99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–270

DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ESTABLISHMENT ACT

NOVEMBER 5, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State

of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. HANSEN, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 1230]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 1230) to provide for the establishment of the Detroit River

International Wildlife Refuge in the State of Michigan, and for

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended

do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Detroit River, one of North America’s greatest rivers, was created

some 14,000 years ago during the retreat of the Wisconsin Glacier.

(2) The present river channel, established when falling water levels permitted

erosion of the Lake Plain and moraines, is a connecting channel linking the

Upper and Lower Great Lakes, as well as linking the United States to Canada.

(3) The Lower Detroit River ecosystem is diverse with a number of distinct

channels, numerous shoals that support dense stands of aquatic plants, and

many islands. These nationally and internationally significant habitats and ecological features attract as many as 29 species of waterfowl and 65 kinds of fish.

(4) The Detroit River is a major migration corridor for fish, butterflies,

raptors, and other birds, in addition to waterfowl. Over 300 species of birds

have been documented in the Detroit-Windsor area, of which about 150 species

breed in the immediate area.

(5) Because the Great Lakes are situated at the intersection of the Atlantic

and Mississippi Flyways, the Detroit River is an important waterfowl migration

corridor. 3,000,000 ducks, geese, swans, and coots migrate annually through the

Great Lakes region.

2

(6) The importance of this corridor is recognized in the Canada-United States

North American Waterfowl Management Plan that has identified the Detroit

River as part of one of 34 Waterfowl Habitat Areas of Major Concern in the

United States and Canada.

(7) Some 300,000 diving ducks stop in the Lower Detroit River on their fall

migration from Canada to the east and south each year to rest and feed in beds

of water celery found in the region.

(8) The international importance of the Lower Detroit River area is manifested in the United States congressional designation of the 460-acre Wyandotte

National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Canada’s Canard River Marsh Complex is an internationally significant

waterfowl staging area which is one of the main resting and feeding areas for

canvasbacks migrating from their nesting grounds in the Canadian prairies to

the East Coast. Many over-winter in the area as well.

(10) The diversity of biota and habitats in the Lower Detroit River ecosystem

provides substantial benefits to the over 5,000,000 people who live in the vicinity. The Lower Detroit River has an international reputation for duck hunting.

On an economic basis, retail sales related to waterfowl hunting in Michigan

were estimated in 1991 to be $20,100,000. During the same year birding, photography, and other nonconsumptive uses of waterfowl contributed an additional $192,800,000 in Michigan.

(11) More than 1,000,000 pleasure boats are registered in Michigan and about

half of those are used on the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair, in part to fish

for the estimated 10,000,000 walleye that migrate to the Detroit River each

spring from Lake Erie to spawn. These walleye have helped create an internationally renowned sport fishery estimated to bring in $1,000,000 to the economy of communities along the lower Detroit River each spring.

(12) All of these natural resource values and socioeconomic benefits were acclaimed when the Detroit River was designated an American Heritage River in

1998. The Detroit River is also a Canadian Heritage River, making it the first

international heritage river system in the world.

(13) The Detroit River has lost over 95 percent of its coastal wetland habitats

and despite increased awareness and supporting science of their importance,

habitats continue to be destroyed and degraded.

(14) Protection of remaining wildlife habitats and enhancement of degraded

wildlife habitats are essential to sustain the quality of life enjoyed by so many

living along the Detroit River corridor.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) The term ‘‘Refuge’’ means the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge

established by section 5.

(2) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior.

(3) The term ‘‘Detroit River’’ means those lands and waters within the area

described in section 5(a).

SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

The purposes for which the Refuge is established and shall be managed are as

follows:

(1) To protect the remaining high-quality fish and wildlife habitats of the Detroit River before they are lost to further development and to restore and enhance degraded wildlife habitats associated with the Detroit River.

(2) To assist in international efforts to conserve, enhance, and restore the native aquatic and terrestrial community characteristics of the Detroit River (including associated fish, wildlife, and plant species) both in the United States

and Canada.

(3) To facilitate partnerships among the United States 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 to promote public awareness of the resources of the Detroit River.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF REFUGE.

(a) BOUNDARIES.—There is hereby established the Detroit River International

Wildlife Refuge, consisting of the lands and waters owned or managed by the Secretary pursuant to this Act in the State of Michigan within the area extending from

the point in Michigan directly across the river from northernmost point of Ojibway

Shores to the southern boundary of the Sterling State Park, as depicted upon a map

entitled ‘‘Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Proposed’’, dated July 31, 2001,

3

which shall be available for inspection in appropriate offices of the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service.

(b) EXISTING REFUGE LANDS.—The Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge is hereby

included within, and shall be a part of, the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. All references to the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge shall hereafter be

treated as references to the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge.

(c) BOUNDARY REVISIONS.—The Secretary may make such revisions of the boundaries of the Refuge as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Refuge

or to facilitate the acquisition of property within the Refuge.

(d) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase

with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange the lands and waters, or interests

therein (including conservation easements), within the boundaries of the Refuge.

(e) TRANSFERS FROM OTHER AGENCIES.—Any Federal property located within the

boundaries of the Refuge which is under the administrative jurisdiction of another

department or agency of the United States may, with the concurrence of the head

of administering department or agency, be transferred without consideration to the

administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary for the purposes of this Act.

(f) STUDY OF ASSOCIATED AREA.—The Secretary (acting through the Director of

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) shall conduct a study of fish and wildlife habitat and aquatic and terrestrial communities of the north reach of the Detroit River, from the northernmost point of Ojibway Shores north to the mouth of

Lake St. Clair, for potential inclusion in the Refuge. Not later than 18 months after

date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary shall complete such study and submit

a report containing the results thereof to the Congress.

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall administer all federally owned lands, waters, and interests therein that are within the boundaries of the Refuge in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd

and following) and this Act. The Secretary may use such additional statutory authority as may be available for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the provision of fish and wildlife dependent recreational opportunities as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(b) PRIORITY USES.—In providing opportunities for compatible fish and wildlife dependent recreation, the Secretary, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16

U.S.C. 668dd(a)), shall ensure that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses

of the Refuge.

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS REGARDING NONFEDERAL LANDS.—The Secretary is

authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Michigan, or any

political subdivision thereof, and with any other person or entity for the management in a manner consistent with this Act of lands that are owned by such State,

subdivision, or other person or entity and located within the boundaries of the Refuge and to promote public awareness of the resources of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge and encourage public participation in the conservation of

those resources.

(d) USE OF EXISTING GREENWAY AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall encourage the

State of Michigan to use existing authorities under the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century (TEA–21) to provide funding for acquisition and development

of trails within the boundaries of the Refuge.

SEC. 7. INDEMNIFICATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any person donates to the United States in fee simple

real property located within the boundaries of the Refuge, if—

(1) the State of Michigan has determined that such property meets applicable

State standards regarding the presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or

contaminants, or petroleum or petroleum derivatives, and

(2) the Secretary determines, after public review and comment, that the acquisition of such real property by the United States will further the purposes

of the refuge and is otherwise in the public interest,

the Secretary is authorized to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify such person in

full from and against any suit, demand, or action, liability, judgment, cost, or fee

arising out of any claim or order that results from, or is in any manner predicated

upon, the release or threatened release of, any hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant, or petroleum or petroleum derivative on such real property. Such indemnification may be provided at the same time as the owner of the property donates and transfers the property to the United States.

(b) BENEFITS AND RISKS.—In determining whether indemnification under this section is in the public interest, the Secretary shall consider whether the benefits to

4

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

(c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with granting indemnification under this

section as he considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(d) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior—

(1) such sums as may be necessary for the acquisition of lands and waters

within the Refuge;

(2) such sums as may be necessary for the development, operation, and maintenance of the Refuge; and

(3) such sums as may be necessary to carry out the study under section 5(f).

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1230 is to provide for the establishment of

the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in the State of

Michigan.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

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

habitat supporting abundant wildlife. However, an estimated 95

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

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 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.

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

5

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

education and interpretation, will be priority public uses.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1230 was introduced on March 27, 2001, by Congressman

John D. Dingell (D–MI) and was referred to the Committee on Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On June 21, 2001, the

Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 19, 2001, the

Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Congressman Robert A.

Underwood (D–GU) offered an amendment that directed the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to assess whether any fish and wildlife

habitats and aquatic communities in the northern half of the Detroit River could be added to this new refuge in the future. The

amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was

then forwarded to the Full Resources Committee by voice vote. On

September 12, 2001, the full Resources Committee met to consider

the bill. An amendment in the nature of a substitute authored by

Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest (R–MD) was offered that made a

number of technical and clarifying changes to the bill. In particular, the amendment re-drafted Section 7 to ensure that any indemnification protection is discretionary, that the public will have

an opportunity to comment on any proposed indemnification offers

in the future and that the Secretary of the Interior may require additional conditions to protect the interest of the United States. The

amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. The bill, as

amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution

of the United States, grant Congress the authority to enact this

bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation.—Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act.—As required by clause 3(c)(2) of

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not

6

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives.—As required by

clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective

of this bill is to provide for the establishment of the Detroit River

International Wildlife Refuge in the State of Michigan.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.—Under clause

3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives

and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 29, 2001.

Hon. JAMES V. HANSEN,

Chairman, Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1230, the Detroit River

International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 1230—Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act

Summary: H.R. 1230 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 H.R. 1230, such as environmental cleanup and restoration, are uncertain but could reach many times the initial investment over several years. Enacting H.R. 1230 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 have no significant impact on the budgets of 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. The agency also would conduct a

7

study of the north reach of the Detroit River for potential future

inclusion in the refuge. To carry out these activities, the bill would

authorize the appropriation of whatever sums are necessary. Finally, H.R. 1230 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.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government

The initial $13 million to $21 million cost of implementing H.R.

1230 would cover activities such as planning, land acquisition, and

basic development. We estimate that planning (including the preparation of conservation plan documents, environmental assessments, and studies) would cost about $1 million over the first 2

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, we estimate that developing at

least one site for visitor and administrative use (including demolition of existing man-made structures and building trails, parking

lots, a visitor center, and other facilities) would cost between $7

million to $10 million. In addition 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, recreating 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

8

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 moreexpensive 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: The bill contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in

UMRA and would have no significant impact on the budgets of

state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Deborah Reis; impact on

State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller; impact on the

private sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law.

Æ