eastt:'n\ oysrn, 

After the kids have learned that ksson, Calvo puts them to work 

fi!lmg mesh bag9 wlrh recydccl ~hells. She rhen movt'.' the bJgs to the 

l-Lt~kin'i L1b where they Me plact:d in tlu~ b.1y to JttrJet baby oysten, 

wlled spat. Cetting students dirc..:tly involved in Jn Qyster-habirat 

rest\lfJtitm projtn greatly enriches the edut<ltinnal 1·alue o.f the cbssroom 
60 

group can bag," Ca.ko said. "Jt's h,mds on, lr'~ dirty and it smells a little 

biL 'fhckid; !ow it" 

CJ!vo, who now works as the watenhed coordin,ltor for the la(quf'S 

Cnn;te;n: NJtional Emwrinc ]{(·scan:h R.e.wrw in Hridgttnn, !igum, in thi> 

w~y ,1hc lu~ rt;u:!wd mnn· than l.'iO() kld~ in rwo Yl'dr>. 'lh(>><' children haw: 

fil!~-d more than 3,500 bags of :-hd!s. which t1wn aHucted more than f-0m 

million 

• Taplocapowder 

• Mill\ 

• Saffron 

• 480ysters • 1/2!h.buUer 

• Oystei!!Q\.l{ll 

Al1 ereerptedc{ln!f8~tiMbetween the cook; SigJimbo, ant! the crew aboard the 

Skipjack JeSSie r :as she pfeparcd tor her maiden ttip to dredge fiJr "fl!Sters'" ill 

Maryland's Chaptank Rfw: 

A 'He-Slew is quite -different as B!g J!mbo prepared his version. f-irst he took 

implant ,th&llavOr. then hequickty poured in tl1e·li\JUOt from :the oySters and allowed 

themtn.cookuntilthelrgl!!swrinkled 

17 
61 

from his son Cam, who has an aquaculture 

business on the River in Virginia Beach, Va. It 

On it were tht' names of restaurants 

New York, even San 

f.ICt that anyone at alt 

18 

>dnt it would t:Jkt· or how long it would uke. \\/(• enly koew rhat the river 

ne::dcd hdp ·· 
62 

h,Ktetia! monitoring anclmodding 

'lhr dtr now has,, usk l{mT made up nf.,cttion head' thJt mcc(s 

momh!y w diwm:; w;Jtcr-qu;;lity hstw~, 11ortd Clay Flankk, Virpnia 

''!think 1he city deserve~ a par on tbe luck,'. said ( :Juisry En:n:n, 

thl· Chesapt·,th Bay hmndation\ av,i\l,mt dirN·tor in Vit·r;ini.1 

'!hn·-re d(•lng much tnnn• t!un ,<ny 

dt:enivc control:, on '>tmrnw;:ner "l yn1~iuwn Riwr N11w h.<> i11.>t bt·m .1 

f.mta;tk partner,'' Johnstnn >aid "l wish l had one oi' tho'>t orpAmMtions 

that yuu em begin 10 tmn rl<inp ~round' 

'li'::::n;:.;:;, .... ··'··''······'···· '·'·· ':mm;l'1' 
63 

'· ·lil;:;:·;•,n•:-r. r•n:;-,;.;;:;: ;; ,. ········· L·-·········::i:,::···· 

and are fOod 'iOr scores of differem 'birds and sea creatures. 

These small flowering plants, known to scientist!; by the 

utilitarian moniker "SAV" 

tion, grow mostly unseen 

our coastal estUaries healthy. 

nutrients s.uch as phosphorus .\\lJ 

.,,., . .,.,.,. ;;., .. ,,l:, .. ,.,::, .. ,.,.,._.! .. ,.j, .. ,.,.,::,., .. ,:., .. ,,j, .. , ::::·:·:::i·::·:: ,!-,, .... 
64 

Pbnr beds also tend to reduce shoreline ero>ion by ~hdn·ring the land 

ffom waves. And they help cleanse tho: W.lter, with 

screenstoremovesedimenr. 

the grasses haw di.>:lppeared in the bsc RJVer in New York .>iuce ! 937 and 

more thw a qu3rter in Nantucket Harbor since 1994. 

'!he researchers also fOund tim about 30 percent oC the world\ seJ.gm•:;>e~ 

have dioappeared over the laM three decades and that since 1;190 the ~nnlla! 

rate' of los~ worldwide has incrtaseJ tfom fOur to seven pc>Cent a year. 

The re,tson.~ for che ftimmc d<'clint' .1rc many. Natntal ('Vtnls, ~mh as 

hea!tholt!'lereg!M'sestuaries. 

Na!Jf~Qansett Bay in Rhode Island is like so many of the area's coastal 

\'Vaters. Eelgrass meadows were: onctl thou_qh! to cover as many as 100,000 

acres of the bay's oottom. l$&4 than 200 acres remalned in 200 l when Save 

With tnilia! funding support from NOM's Community-based Resturation 

Program and Restore America's Estuaries, tlw group Dhosi three of !he most 

successf\tl sites from an earlier test program for a monH;oncentrated restoration effort. initially, there were successes, but there was alSo a fair amount of 

heartbreak. There was, ftlf instance, the cold winter of2004 when ice sheets 

moving across the shalfow water sheared off the tritnsplantect{!mss, or the hot 

summer two years later that led to an invasion ot Jrerffiit,anq green crabs, Vlhlch 

uprooted the plants, 

Lessons were reamed an¢ methods perfected. ~All of Ute sites we curren!ly 

plant are above 50 percent survival," noted Marla Martinez, Save The Bay's 

mstorafiDtr ecologist "We cohSlcter that a great success." 

She's partk:u1arty encooraged by the rest1lls at Hog island, the northern-

~uallty,"Martinezsald. 

Ultimate su\i:ess is far fmm assured, but therR·s no Jack of trying. More t!mn 

rrmve them to the restorafuln sites. Each planting lS a fol.lr-dayexerclse. RQnce we 

harvest the eelgrass, lt has to be transplanted pretty quipl\ly; Martlf'lez sakt 

Volunteers sort the harvested grass, sticking !heir hands in !f!e smel!y buOO!es 

lmping to avoid biting ctabs and slimy sea worms. Some briny kayaks tQ. transport 

\he baskets of shoots to the waiting volunteer diVers, who do- the actual pl<lnting. 

In this way, they planted more than 120,000 eelgrass shoots !n 200tl:, lhe 

Jarg.estp!antlngtoctate. 

<:~n awareness o! the bay and Mw lmport.ant itls to all\lf us :in Rhtlde.l~MO." 

The eeigras.s restoration pro!flct ln Narragansett Say is just one of several 

that NOM and RAE have helped fund. Some of the ofllers Include New Bedford 

21 
65 

For more than .a century, America k'l.i the world in buildt!Jw busitte5S mtJil,\ "little dinky d~ms' No nne would mi~s them, 

dam a day since the 
66 

·nw numbers rd1en the reality, ln the Pacific Nonhwm, Chinook, 

one 

ffom many of New England's rivers. American ~had and herring, which 

were once cultural icons in the !vlid~Adantic and Southern stat~:.s, have 

bt--en decimated to rhe poim th,u peopk no longer realize how hbtorica.lly 

impMt<mtdwyoncewere. 

TH~ TRENDS 

Then the EdwMds Dam came Jown. "lb.· dam srrctchnl ~cross the 

reasons. ItwJ.saturnlngpoimiOrrivercon~;:rvarion. 

Edwards Dam came down on July l, 1991!, opening 17 miles ofth>e 

tb.o number of re<:orded dam l~·movah h~k> grown l:".Kh year, McChlin said. 

NOAA's Habitat Protenion Divhinn and Restoratiou Centn, among 

others, h,wc played !e,ding roles. Thwugh om· progr:tm. it> Open RivHI 

Initiative. regional experts are working w pre>H'ct and IC'ih1rt: :Kces> to 

vation Corp.- to work with communities during the festor~tion proces;; 

and kvnage funding for projt-.::ts. 

American RiWlrs, a nooprofttconservation group. has for more than a c!Bcade been 

at !he forefront of restonng·the nalion'sliverS by helping remove outdated dams. 

The grovp first got involved Wi!tl dam removal with the Ed\vards Dam on 'the 

ill19'99 revitafired p{)pu!at!ons of migratO!y fish such as shad, sturgeon, At1Bntic 

sa!mon and ztriped bass, 

~1 \ N !< ? 

''BI ., •• B ' ' 

nvcrwhdming exdtem<:nt ancl pride, ~he .>aid. 

• RestO!int!Jiverhabltat 

• lmprovingwaterquali!y 

• RtH!istabUshing migratory fish runs 

• Restoringthreat\'.nedandendangeredspecie? 

• Remcvlng dam safety risks and associated liabWty costs 

• Savingt:axpayerdolttlrs 

·• !mprovingaesthe!icsoltheriver 

• fmprovingfishlngupportunities: 

• Improving recr\Miona! boating opportunitie$. 

• tmprolfingpubltcaccess:to!herlver 

• tmprovingriversiderecreation 

• lncreasirJgtowism 

noted Serena l\llcC!aln, associate director of the nroup's river restoraUoo program 

She figures that sihce Edwards Oam the group has been dlrBC:t!y tnvolved or 

pmvlded technicat asSlstaoce tn the removal of 147 qams across lJw CPUI\try, 

NOM has helped J\~th that effort. Since 200!, tt partnered with Amerk:an Rivers 

to help communllies around lhe country restore their !ocaf rivers by removlnlJ 

Since then, removlrig cld dams has become a major project of American Rivers, alewife anctAtlanlic salmon< 

23 
67 
68 

It doesn't take tons of concrete or stone str<·tched across 

a river or stream to block fish from re<1.ching upsrream 

spawning grounds. Sometimes a simple pipe docs the job 

just as well. 

"' WNtm Wa.'>hingwn, dot the Pacific Nonhwnr. .'\nd like the H~rkn Creek 

stream habitat. Add county and (own m~ds and thos(• (H) priv,\H' ~nd 

"'"'"'·"'''""'''"10,0()(), 

ln Ca!iforni~, Oregon anJ. \Va>hingmn b 3A pe1ctnt of historic ltvek 

I-·bbiut los; bcc~use of culvem is con<.idered w be a m:qor cau,;e, 

'!he Chum~ of B~rku Crc;·k couldn't do much about mlvcns in Alaska 

Ol' Mnnt.liM, bm it wulJ try to 6x the one up the 1\Mcl on Tfacyton 

199~ 

Bremenon and Si!vercb!e. A bridge huiil in the !8oth tJnkd rhe mad 

'lhe Chums cJlkd (he Mid Puget Smmd Fi,heries Enhanctment Group, 

oncof14 

"I hey .m a~nu!ll)fganiratinn with no p1id statf." ~aiJ"t"!oy Fields, the 

('!llJJnccmcm group\ c>::c\.:unvc- dircctnc "!her had neva app!icd for the 

get dwprojcctgning." 

of 1008 ;md WJ:; comp\cteJ the fo!!owing rdm!,'lry, 
69 

·':··;;•·; + ... ;.,.,.,.;. .. , ::·.::·.fi;.; .: 

w the strc:arn and dean gravel to sonw strttches to provide ouitabte ~alrnon 

\fMW!ling habit:tt and restoring :ldjacent wetland conncnions to the .meam, 

~ItS too early to know how well all this has worked," Fields said in the 

snmm.::r of 20ll0. "We hJ.ve nor lud <1 fi~h nm with the new cutwrt. 

rxpecttoseeanimprovement." 

St!."-T Jonn of the Chum~ of Harker Creek n~nainly hopes w. H" 

(ike\ to to rhe stream to show him 

the runs increase fOr fUturegenerations w W1tne~~-

·'Hopefu!ly we can kc.op this (streJm) alive so my gr.mdbd can >how 

the middle of an urban aH.'a,'' Jonn told a 

26 

The pine forests rhat surround Branford, Conn., the. 

soH that nurtures those trees and even the underlying 

bedrock itself imprint a particular scent on the waters 

of Queach Brook. Each alewives and blueback 

herring, driven forces, 

that scent as the ancestors. 

long, silver-sided fish cme.rge from the salty waters of 

Long Island Sound and swim up the freshwater stream 

in search of their naraJ spawning grounds. For more than 

their journey ended ln vain four miles later 

ran up against civilization. 

Arl.mtic c-o~sL I hey have comrihntcd to the dccim.nion nf <lkwh·c> and 
70 

drinking water source. 

S20J,OOO fpr the proj~cL 

dw !addt'r optn~d g;·nun w ~!Mwn. 

F!s/1 !add&!$ are also known as fis!1 steps or flshways. T!uw are artificial struc· 

to rellirect Uw How of wai'er, aHowing fish !o sw1m around the ba.rfieL Poo!s 

canl!E:~ included to provide a resting area or lo reducethevelocltyolthet!ow. 

by G. DtlnlL a Belgian :sc1enUst. 1t ha~ since boon adjusted and adapted in 

many \vays. The "Alaskan Steeppass," lor example, is a modular pref<lbricJted 

One o! ltK' oldest styli'eS ot fish bdders, this design 

tJsesaseriesofsmalldamsamipools.afregular!engthtocreatealong, 

siopfng channel for fish to travel around the obStwtt\on. The channel gradually 

steps down "tre water !e'vel. and f1sh musi jtJmp from pool lu pool in the ladder 

toneactupstream, 

becauseofthelengtholthechanr.e1neeoedlorifl.eladder. 

'''"""'" ''''L' t This design ls s~ni!ar to a pool-and-weir system, exceptthateachdammtheladderhasanarrows'lDtillftn.earth:IChanntdl'iGIL 

eltwatar to carry t:sh over a daf!t Fish swim mto.a co!iectJon area at t!le base 

thedam.lt'susuallyusedfot·talldarns 

27 
71 

described as restless ribbons and 

ever you call them, however, are 

among the country's most important coastal features. 

are11s from violent .1torms and wave~ 

;md ~hoa!s, dwy are <'Ssemia!!y big sandb,us. 

wave; and currents fed sediments to these newborn isbnds 

c-oast behind the blaud~ rctre,us, b,ltrier iobnd.> c~n ''migr«te·· tow<ud tht 

receding shoreline, losing on:.m-~ide beach a;; th<· "v2ters riM', partkdar!y 

28 

Chanddeurs, a fl-action nf their l:{n·mer selves, consist mo~tly of rattered 

\Vhik we ofi:en rhink nf their centri!! role as protectors of our coa~ts, 
72 

More. than 400 major barrier iohnds line the £;m JtHi c;uJfcoJSts, ffMJ.) 

Some. of these barrier islands are among the most populated, mo:m 

Harrier islands an:: at risk !Tom natural erosion fwm tides- and storm and, 

in-neasingly, Jfoln rising ~<.'a h:veh due to climate changt. 

Although a foor N two of ~e,J. k'vd rist" may nnt wund likt> much, 

Mountaim N,nional Park. North C~tolin:t's <"Oastal wetb.nds ,md nther 

low-lying areas could lk intmdared, much ofrhe Outer B.m6 would 

them whole~a!e by pumping ~and on them, a protei.> knnwn ss "beKh 

nuun~hmenr" 

Shielding our coasts from Maine to 'IExas, barrier islands 

essential role in coastline's 

habitat 

in an:as where rising sea levels and storms ;Lffect coastlines. 

Bec'ause of frt'quent hurricwe.s. in the Gulf of Mexko, development, oil 

NOAA, with partner:. that indude the Lou.isiam Department of Natural 

proiec ts eve1 .mempted hy dw Jg<'HCJ'· 

wildlife th,n .u-e viu! w coast:!l LoubLma, Recomtructing the S}"tem of 

v;·etLmds nonri>!wd by rhe Mi~\i$sippi Riner is nitic:ll fi1r nnurine fi~h ,mrl 

shellfish popul.atiom .mJ will hdp protc.:t coastal communiries. 

r<'structur~· tht' dunes and marsh 

tiV())"Ur> e.nHer. ']his ph,ls(' .IJW mort than 1,200 Jtl~' of n)Mtal iuhitat 

rc'>fored, and tb' Chabn,J Headbnds Restoration pmj1'tr was named one 

of Amnids Top Re~wn·d Be,tches hy tht• .-\merkan Shore and Beach 

Frt'>t'J"Yation Association. 

29 
73 

Lake Superior, with the largest surface area of a 

freshwater lake in the world, is often overlooked as 

having a pristine, stunning shoreline; 

any of the occupants of the :J million 

alongside it every year, they will tell you otherwise. 

"]be lake\ natural beaury h;~~ heen evident fnr c<·nmrieo. [n 19\'). the 

Jn ~dditio!\ tO innedib!e Ktllic shoreline view:,, fht• highway also r~\SC> 

through woodland forests, swamps anJ utban area$. 

'llw Pictured Rock~ N,1ti1ma! L:<kc:,hnn~ ,md the lakeside town of 

1he projeCt also took the pub!lc\ inter<-~t into account and constructed a 

Kenic twt•rk\ok and pedestrian acn~os to bke Superior'> '>hordinc. 

ard'\ewasvcHygoodatorg;r;.zmgpeople 

llt~s gav0 Krampert llts hies on the Chiwaukee ar.d his marching orclers ''It's up 

toyoupeop1enowtosavBthatprairie,"hetoldllim 

B:l!how'! 

rne cnrwaukee gave thom the answer. Samler and Krampert spent that May 

ctaylni9G5walkirlgthrollghthelallgrassandshootingstars.studylngmapsthat 

showed the 1200 privately owned lots in the praine. Above them, upland plovers 

Dlungedtoear!h inmaJeS!icdives.Bobolinksand mRrsh henschattcredincessanl1y 

allaroundliv;m. 

d!V1trlredathm str:pof!ami nboutl~acres. •nthemrcldieofthn 

proposedrrarina(levelopmeflt.Somehow.thedevelopershadoverlookedit.Buying 

i:cowdstootnemarin<'l 

ftteystoodat1herailroadtrackslflthefadmgiightdebatinghowtoraisethe 

money. Would people donate to save what many ccnsidered a patch of ncx1ous 

weecs?ltwaslhekindofchal!en[]enoonellaotakB;lu;;before 

'Al, we've gm to start somewhere:· Sander said, ·'and tile onry way we'll ever 

knol'4illlcunbr;do;leisbytryinq" 

The W1sconsln Chapter of Ttm Nature CDnservancy. which would remain a 

s\eadlastpartneroverthenexrfourcJeca(les,agree\ltolendKrampert'scommittee 

S5.500 to buy the errant stnp By the end of 1966, the c:Jmn:ltl8e raised more 

t:n:1$26,000,and74acreso!thep:eciousprairiowerepreserved.'fi1ernmina 

ltwasonlythebeginning."The;"~cnnbotolm\"lersinvolvedwastheqmalest 

cbstacle,"Kran:pertwmte."Thevwerelrterallvscmteredalloverthetourcornersol 

lheEartil' 

MostwerecontacledovertfJenext~Oyears,a;Jdliltle byirllle,acrebyac.re 

thupralnewassaved.MoreHJa:J500acresarenowpreserver:landownedbythe 

tneconservancyorttJeUnivers;tyofWISCor.srn 

1J1eC!11waukeePrairier.xiststOOsybacauseofthewillofCelermined!~eople 

lrke Ph1l Sunder and AI Kramperi who had a VJSIOil of the possible, noted R1chter. 

'TheyhadagreatcornbilliltmnolpassJOn andadvocacy.Andtheycouldbuilda 

Thesepeoplehadnosclert:llcbGckground butttleyl<.newtl\IS 

was D veri special place and !hey could exci:e the acaaem:cs ir. the i960s to reaily 

gorobn\torthem 

1994 and themainroa(!ltltotileprairiems'enarr:ed:n i1is 

non or 

cany s,md and snow onto th~ roJd cm~ing .wwre ero,,ion. Road dmwes Forever il student of natura and Olat;!ral history, Sander unearthed a iossi! 

~n= ~ fn·quent occurre11ce, ,ts b ditm~[!;<' w nl;'.nby home~ and June h;tbium. :tmt led 10 tile Discovery, some 30 years iater. of two complete woolly maTT'moth 

>I rong winJs JJ-om fimher damJging the highway and harming the public. 

30 

sk.e!etons near Kenosha that are now rra)or ahractJons a~ tt1e town's museum. He 

med m 2006 at nge 99. Tne Umversity otWisCOflSi~l cmaled a scholar~hip in h1s 

honor,andbirdlllgtrallsandnaturalaleiJsaroundKenostlabewhlsname 
74 

lna11aturalcoastalsetting,thegroundsoaksuprain.!tistakenupbyplants. 

evaoorates or slowly makes its way to underground aquifers_ Very little of it • NOM Office of Habitat Cons~vatton: \VWWJltTifS.I100a.{)OvJhabrtat 

overflows i11to wRterways. 1'1 our ctt:es, towr:s and neighOOrmJorls, we cover the • Restore America's Esluarles: vvov~<v.esluari~r.uxg 

landwithconcreteandasphaltandhavedevisedanelaboratesystcmofpipesand 

ditchesdeslgn.edtogettherainoffourpropertyandstreetsasqu!r:KiyasDOssible. 

We have become very good at li • (,'oalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana: myw.ctcLorg 

Tile rain running of! these hard swtac.es mysteriously disappears dcvm a drain • ConnectiCut FUnd tor the Environment: Wl>VW,cte;Mwnmentorg 

andre-emeruesuntreatedfromapipeatanver.creekorbay ltbringswithittlle 

!ertilizers.pesticides,petm~eumproducts.bacteriaarnJolhGrpollutants!hatlthas 

picked up on its journey. If enoLJQh of this stormwater enters the water, tile oysters 

andclamsgro>\~ngtherewillbecomeunsafetoeatllecauseofhighhacle:rialeve!s, 

ftlft.tng state ~1eatth officials to Glose the c.,'lntaminarec beds tor harvest 

Foundinthedigestivetractsofa!lwmm,bloodedanimals,t!Jesebactr.riaare 

everywhere, as Dr. Bill Kirby-Smith has !em mod dun11g a career spent studying 

stormwater'seffoctsonccastalestumies.Peopletcooftonfocusonthesources 

of bacteria, said KirbY··Smilil, a professor and researcher at the Duke University 

Manne lab near8eatrfort,N.C.Theyareubiquitousand mostly naturaL Except 

fromllleoccasiona!failingseptlctankormalfur1clloningsewerplo.nt,tllebacterla 

don't normalty pollute the water because on an undisturbed, natural landscape mey 

usual!ydon'trnakeitthere 

'ilocusedonttmsourceswhenllirslstarted,'Kirby~Smrthsaid."l\'sonlyatterl 

• North Carnlina Coastal f-m:leratimt WIIV\\thCcoastotg 

• People ForPuget Sounct: www.pugetsoum:Lorg 

• Save The Bay -San Francisco: www.savestbayJwg 

• save The Bay-- Narragansett Bay: wwv.cmvebay.nrQ 

• 1ampa Bay Watch: W'M\I.tampabaywatch.OflJ 

• N.atiooal Wetlands lnventrny: Y.Nif'-I'I.IJVS.g{)vlwet!ands!Datail.ndex.html 

s\artetl working 01\ this that I learned ~hat yes, ym.i can concentrate sources. These • Prairie Pages blog: praJriepages.blogspotCQll'l 

are sources that are present in an 1martered watershed but the bacteria just didn't • Ghlwaukee Prairie Preservaikln Fund: W\N\>J.c!ilwauke~.nrg 

get transp01ted to the water. The aUeraUOI\ ol H1e landscape co'1veys thB bacteria in • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' 

some fashion.· YVWW,dnrstate.wLosforg!tANDier/sna!sna54.h!m 

Research done at the UnivBrsityof North Carolina-Wilmington, the College of 

Charleston (S CJ and elsewhere shows !twt roads and other types ol iltlpervious 

surfaCBsarettleklndoflandscapealtGrationsthmcancreaterunoffandmoveit 

quickly to !he surrounding water. Pave ovm enough ol a waWstled and rhe water 

becomesso!adenwithbacteria.regard!essofthescurces,that\heoys!ersand 

clamsareunsafetoeat.Tilosesludlesshowthatbacterlaconc[.>fltratlonsintilewater 

an:1 stlelll:sh ckisures 1r1crease w,th the amount of hard, or 1mpe1VIOUS, su:laces in 

awatershed.Waterqualitybegins!odeterioratew~enaslit\leas10percentofthe 

"In a war we're lucky thJt these bnds were converted to salt ponds,' he 

said. "If rhey hadn't been, the land would have been rumed lwo residential 

or commercia! d~-vdoprnems, and we would now havt' nothing ro save."' 

• NOAA Community-based Restora!ion center; 

INWw,nmfs.noaa govlhabitatkostomtio;-r/ptDjecls_proQmmslc!p/1ndex.html 

~ Cargill Salt: www.cmgiiJ.comtslatic/sb/ 

• WerldSeagrassAssociation:wsa.seograssoniine.org 

ProceedingsofttleNationa1AcademyofSciences: 

W1NW,pnas,org/sea:-ch?fulltf.xt=seagmsses&submit,_yes&go.x=6&go.y=8 

• You rube video: w.~w.youtubELCOm/watch?v""'xoeDHHf09tg 

• American Rivers· w•vw.amrivers.org 

• Penobscot River Restorati<.m Trust: www.penobsco\l'iver.oll] 

31 
75 
76 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Straughn. 

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE STRAUGHN, PRINCIPAL, GROVE 

VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, EDMOND, OKLAHOMA 

Ms. STRAUGHN. Good morning, Chairman Cardin and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Debbie Straughn, Principal of Grove Valley Elementary in Edmond, Oklahoma. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify at today’s hearing and 

share with you my involvement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

As you know, I am the Principal at Grove Valley Elementary, a 

brand new school in the Deer Creek School District located in Edmond, Oklahoma. I first became involved with the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program in 2002 while serving as an elementary 

Principal at Deer Creek Elementary School. 

As a leader of our school, I was looking for a program to involve 

all children in hands-on learning opportunities while working with 

the environment. It was very important to me to be able to add environmental studies for our students. We began by forming a task 

force for teachers, parents and students. This task force visited outdoor classrooms throughout the State of Oklahoma. We came back 

from these visits with a vision of what we wanted our outdoor habitat to look like. Plans were created, and I contacted contractors to 

build our wetland and frog pond. 

We quickly learned that we were being taken advantage of and 

that the job was not being completed correctly. Out of desperation, 

I began making phone calls throughout the State of Oklahoma. It 

was at this point that we contacted Terry Dupree and Jontie Aldrich with the Oklahoma Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

They were able to provide us with assistance and training with an 

outdoor classroom. Resources, contacts and a new design were 

given to us so our dream of an effective outdoor classroom could 

come true. The outdoor habitat became a reality because of their 

guidance. 

I feel it is very important for our children to be involved in an 

outdoor classroom because it gives them an opportunity to be outside and learn about their environment. The outdoor classroom provides an ideal structured learning for the children and promotes 

ideal wildlife habitat. 

The teachers, students and parents take ownership in their outdoor classroom. Every child at Deer Creek Elementary was involved in the outdoor habitat. For example, the kindergarten students constructed a bird sanctuary. The first grade students developed a flower garden; second grade, a butterfly garden in the shape 

of a butterfly; and third grade, a vegetable garden; and fourth 

grade, a flower garden in the shape of Oklahoma; and fifth grade 

built a bird blind and a frog pond. 

We also built a gazebo with help from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and students utilized the gazebo for hands-on science experiments. They also helped us design wetlands, walkways with 

animal tracks, and artificial nesting structures for wildlife. 

This outdoor habitat gave children an interactive learning environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nominated us for the 
77 

U.S. Department of Interior Pride in America Award. I was honored to accept this award in Washington, DC, several years ago for 

my school. 

I am now the Principal of a new elementary school, Grove Valley 

Elementary. I am in the process of once again building a new outdoor classroom. I am fortunate as there is a natural wetland onsite. 

Tinker Air Force Base is providing my school with a large grant. 

We have a new design after many hours of preparation to improve 

the outdoor habitat. Enhancements to the wetland began several 

months ago. We will be adding trails, bridges and walkways to the 

area, too. 

One hundred percent of the Grove Valley Elementary children 

will be involved in designing their own areas to care for and nurture. We hope to begin this project in the fall. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is once again helping 

us with this new habitat. Jontie Aldrich has visited the site and 

given us advice, along with Tinker Air Force Base. They plan to 

work with us as the project is being completed and offer assistance 

as needed. 

The Oklahoma County Conservation District is also working as 

a partner with the Tinker Air Force Base and our school, and they 

helped us in the initial program. This outdoor classroom is going 

to be shared with the community neighborhood. We even plan to 

have fishing opportunities. 

As you can see, I am passionate about teaching children about 

the environment. Approximately 2 percent of our schoolchildren in 

the United States have an opportunity to work at an outdoor classroom, compared to the early 1900s where almost every child had 

an opportunity to work the land or understand wildlife. 

I am dedicated to teaching children about the environment. I 

thank all of the Senators that support the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, especially Senator Inhofe who championed the 

Partner Program into law. 

I want to represent all children in schools in the United States 

so they, too, can experience outdoor classrooms and hands-on learning opportunities with our environment. Children are our future, 

and environmental studies for them are disappearing or unavailable. Please, please continue supporting Partners for Wildlife Programs so that children everywhere continue to explore and understand their environment. This is one Government program that 

truly benefits all. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Straughn follows:] 
78 

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE STRAUGHN, PRINCIPAL, GROVE VALLEY 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, EDMOND OKLAHOMA 

Good morning Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Crapo and Chairwoman Boxer 

and Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation 

to testify at today's hearing and share with you my involvement with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

I am the principal at Grove Valley Elementary School, in the Deer Creek School district, 

located in Edmond, Oklahoma. I first became involved with the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program in 2002 while serving as an elementary principal at Deer Creek 

Elementary School. As a leader of our school, I was looking for a program to involve all 

children in hands-on learning opportunities while working with the environment. It was 

very important to me, to be able to add environmental studies for our students. We began 

by forming a task force with teachers, parents, and students. This task force visited 

outdoor classrooms throughout the state of Oklahoma. We came back from these visits 

with a vision of what we wanted our outdoor habitat to look like. Plans were created. I 

contacted contractors to build our wetland, and frog pond. We quickly learned that we 

were being taken advantage of and that the job was not being completed correctly. Out 

of desperation I began making phone calls throughout the state of Oklahoma It was at 

this point that we contacted Terry Dupree and Jontie Aldrich with the Oklahoma Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program. They were able to provide us assistance and training with 

our outdoor classroom. Resources, contacts, and a new design were given to us so our 

dream of an effective outdoor classroom could come true. The outdoor habitat became a 

reality because of their guidance. 

I feel it is very important for our children to be involved in an outdoor classroom because 

it gives them an opportunity to be outside and learn about their environment. The 

outdoor classroom provides an ideal structured learning for the children and promotes 

ideal wildlife habitat. The teachers, students, and parents take ownership in their outdoor 

classroom. Every child at Deer Creek Elementary was involved in the outdoor habitat. 

For example, the kindergarten students constructed a bird sanctuary, the first grade 

students developed a flower garden, second grade a butterfly garden in the shape of a 

butterfly, third grade a vegetable garden, fourth grade a flower garden in the shape of 

Oklahoma, and fifth grade built a bird blind and a frog pond. We also built a gazebo, 

with help from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Students utilized the gazebo for 

hands-on science experiments. They also helped us design wetlands, walkways with 

animal tracks, and artificial nesting structures for wildlife. This outdoor habitat gave 

children an interactive learning environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

nominated us for the U.S. Department oflnterior Pride in America Award. I was 

honored to accept the award in Washington D.C. several years ago for my school. 

I am now the principal of a new elementary school, Grove Valley Elementary. I am in 

the process once again of building a new outdoor classroom. I am fortunate as there is a 

natural wetland on the site. Tinker Air Force Base is providing my school with a large 

grant. We plan to come up with a new design, and improve the outdoor habitat. 
79 

Enhancements to the wetland began several months ago. We will be adding trails, 

bridges, and walkways to the area too. 100% of the children at Grove Valley will be 

involved in designing their own areas to care for and nurture. We hope to have all of this 

completed by June. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is once again helping us 

with this new habitat. Jontie Aldrich has visited the site and given us advice. They plan 

to work with us as the project is being completed and offer assistance as needed. The 

Oklahoma County Conservation district is also working as a partner with Tinker Air 

Force Base and our school. This outdoor classroom is going to be shared with the 

community neighborhood. We even plan to have fishing opportunities. 

As you can see I am passionate about teaching children about the environment. 

Approximately 2% of our school children in the U.S. have an opportunity to work in an 

outdoor classroom compared to the early 1900's where almost every child had an 

opportunity to work the land or understand wildlife. I am dedicated to teaching children 

about the environment. I want to thank all of the Senators that support the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program, especially Senator Inhofe, who championed the Partners 

Program into law. I want to represent all children and schools in the United States, so 

they too can experience outdoor classrooms and hands-on learning opportunities with our 

environment. Children are our future and environmental studies for them are 

disappearing or unavailable. Please continue supporting Partners for Wildlife programs 

so that children everywhere can continue to explore and understand their environment. 

This is "one" government program that truly benefits all. 

Thank you. 
80 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Ms. Straughn, for your testimony. 

First, thank you for your passion on this subject, and thank you 

for what you do for our children. I am convinced that you are right. 

If we can sensitize children to the awesome responsibilities that we 

have, that they will do what is right. So I thank you, and being 

outside is critically important. 

My colleague in the House, Congressman Sarbanes, has introduced No Child Left Inside for education so that we get more than 

2 percent of our children having the experience of outdoor education. I think that is critically important, and I am glad that you 

figured out a way to get it done in Oklahoma. 

I guess my question to you is are there opportunities to share 

what you are doing in your classroom so that other teachers, other 

school systems can take advantage of the work that you did and 

be able to bring forward similar types of efforts and educational 

programs? 

Ms. STRAUGHN. Yes, we have groups that visit our site throughout the school year, and we share with them what we are doing. 

We offer our experiences so that they, too, may be able to do the 

same thing that we have done. 

I also have done presentations to various groups, and I share the 

word with anyone and everyone that I can so that other schools can 

develop outdoor classrooms. 

Senator CARDIN. Great. I think we need to try to institutionalize 

that a little bit better as far as sharing with what is being done 

around the Nation because it is no sense reinventing the wheel. 

You already have a successful program that could work in other 

communities. We just need to get that information out. I look forward to working with Fish and Wildlife in order to promote what 

you have done in Oklahoma. Great work. 

Ms. Miller, I am also familiar with the Clearwater River and 

what you have done. I find that an incredible example of cooperation. I know Senator Crapo has worked very hard on that. 

I guess my question to you is, from a pro point of view, what we 

should be doing in our programs to encourage that type of collaborative effort in the Federal partnership. And then from the other 

side, are there obstacles that we should try to remove that currently work against those types of collaborative efforts? 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you for your question, Senator. 

The level of Federal support for habitat protection and acquisition is critical to the success of these collaborative efforts, providing 

incentives through programs that were mentioned here today, 

through other programs like the Collaborative for Landscape Restoration Act that the Clearwater Basin is developing a proposal for. 

Things like that, ideas that recognize the value of collaboration 

and partnership between local landowners, private, State government, as well as Federal Government that can focus on broadbased and locally adapted solutions for fish and wildlife is imperative. And providing incentives to these landowners to manage their 

lands in ways that benefit Fish and Wildlife Service gives stakeholders the tools that they need to be successful. 

Regarding your question on barriers, currently I think similar to 

your question regarding the outdoor classroom, I think there is a 

greater need for sharing, and sharing the experience and sharing 
81 

our successes and also sharing some of our challenges and failures 

at times. So I think we are starting to see more of that, but ultimately I think that will lead to greater successes around the country. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Benoit, thank you for your testimony. You listed as your top 

priority the authorization of the Coastal Program. I certainly agree 

with you. You then list some additional points that are important 

for the Coastal Program. If I read your testimony correctly, you 

would place the highest priority on realigning the mapping responsibility with the Coastal Barriers Resources Act and suggest that 

be included in the authorization of the Coastal Program. Is that 

correct, that you would like to see that legislated as we do the authorization bill? 

Whereas your other recommendations are critically important. A 

lot of them are budget and coordination within the Department, 

and you believe need to be done through a budgetary process rather than through legislation. Or am I misreading your testimony? 

Mr. BENOIT. Very good question, Senator. We believe that the realignment of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act can be done administratively by the Department. 

Senator CARDIN. Oh, that can be done also administratively? 

Mr. BENOIT. Right. It is already authorized. It is actually coming 

up for reauthorization this year. And it could very easily stand on 

its own, and we are very confused why it is so closely aligned with 

the Coastal Program, except that that seems to be where they take 

the funding from to implement that program. 

And the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is an important program. 

We would just like to see it have a little bit more definition in 

terms of where the funding is actually coming from, and not impede the progress of the Coastal Program. 

Senator CARDIN. The enhanced commitment to partnership and 

the coordination with the Department of Interior, and the personnel issues that you are referring to, we could look at on an authorization bill, but it seems to me many of those are just relationships and budget issues, more so than spelling it out. 

We could, of course, express our congressional intent to work 

with you closely to see whether we can’t at least be supportive. I 

think your recommendations are right on target, and we will try 

to work with you to see that that’s done. 

Mr. BENOIT. Thank you. We appreciate your support on that, and 

we look forward to having an authorized program as soon as possible. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Miller, please understand that Senator Crapo really wanted 

to be here. This thing that came up was at the White House and 

was at the last minute. 

Now, I notice that you are the manager of the Northwest United 

States District? Is that what I understand? 

Ms. MILLER. The Inland Northwest. I am responsible for the 

Northern Panhandle Region, from the Clearwater River north to 

the Canadian border. 
82 

Senator INHOFE. So that doesn’t include Oklahoma? 

Ms. MILLER. I am sorry. It doesn’t reach all the way to Oklahoma. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. There is a great program in Oklahoma that I 

was active in. This has been many years ago, but it was with the 

Conservancy. It was in the area that is called the Tall Grass Prairie. Ever heard of that? The Tall Grass Prairie is in central, north 

central Oklahoma, heavy in shallow oil production. However, they 

went in there, and they have now, through the Conservancy, and 

it was headed up in Oklahoma by a guy named Williams who was 

also an oil producer. 

And you would never know that there is production going on in 

there. They have buffalo, and it is exactly like it was at one time. 

I just want you to kind of go back and tell people that it is not just 

in your area that wonderful things are happening. So I appreciate 

what you are doing in Oklahoma. 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you. We have some family ties personally to 

some of the lands in Kansas, but right on the Oklahoma border, 

so we are involved in some prairie restoration work, as well as 

some oil production. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is good. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Straughn, how did you initiate your contact 

with Tinker? How did that work? 

Ms. STRAUGHN. I am a Board Member for the Oklahoma County 

Conservation District, and that happened through my work with 

outdoor education. They have special projects that educate children 

about the environment. They asked me to serve on the Board. They 

contacted or were in contact with the Oklahoma County Conservation District. They heard about the mitigation of their wetlands. 

The district put me in contact with Tinker Air Force Base, and so 

we started some talks, and we have been dotting our Is and crossing our Ts in finding out exactly how we could do the project; as 

partners we have been very successful. We are now down to the 

finish line. 

They have sent us plans that look amazing. In fact I shared them 

with a member of your staff. I am getting ready to go to our Board 

of Education to share the plans. We hope to have everything finished by the fall. 

Senator INHOFE. That is really good. I spend a lot of time at Tinker. I am on the Armed Services Committee. And they do get involved in a lot of things that they really believe in. Apparently, you 

sold them on the idea that this is what they should be doing. 

And what I am going to do is, I did it once before 5 years ago. 

I came by and saw what you were doing there in Edmond at the 

other school. I want to do that again. My regular schedule is every 

fifth weekend, I am either in Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa, and then 

the other 4 weekends I am back in Oklahoma. 

I would really like to first-hand get updated on what you are 

doing there in Edmond, Oklahoma, at your school, and take that 

around the State to other places. So we will be contacting you to 

get together and come out there and make a visit to see first-hand 

what you are doing. 
83 

Ms. STRAUGHN. We would love to have you, Senator. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, other than Tinker Air Force Base, do you 

have any other partners who you either have approached or have 

come to you to support this program? 

Ms. STRAUGHN. In my previous elementary school, we worked 

with many partnerships. We had a person that made a sign for us; 

of course, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Oklahoma 

County Conservation District. We worked with Learn and Serve 

America, In Service Learning, because our children were actually 

servicing by working in the outdoor classroom after hours and during the summer months. 

Also our Deer Creek School Enrichment Foundation gave us a 

grant. We have been trying to partner with many, many different 

individuals and organizations and groups. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you have any anecdotal things that maybe 

some of your students, how they have benefited from this that you 

would want to share with us? 

Ms. STRAUGHN. I think it is really interesting to see children go 

out into a garden where they are growing various vegetables. I had 

a kindergarten student who one time said well, I thought you got 

a tomato at a grocery store. I mean, they don’t really understand 

exactly how a tomato grows. The children were very excited to take 

those tomatoes in and make some salsa out of them. 

It was very exciting to be able to see first-hand children making 

a connection of plants and how they actually grow, and then how 

you can utilize them by cooking. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I am looking forward to coming out and 

visiting you, and we will arrange that pretty quick. 

Ms. STRAUGHN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thanks for repeating your performance up here. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to thank all of our witnesses. To me, it 

just points out that with a very modest amount of Federal investment and encouragement, what you can do with the private sector 

and get done. The examples of what you have been able to do in 

Oklahoma in the classroom; what you have been able to do in 

Idaho with a major environmental treasure; and I am particularly 

proud of the work that has been done on the Chesapeake Bay in 

our region. 

But all of The Nature Conservancy and the Restore America’s 

Estuaries have been critical players in this private-governmental 

partnership. And I just think these are models that we need to 

really, first of all, let people know what is happening; and second, 

promote in other parts of our country. And it is really a modest 

Federal investment, but I would just urge us to take these models 

and make them available elsewhere in the country. 

I think your program in Oklahoma is a model program. I can tell 

you there are many classrooms in my State and around the Nation 

where it would be very well received. They don’t need too much encouragement, but they need some help to get started, the technical 

help. It is a little bit intimidating to get started, as you know. And 

you all have done that successfully in Idaho and in Oklahoma. And 

I would just hope we could benefit and take that to other parts of 

the country. 
84 

It does show, though, we do need to make sure we coordinate the 

programs that are available. I strongly believe that the Coastal 

Program, which has been very beneficial, needs congressional authorization, and I am going to work very closely with Senator 

Crapo on developing that legislation in our Subcommittee, working 

very closely with Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer and our full 

Committee to see whether we can’t get that bill moving forward. 

With that, let me thank you again. 

The hearing of the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
85 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET 

VALUE OF COASTS AND ESTUARIES: 

Executive Summary 

By Linwood Pendleton 

Our nation was built from the coast. Americans, like people around the world, are 

drawn to the coast because of its beauty, producth:ity, and because our coasts are 

gateways to the world. The coast nurtures our frontier spirit, our need for outdoor 

recreation, and the constant American appetite for sweeping ocean views and quiet 

bavfront \'istas. Coasts, coastal oceans, and estuaries are essential to ocean fisheries 

and aquaculture. Coa:;ts :md their \Vaters also generate oxygen, sequester carbon 

dioxide, and pro-ddc habitat to plants and animals both marine and terrestriaJ. 

LTnforhmatdy, we ha1.'e a poor track record \vhcn it comes to taking care of our 

coasts and estuaries. Y cars of badly planned coastal housing have lead to heroic, 

and sometimes desperate, n1easures to holJ back the forces of nature by using engineering rather than stewardship. Seawalls have transformed once natural 

coasts into marine unfit for the basic activities that tlrst drew homeow·ncrs 

to the sea- S\Vimming, boating, and fishing. Estuaries too have been under siege. 

Bays once filled with fish and oysters have become (kad zones filled v.rith excess 

nutrients, chemical wastes, and harmful algae. \\'ctlanJs, especially coastal salt 

marshes, have not fared better. :\merica has lost millions of acres! of these once 

productive marshes as we converted them to fam1land or building sites, ditched and 

drained them to control mostp.1itoes, or ovcnvhdmcd them with polluted runoff. 

The result has b(•en a degradation of much of our coastline and a loss of more than 

half of the nation's wetlands over the last two hundrcd2 years. 

The damage anJ destruction borne by our coasts and estuaries. has created more 

than physical and biolot,ricallosses for our country. This damage also has diminished the economic producti,·ity of the nation and the economic wellbeing of the 

millions of ~\mcricans who visit, usc, and depend on the coast and the goods aud 

services that it provides. \"~Cc are only no\v coming to grips with the enonnity of the 

economic value and 1 hat lies in our coastal resouru.·s; we are only nm.\· beginning: to the potential economic losses we suffer each year bccauc::c of 

underinvcstmcnt in C"oastal protection and restoration. 

In the fall of 2006, Restore ~-\merica's Estuaries convened a panel of internationally 

renowned experts to help us understand the economic ,~aluc of coastal and estuary 

resources. These authors \verf' asked to summarize the state of the art in our 

knowledge of coastal cconotnic value. Their findings were astonishing- far beyond 

commercial fishing and tourism, healthy coa~ts and estuaries are essential for proTHE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VAUJE OF COASTS A!\OD ESTUARIES 
86 

tcctlng tnore th:.1n S800 b1lliun of 

trade each year, tens of billion~ 

of dollars in recreational ()pportunitics and more than 

.fS percent nation\c; petro--

leum refining capacity. Coasts 

and 

Yironmcntal damage places these 

Yalucs at risk, yet environmental protection and expanding habitat restoration efforts arc ro increase these \·::dues substantially. 

fn this cxccutin~ summary, "\\T highlight some of the key findings of our panel. 

The Economic and ft:farket falue of Coasts 

Economic and Employment Growth in Estuary Regions 

Dr. Charles 

gions of the L .S. comprise a hugel~­

tionatc share of t.he nationall'Conomy, 

percent of population, -J-0 percent of cmploytncm 

and 49 percent of output. In eight states, the estuary region::; 

or more of the state's economy and these regions comprise more 

:-;tate's econmny in founccn states. Between 199H and 2004, populat·ion growth in 

estuary regions was far less than regions (5.2 compared tu 9.3 

\vas almost same percent cmnparcd to 

percent). Lakes arc excluded, the cconon1ic growth rate in marine estuary regions actually cxcc(.'Js that fnr non-estuary atcas (31.4 percent) 

\\lore than -+3 percent of all adult .\n1cricans Yisit a sea 

coast or cstuan· at leasf once each rear to narn•cmate 

some fonn of ;-ccrcation (I .cc"\vortlly and 

The coasts of the Southeastern Cnited States and 

fornia alone senT as destinations for tens of n1illinns 

During any gin.::n year, as 

as one in ten \Vill ";isit coastall'lorida: 

just oYer R percent \viH Yisit coasts and beaches. Every coastal state ho.:-:b 

tnorc than nne million CO;\Stal Yi.:;itor:-; each year. Recreation not only gcneratc5 

THE ECONOMIC A:\:D MARKET VALVE OF COASTS AND ESTl'ARIES 
87 

economic income for coastal businesse~, but people tend to value these experiences 

well beyond what they pay- a concept 

kno"\Vn as non-tnarkct value, Nonmarket values capture our 

to pay to usc and protect recreational resources, like beaches and 

harbors, and thus represent the net 

economic contribution of these opportunities to our '\Vcllbeing. Dr. Lin'\vood 

Pendleton of The Ocean Foundation 

and the University of California cstinutcs that, for the LTnlted States, beach 

going tnay contribute between $6 billion and nearly $30 billion annually to econmnic wellbeing. Recreational fishing is estimated to contribute bct\vecn $10 billion and $26 billion per year and coastal wildlife de\ving tnay generate between $4.9 

billion and $49 billion dollars each year (See Table 1.). 

Table 1: Estimated Annual Value of Selected Coastal Recreation 

(millions of US$) 

Beach Going Recreational \\'ildlife \'iewing Ftshinr 

LO\V High LO\v High l.ow !ligh 

Far~ \\1cstcrn u.:-;. $218 $653 $800 $3,866 S463 $-1,633 

Wcstctn Conrineht~l U.S. $1,845 $9,226 $687 $2,750 $957 $9,574 

Gulf-shore Sourhem C.S. $!,185 $11,848 $5,645 $9,408 $1,151 $11,508 

Southeastern U.S. $1,769 $4,424 $!,632 $2,720 $645 $6,449 

~orthcastern C.S, $933 $3,732 $1,!09 S7,393 $1,061 $16,606 

$5,95() $26,136 $4,877 $48,770 

across ~tates, but this double counting is likely 

double counting could occur when adding 

values across 

Coastal Energy Infrastructure: The Gulf of Mexico 

\1?hile the coast is quickly becoming hotnc 

for new fonn~ of energy including \\'iod, 

'\Vave, and tidal power- the coastal wetlands of the Gulf of .r-.Jex.ico continue as 

sites of more traditional fossil fuel infrastructure. Dm~id Distnukes of Louisiana 

State Cniversity's Center for Energy Stud~ 

ics reports that approximately 30 percent 

of the United States' nude oil production, 20 percent of its natural gas production 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VALUE OF COASTS AND ESTUARIES 
88 

of it~ petrolewn refining 

tnosr within just fc"\v 

lie within the coastal zone of 

coast, 

Coastal Ports 

Estuaries arc the nutine 

the \vorld's economY. In the last 

than $841 billion in ,trade passed 

and consumers to 

'\VC han~ complete data, more 

Arncrica's ports. 

:\ortheast ,.\tb.ntic 160,266 49,139 21)9,405 

c;ulf of \kxico W3JH6 S\464 

Southeast :\.!"!antic 4R,973 24,140 73,113 

:--.:ortlw.:('St Paciftc 20,4!1 

Floridn 29,817 !7,504 r,J21 

( ~rcat 1 .ake:;. 1Ji9'7 L9"~ 

Total 629-,262 212J49 841,411 

Table 2: U.S, Waterborne Foreign Trade 

(millions of CSS, adjusted to 

Region 2003 

Commercial Fishing in American Estuaries 

\\'bile of! en m~cr.shadowcJ 

in;., cnas:tai \Vaters and 

tant areas of commercial tishing-. 

of the Cnivcrsity of 

of the ten billion pound~ 

\vonh oYer SJ.8 billion unprocessed, arc ."pc" 

cie:; axe dependent on estuarine cnodition~ for at 

lca;;t ;;omc of tl1i:'ir life history'- In a t ()93 study, 

f Ioudc anO. "'"h'"'''""' 

dependent comrnerc1a1 at just oYer 50 percent} 

but the Enviromncntal Protection ,,\gcncy puts the fig-· 

urc clnser to 73 perccnt4 . 

Coastal Housing Values 

the total value added of the 

THE ECO-"'!OMIC AND MARk_'E"r VAU!E OF COASTS AND ESTUARIES 
89 

ing Yalucs of proximity to coasts, cstuaric:_.:, and oceans. A ::;tudy by l"vlajor and 

Lusht (2004) found that bcachfront increased the value of a home by 207 

percent compared to a property tv,m away; a bay front location added 73.2 

percent. 

The Economic Consequences of 

Environmental Change 

:;':;; onotnic value and productivity 

nr coasts and estuaries depend 

, the cco~ystcm health of these 

;:ln1cs fragile areas. In their rc-

:lh., our authors examined a gro\vof literature that reveals the 

consequences of environin coastal and estuary 

During the last t\vo cenmof tl1e environmental 

the form of habitat loss, fecal and nutrient contamination, and sedimentation. 

rviore recently, the coastal c:nYironment has started to change for the better restoration progran1s, consenrancics, and improved coastal maHag-cment have helped to 

protect pristine areas and restore those that have been degraded. f Iere we note~ 

few exan1plcs of the economic impacts of environmental change in coastal Meas. 

In doing so, \VC hope to highlight the potential economic value that could come 

from coastal and estuary restoration and the potential cost that could be avoided by 

better coastal and esmaty protection. 

Coastal Conditions and Home Prices 

Several studies have estimated the link between coastal conditions and hotne values. 

Frech and Lafferty (1984) esrimared the work of the California Coastal Commission 

raised the value of local housing in two ways: by preserving a positive externality 

(the coastline) that would ochcf\visc be destroyed; and by reducing the amount of 

land available for housing. ln 1986, the J\!ary~ 

land Critical A rc.as Conunission Unllted residential development on land abutting the Chcsapeakc Bay. Prices of housing with water front·-

agc in the "critical areas" increased by 4(.i to 62 

percent (Parsons 1992). !lousing prices in the 

"critlcal areas" without warer frontage increased 

from 14 to 27 percent. Even as far as three 

miles tfo1n the "critical areas," there was a -+to l1 percent price increase (Polis Pro·· 

jcct 2001). 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKE1 VALUE OF COASTS A.i'ID ESTUARIES 
90 

Recent research also ~hows jus1 ho\.V important water l1u;llity is to home value~~ 

Researchers working in i\1aryland studied -~94 \\'aterfronl horne~ and found that if 

water conditions were impron:-d from levels found at the time of the srudy 

to the standards the potcnrial cconornic benefits \Vould have been 

512.1.5 million \Vith a 95 confidence interval of'$3.789 million to $20.501 

million (Leggett and 2000 also working in 

~fa ryland, found that a one unit suspendeu solids (TSS) 

had a impact on the price within the watershed of$1,086. 

_:\ (mg/L) increase in inorganic nitrogen, a contributor to eutrophication, had a impact on the aYnagc housing price in the '\Vatcrshcd of 

$17,6-12 (Poor ct 

The Costs Of Dredging and Damage to Trade 

Keeping ports and \Vatcrway~ open for business has always been of prime iinportance to our nation's economy. Increasingly, though, sedimentation from poor hnJ usc practices and a loss of cstuhahitat ha:;; 111adc ensuring the navigability of ports 

and tlscallv difticult. Di Jin, of the \\'oods Hole 

JCL·ano~ran,mc Institution"s !vfarinc Policy Center, rcEnergy Infrastructure At Risk: 

Wetlands Loss and Storm Surge 

Dr. Dismukes report~ that wetland and 

coastal habitat loss in Louisiana threatens 

refining 

to tinJ out what little is known about 

anJ procluction Louisiana lost approximately 1,900 SLJUarc miles of 

coastal land from to 2000 and ls projected to lose approximately 700 square 

miles belwecn 2000 and 2050 (absent restoration efforts). 

matenals. For 

\Ltrcus 

(2000), <l.lld Yozzo tl a/ (2004), 

THE Eco;-.;m.nC AND MARKET VALUE OF COASTS AND ESTliARJES 
91 

A "\vide at-risk energy infrastntcture exists in the coastal areas of 

arc t\vo major refineries rhis area, :::cYen major 

nnxc:ss11w facilities and numerous scgD.C., to nan1e a few. 

Figure 1: Potential At-Risk Energy Infrastyucture 

Source: (Disrnukes' Comtruct: CSGS, 2007(<.:); IHS Energy, 200-1-; Pcnnwell, 20d·t) 

Storm surge, like that experienced 2005's f [urricane Katrina can be seriously 

exacerbated by wetland and coastal loss. Storm smge is indiscrin:Unatc in 

damaging both households and industry. 2, for instance, t'i\T> phoEographs, one I {urricane Katrina, one immediately that 

shows thl' surge and t1ooding a! a major SoL;th Louisiana petrochemical 

Figure 2: Storm Surge and Flooding Post·Katdna at Petrochemical Facility 

Source: (Provided to Dismukes of Air Producrs and l.ouisian-a Chl."mic-:a! :\ssociation) 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VALlfE OF COASTS A:N"D ESTUARIES 
92 

surge impacts "\Vould have hccn lc~~ than "'-"That \va:::. cX1)(ot'1Cl\Ccl1. Increased 

storm t':xposurc is another potential risk to energy nu.m.cucuucc along the 

frorn our panel of authors indicate th:l! we arc only 

full cconom1c vaiue of l':->tuarics and coasts and how 

cn\·lronmcntal and ccologicai conditions. Even \Vith litnitcd knowledge, 

is clear the \';-due of coast:' and estuaries is high, perhaps much higher 

than in1agined. 

The \·aluc of coasts and 

demon:::tratcs !"\Yo things: 1) t·he economic value of coastal and estuary 

nrorc•c!J.on and restoration likely to be in the many hundreds of billions of dollars, 

1110r-c and 2) scientific research that shows exactly ho\V and res to·· 

ration have affected and could affect cconotnic outcomes is Clearly, more 

and restoration can be bcs.t 

contribution of our coasts and cstuon the \vork of the authors~ Restore J\rnerica's Estuaries, 'l'he Ocean 

Coastal ( kean Yalnes Center, and the NO:\;\ Re-storation Center a.reprojccts to develop and implcntent a of ecoshow how rcstoralion events have 

6\X111lc anecdotally, one codld conclude that mcrea~cd swrm ~urge create b\· coastnl ero~ion tn 

the suffered by m;my typrs of ph~·sicalmfrastrucrun:, ,c comprehensive analysi:; has 

THE Ecor-;OMIC AND MARKET VALVE OF COASTS AJ."<.l'D ESTUARIES 
93 

and thus the economic ••alucs, associa1ed with coastal and 

use indicators measure activity (c.f!;. beach days), output (t·.g. 

economic itnpacts and Yalucs associated 

with human usc. f\Iuch like environn1ental 

monitoring progratns, indicators of human 

use "vill help to track rhc changing ways in 

'\vhich coastal conditions int1ucncc human 

use of the coast, understand how past restoration events have affcctt_:d coastal uses, 

monitor the effectiveness of new restoration and protection, and identify ~lreas 

\.vhcre the return on restoration and pro~ 

tection \vill be the highest. 

this empiric-al research, Restore America's f~stuatics, The Ocean Foundation's Ocean Values Center, and the NOAA R(~storadon Center hope to 

better integrate human needs and values, both economic and social. into coastal 

tnanagc1ncnt and restoration decision making. 

Thisproject was madepossible by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospberic Administration, 

Minerals Management The Foundation, 

.Shell-World .Sponsor America's Wetl{md· to 

Saz;e Com-tal Louisiana, and National rt7ifdl~fe l'eclemtion. 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VALUE OF COASTS A,'lD ESTUARIES 
94 

References 

Frech, fl.E. Til and R.N. Laffert\', "The Fffcct of California Coastal Com· 

tnission on I lousing Price::;. Journal of l'rban Econmnics, 16: 105-123. 

t Iouck, E, D., and E. S. Rutherford. 1993. "Recent Trends in Fstuarinc Fish eric" 

Predictions ofFish Production and Yield.'' Estuarie~ 16: !61-176, 

V. R. and P. C. \'("ile;.'. 200L "Current Participation Patterns in Marine 

"Sib:cr t:s of Con1111ercc. Natmost,hc·nc '"rmrmsltauon. National Ocean Sen-icc. 

"Evidence of the Effects of\\'ater Qualof 1-::nvironnwntal Econon1ics and 

Lusht, PhD, M,\l. (2110~), "Beach Proximity 

Values in Shore Con1munitics." The ,\pof Coastal Land Csc Restrictions on Housing 

Prices: Repeat Sale .·\naly.o:.i:-;..'1 Journal of Environmental Economics and 

T\Ianagctncnt. 22: 25-37. 

Polis Project on 

n1cntal Studies. 

British 

Em"ironCanada and Smart G tO\.Vth 

l~conomic Benefits of Green Protection. 

and Rnbcrt \\' PauL "Exploring 

\'Cater Qtulit,·: ,\ J ,ocal \X'atershed-based Study," 

f \coiogical Economics. 60: "797 -H06. 

Sohngcn, B. Rausch. :200L "Case Study of a .ivfarkct-bascd Anal:Tsis: ~oil Erosion in i\f_aumez' RiYer Bns.in.'' Pages 102-110 in,\. Cangelosi, cd. RcYcaling the Enmom.ic \' <llue of Prote-cting: the Great 1 ,akcs. :t\lorthc::tstI\Iidwest Institute and ~ational ( kcanic and ~\ttnosphcric _·\dn1inistration, 

DC 

Scit:ncc. 

for Surdval: New Focu~;." 

2005. 

All photos copyright Nadon a! Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

About The Author 

Dr. T.in\x.:ood Pendleton is a Senior Fellow. Director of Economic Research 

Ocean l'oundatiun. I {e i$ an cxpcn in marine and coastal econornic.s. and 

Before Tlw ( kean hrundation, Dr. Pendleton \\'ilS a tenured Ass.ociate 

~cicnce and Fnginecring- at l.'CL,\ and retains an adjunct 

Dr. Pendleton ha;;. adnmccd in Ecology fron1 Princeton, 

Yak's School of f'orcsrry and 

Environmental studic:;, 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VALUE OF COASTS A;-;n ESTtlARIES 
95 

Table of Contents 

Forward: J jnwood Pendleton 

1: "Understanding the Economics of the Coast" 

I jnwood Pendleton 

Chapter f(>r EcOS\'Sfcm c;oods and Scn·iccs 

Coastal Estuaric:;" 

I\!atthcw Wilson and l1

arber 

Chapter 3: "Fstuaric:; in the 

J::cnnomies" 

Charles S. 

Ocean and Coastal 

Chapter-+: "Estuarine Resroration and Commercial Fisheries" 

and Stephen 

Chapter 5: "The Economic Value of Coa:;tal Prcscn·ation and 

Restoration on Critical Energy Infrastructure" 

David E. Dismukes, Michelle L. Barndt, 

and Kristi ,\, K 

Chapter 6: "Economic Benefits of Coastal Restoration to 

the :\!at-inc Sector" 

8: "The Non-market Value of Coastal and 

E;;tuarine Recreation" 

Linwood Pendleton 

THE ECO~O~HC AND MARKET VALFE OF COASTS: A;--;'0 ESTtfARJES 
96 

Æ 

It is the mission of 

Restore Americas Estuaries 

topreserve the nation's network of 

estuaries ~y protecting and 

restoring the lands and waters 

eSJential to the richness and 

ditJersiry ~f coastal lffe. 

For more co11tad: 

Jeff Benoit, President 

Restore America's Estuaries 

2020 N. 1-l'h St., Ste. 210 

Arlington, VA 22201 

(703) 524-0248 

THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET VALUE OF COASTS AND ESTUARIES