99–010

Calendar No. 264

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–112

DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ESTABLISHMENT ACT

DECEMBER 7, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. JEFFORDS, from the Committee on Environment and Public

Works, submitted the following

REPORT

[to accompany S. 835]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was

referred a bill (S. 835) to establish the Detroit River International

Wildlife Refuge in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes,

having considered the same reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the most comprehensive

system of lands devoted to wildlife protection and management in

the world. Currently, there are 526 refuges in the United States

and territories, providing important habitat for 700 bird species,

220 mammal species, 250 species of amphibians and reptiles, and

over 200 fish species. The refuges range in size from less than one

acre at the Mile Lac National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, to 19.2

million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Each

year the refuge system attracts more than 34 million visitors who

participate in a variety of recreational activities including observing and photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting and taking part in

system-sponsored educational programs.

The Detroit River, which connects the Upper and Lower Great

Lakes, is an international waterway that flows through a metropolitan region of over five million people. The Detroit River originally had extensive marshes along its banks and expansive upland
2

habitat supporting abundant wildlife. However, an estimated 95

percent of the original wetlands have been lost due to development.

The boundaries begin at the point in Michigan directly across

from the northernmost point of Ojibway Shores, and extend to the

southern boundary of Sterling State Park. This area contains shipping channels, numerous shoals that support dense stands of

aquatic plants, and many islands, five of which are Canadian.

These numerous distinct channels and other unique habitats attract and sustain more than 29 species of waterfowl and 65 aquatic

species. In addition, this area serves as a major migration corridor

for a variety of wildlife.

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

This legislation establishes the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in the area of the Lower Detroit River defined as the

downstream reach of the river from the confluence of the Rouge

River to the mouth of Lake Erie. The proposed refuge would protect

remaining high-quality fish and wildlife habitats, authorize international efforts to conserve, restore, and manage the fish and wildlife habitats both in Canada and the United States, and encourage

cooperation to promote public awareness of the resources of the Detroit River. The existing Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge is included within these boundaries, and will become part of the Detroit

River International Wildlife Refuge. All federal property located

within the new boundary will fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Any private lands within the refuge boundary may only be acquired with consent of the owner through purchase or exchange of land, water, or other interests, including conservation easements.

The Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge will be managed

in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and provide opportunities for compatible fish and

wildlife dependent recreation. Accordingly, activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental

education and interpretation, will be priority public uses.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Detroit River International Wildlife

Refuge Establishment Act’’.

Section 2. Findings

This Section elaborates on the need for establishing the Detroit

River International Wildlife Refuge because the Detroit River:

• links the upper and lower Great Lakes, as well as the United

States and Canada;

• has unique channels, shoals, islands and habitats;

• is a major migration corridor for fish, butterflies, and raptors

and other birds and waterfowl, as well as a breeding area for about

150 species of birds;

• provides diverse biota and habitats;

• has lost over 95 percent of its costal wetland habitat; and
3

• because protection of the remaining wildlife habitats and restoration of degraded wildlife habitats is essential to sustaining the

quality of life enjoyed by people living along the Detroit River.

Section 3. Definitions

This Section defines the Detroit River, Refuge, Secretary and

State. For purposes of this Act, Detroit River means the land and

water within the area described in Section 4; Refuge means the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge established by Section 4;

Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior; and State means the

State of Michigan.

Section 4. Establishment of Refuge

Subsection (a) establishes the boundaries for the Detroit River

International Wildlife Refuge, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Proposed’’ and dated July

30, 2001.

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to keep a map of the refuge

available for inspection in appropriate offices of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Subsection (c) includes the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

in the newly created Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge

and repeals the law establishing the Wyandotte Refuge.

Subsection (d) gives the Secretary discretionary authority to revise the Refuge boundaries as appropriate.

Subsection (e) allows the Secretary to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange the land,

water, and interests in land or water within the Refuge only from

willing sellers.

Subsection (f) allows the property located within the Refuge that

is under the administrative jurisdiction of another Federal agency,

to be transferred without consideration to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary.

Section 5. Administration

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to administer the Detroit

River International Wildlife Refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and gives

the Secretary discretionary authority to use other statutory authority to carry out this Act.

Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to conserve, restore and enhance the native aquatic and terrestrial community characteristic

of the Detroit River.

Subsection (c) establishes the purposes of the Refuge to be: protecting the remaining high-quality fish and wildlife habitats of the

Detroit River; restoring and enhancing degraded wildlife habitats

associated with the river; cooperating in international efforts to

conserve, restore, and manage the fish and wildlife habitats associated with the Detroit River in the United States and Canada; and

encouraging cooperation in facilitating partnerships among the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian national and provincial

authorities, State and local governments, local communities in the

United States and in Canada, conservation organizations and other

non-Federal entities.
4

Subsection (d) gives priority to uses of the Refuge to fish and

wildlife oriented recreation to those opportunities under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1998.

Subsection (e) allows hunting and fishing within the Refuge in

accordance with Federal and State law and allows the Secretary to

establish zones where and times when hunting or fishing shall not

be permitted. This limitation would be based on public safety, administration, fish and wildlife management or public use and enjoyment. Such permits or prohibitions must be in consultation with

the State fish and wildlife agency.

Subsection (f) gives the Secretary discretionary authority to enter

into cooperative agreements with non-Federal entities to manage

the land or water of the Refuge and to promote public awareness

of the resources of the Refuge and encourage public participation

in the conservation of the resources of the Refuge.

Subsection (g) directs the Secretary to encourage the State to

provide funding for acquisition and development of trails within

the Refuge.

Section 6. Indemnification

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to hold harmless, defend,

and indemnify any person who donates property for the Refuge

from and against any suit, demand, or action, liability, judgment,

cost or fee arising from any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant on the property. The State must determine that the property meets applicable state standards and the Secretary must determine, after public review and comment, that the property will

further the purposes of the Refuge and is in the public interest.

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to consider whether the

benefits to the United States of acquiring the real property concerned outweigh the risks associated with known or potential contamination.

Subsection (c) allows the Secretary to require any additional

terms and conditions in connection with granting indemnification

as he considers appropriate to protect the interest of the United

States.

Subsection (d) defines Secretary as the Secretary of the Interior

acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Section 7. Authorization of Appropriations

This Section authorizes such sums as are necessary for acquisition of land, water, and interests in land or water within the Refuge and for the development, operation, and maintenance of the

Refuge.

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 835 on November 8, 2001. The committee agreed to an

amendment by Senator Jeffords by a voice vote and agreed to the

bill as amended by voice vote.
5

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 835 does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it cause any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals.

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that S.835 would impose

no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal governments.

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill,

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. That statement follows:

S. 835, Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Establishment

Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on November 8, 2001

SUMMARY

S. 835 would establish the Detroit River International Wildlife

Refuge in Michigan and Canada. Assuming appropriation of the

necessary amounts, CBO estimates that initial costs to establish

the new refuge would be between $13 million and $21 million over

the five years following enactment. Recurring costs to administer

the refuge would be about $0.7 million annually, also assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Other costs of implementing

S. 835, such as environmental cleanup and restoration, are uncertain but could reach many times the initial investment over several

years. Enacting this legislation would not affect direct spending or

receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

MAJOR PROVISIONS

The Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge would encompass

over 5,400 acres of land around the Detroit River, including the existing Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. The bill would authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to acquire, by donation, purchase, or exchange, land and other interests within the

new boundary. In addition to managing federally owned acreage

within the refuge, the USFWS could execute cooperative agreements for the management of refuge lands that remain in state,

local, or private ownership. To carry out these activities, the bill

would authorize the appropriation of whatever sums are necessary.

Finally, S. 835 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to indemnify persons who donate refuge lands to the federal government from any liability or cost due to the presence of hazardous

substances or other pollution on this property.
6

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The initial $13 million to $21 million cost of implementing S. 835

would cover activities such as planning, land acquisition, and basic

development. CBO estimates that planning (including the preparation of conservation plan documents, environmental assessments,

and studies) would cost about $1 million over the first two years.

Land acquisition costs are uncertain, but would probably be between $5 million and $10 million over five years. (CBO expects that

the USFWS would not purchase much of the 5,400 acres within the

refuge boundary because most of this land is either located in Canada, already protected by government agencies or nonprofit organizations, or badly contaminated with pollutants.)

In addition to these initial costs, CBO estimates that developing

at least one site for visitor and administrative use (including demolishing existing man-made structures and building trails, parking lots, a visitor center, and other facilities) would cost between

$7 million and $10 million. We estimate that managing the new

refuge would increase USFWS operating costs by about $700,000

annually. All of these costs would be subject to the appropriation

of the necessary amounts.

Finally, implementing the legislation could result in significant

costs for land restoration, decontamination, and indemnification for

current property owners . Such costs are uncertain because they

would depend on how much land the USFWS would acquire, the

condition of that land for conservation purposes, and the type and

extent of contamination present (if any).

Restoration Costs

CBO expects that a significant portion of land within the proposed refuge would require some level of restoration. The USFWS

would be responsible for all of these costs on any lands it acquires

and also could share the cost of restoring nonfederal property within the refuge under cooperative agreements with landowners. The

total costs of these activities cannot be estimated in the absence of

a land acquisition plan for the refuge and a specific environmental

assessment of each parcel. Land restoration costs could be significant, however the cost of similar work undertaken by the USFWS

and by nonprofit organizations has ranged from $500 to $1,000 per

acre. Restoration activities could include removing old seawalls on

riverfront property, demolishing buildings and other facilities at

former industrial sites, re-creating wetlands, and re-seeding wetlands and grasslands with local plant species.

Decontamination and Indemnification Costs

While CBO assumes that the USFWS would try to avoid acquiring land for the refuge that is contaminated with hazardous waste

or other pollutants, acquisition of such land is authorized by the

bill and could occur. Estimated costs to clean up contaminated sites

vary widely. Previous cleanup projects at other refuges where the

USFWS has discovered contamination have cost the agency anywhere from $3,000 per acre to over $1 million per acre. Cleanup

activities range from capping contaminants under barriers to more
7

expensive solutions, such as removing or incinerating contaminated

soil.

Finally, the federal government could incur significant additional

costs if the Secretary of the Interior accepts donations of contaminated land and agrees to indemnify the donors against any potential liability resulting from that contamination. If the donated land

is contaminated and the donor was held to be liable, the federal

government would ultimately pay the full costs of any judgment

awarded because of contamination. Because it is impossible to predict the likelihood or outcome of such a sequence of events, CBO

cannot estimate the costs of indemnification.

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

S. 835 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates

as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or

tribal governments.

PREVIOUS CBO COST ESTIMATE

On October 29, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.

1230, the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on September 12, 2001. H.R. 1230 and S. 835 are very

similar, and the estimated costs of the two versions of the legislation are identical.

Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis; Impact on

Sate, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact on

the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate Approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for

Budget Analysis.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, provides that reports to the Senate should show changes in existing

law made by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no

changes to existing law.

Æ