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

25–052 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–968 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 

ITEMS: S. 810, GREAT APES PROTECTION ACT OF 2011, 

S. 1249, TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT, S. 2071, PERMANENT ELECTRONIC 

DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2012, S. 357, WILDLIFE DISEASE 

EMERGENCY ACT OF 2011, S. 1494, NATIONAL FISH AND 

WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2011, S. 1266, DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION 

ACT OF 2011, S. 2156, MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT INVESTMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT, AND S. 2282, 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 24, 2012 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH 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 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 24, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 6 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 11 

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ............................... 14 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................. 15 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 67 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 207 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 207 

WITNESSES 

Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 29 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 31 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 32 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 33 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 35 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 36 

Anderson, James M., M.D., Ph.D., Director, Division of Program Coordination, 

Planning and Strategic Initiatives, the National Institutes of Health ............ 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 50 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 50 

Senator Tom Udall .................................................................................... 52 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 53 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 54 

Inkley, Douglas B., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Wildlife Federation ......... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 79 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 80 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 80 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 81 

Wasserman, Martin, M.D., J.D., former Secretary, Maryland Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene, and former Administrator, Oregon Public 

Health Department .............................................................................................. 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 101 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 104 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 107 

Schildwachter, Greg, Ph.D., Watershed Results LLC .......................................... 126 

Page

IV 

Schildwachter, Greg, Ph.D., Watershed Results LLC—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 135 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 137 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 139 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Testimony by the National Chimpanzee Research Facility Directors Regarding The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act ........................................ 209 

A letter from the American Littoral Society et al. to Senators Boxer and 

Inhofe, September 22, 2011 ................................................................................. 226 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE 

FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 810, GREAT APES 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2011, S. 1249, TARGET 

PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING 

SUPPORT ACT, S. 2071, PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2012, S. 357, 

WILDLIFE DISEASE EMERGENCY ACT OF 

2011, S. 1494, NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE 

FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 

2011, S. 1266, DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011, S. 2156, MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT INVESTMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT, AND S. 2282, NORTH 

AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012 

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012 

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in room 

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

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, and Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The Committee will come to order. 

Let me welcome you all to the Subcommittee hearing of Water 

and Wildlife of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I 

want to thank Senator Boxer for permitting the Subcommittee to 

hold this hearing today on a subject I think is important to many 

members of the U.S. Senate. We are taking up several bills. 

I want to thank Senator Sessions, who will be here shortly, the 

Ranking Republican Member of the Subcommittee on Water and 

Wildlife, for his help and cooperation, and Senator Inhofe for his 

help. 

With today’s hearing we have the opportunity to discuss a set of 

critical issues to protecting the Nation’s wildlife. The Subcommittee 

2 

will consider seven bills. I would like to thank my colleagues who 

have worked so hard to craft the bills that are before us today. I 

see Senator Udall and Senator Begich who are here, and I want to 

thank them for their leadership on these issues. 

Among the bills we will address are the use of chimpanzees in 

medical research, a bill that would focus Federal attention and resources on diseases like white-nose syndrome in bats that are devastating an entire animal population—I want to thank Senator 

Lautenberg for his strong leadership on that particular issue—and 

several bills to provide critical support for wildlife conservation and 

habitat protection. 

Three of the bills we are considering today directly establish or 

reauthorize conservation programs; S. 1494, the National Fish and 

Wildlife Reauthorization Act, S. 1266, the Delaware River Basin 

Conservation Act, and S. 2282, the North America Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act. 

As we attempt to balance Federal spending with the need to reduce our deficit, it is important to bear in mind that these conservation programs are important not only to preserve the health 

and beauty of our natural environment but also because of the significant economic benefits they provide. A study commissioned by 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation found that outdoor 

recreation, nature conservation, and historic preservation provide 

9.4 million jobs and account for over $1 trillion in the total economic activity. 

In Maryland alone the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

has funded more than 400 projects since 2000, including such important conservation and restoration projects as manure-to-energy 

research at the University of Maryland, watershed restoration in 

the Wicomico River, and oyster restoration initiatives to restore key 

species of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Delaware River Basin includes the Delaware River Watershed in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware and 

the Delaware Bay. The basin is home to more than 8 million people, and 16 million depend on it as an economic engine, as a place 

for recreation, a source of clean drinking water, and a vital habitat 

for fish and wildlife. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act’s matching 

grant program, which funds projects to conserve wetlands that benefit migratory birds and other wildlife, creates nearly 7,500 new 

jobs annually in the United States, and on average it generates 

over $200 million in workers’ earnings each year. 

I think everybody is getting to see the theme. These are programs that protect the beauty, and what makes America so special 

is unique to our species diversification, but also plays a critical part 

in our economy. 

In addition to conserving wildlife for recreation purposes, wildlife 

also plays a critical role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. They 

pollinate plants, prey on insects like mosquitoes, moths, and beetles, thereby reducing the need for pesticides. Yet emerging diseases such as colony collapse disorder in bees and white-nose syndrome in bats threaten entire species of wildlife. S. 357, the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, would focus resources and attention on 

3 

diseases like white-nose syndrome by creating a Federal plan for 

responding to wildlife disease emergencies. 

Three of the bills we will consider today address the ability of 

marksmen, hunters, and other outdoorsmen to enjoy our national 

wild space. S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, would give States more flexibility to using existing 

funds to create and maintain safe shooting ranges in national 

parks. 

S. 2071, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act, would authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to sell Federal duck stamps on 

line. Since 1934 sportsmen have been required to purchase a Federal duck stamp to hunt migratory waterfowl. The program generates approximately $25 million per year, which is deposited into 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to preserve habitat and ensure future hunting opportunities. 

S. 2156, the Migratory Bird Habitat Enhancement and Investment Act, this bill also affects the Duck Stamp Program by permitting the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission, to set prices for duck stamps. The 

Duck Stamp Program is an important resource for conservation activities nationwide, and especially in my home State of Maryland. 

Just this past March, the Department of Interior announced that 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission had approved over 

$500,000 in funding to conserve 112 acres of habitat for waterfowl 

and other wildlife in Maryland’s Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge to be funded with duck stamp proceeds. I am very proud of 

Blackwater Refuge. Its unique habitat and ecology make it one of 

Maryland’s most important natural resources. The Duck Stamp 

Program is a key resource for maintaining Blackwater and other 

environmental programs. 

And finally, S. 810, the Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings 

Act, would retire approximately 500 federally owned chimpanzees 

currently in laboratories to permanent sanctuary. At Congress’ request, the National Institutes of Health commissioned a study of 

the chimpanzees used in biomedical research and determined that 

using chimpanzees was unnecessary in most instances. S. 810 is an 

attempt to address this ongoing issue. 

So, we have very important bills that are before us. I am pleased, 

again, with the leadership that the Members of the Senate have 

shown on these important environmental and economic issues. 

With that, let me turn to the ranking Republican of the Committee, Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

having this. 

I want to especially welcome Dan Ashe to this hearing. Back during the confirmation process we had a chance to visit about what 

his goals were and what our goals were, and he agreed to come to 

Oklahoma to listen to some of the problems that our ag community 

primarily would have with the listing of the lesser prairie-chicken. 

And we were able to really—actually, he had two meetings, one in 

4 

Woodward, way out in the Panhandle, and one in more of the central part of the State. 

Anyway, the listing would significantly harm agriculture, construction of highway infrastructure, and energy development, including numerous wind development projects in the Woodward 

area, which he saw when he was out there. I fly my plane out there 

quite often, and I take people who have not been up. In any one 

place you can see about 300 of these windmills going around. So, 

they have a dog in this fight, too. 

Of course, the listing is not the only option, and it certainly is 

not the best. While in Oklahoma, Director Ashe also had a chance 

to hear about how Oklahomans have invested millions of dollars 

and a great deal of time and significant effort and which are increasing the numbers of the lesser prairie-chickens without harming our economy. 

I continue to call for the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow these 

voluntary efforts to achieve results before going through with the 

listing decision. Recently, there has been talk of a possibility of a 

6-month delay which would be most welcome as it would give Oklahomans a chance to continue their important work. 

So, let me just say thank you, Director Ashe, for your help out 

in Oklahoma. 

Today’s hearing is a great opportunity to put the spotlight on voluntary efforts as time and time again they prove to be the best 

methods of achieving land and species conservation goals without 

destroying jobs and hurting the economy. One such example can be 

found in a bipartisan bill I sponsored with my good friends Senators Boxer and Vitter, the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Extension Act. 

This program has such a good track record for conservation precisely because it is a volunteer effort. It incentivizes non-Government funds for wetland and wildlife habitat conservation. On each, 

each Federal dollar is matched by $3.20 from non-Federal contributions. In my State of Oklahoma, it currently has 12 projects either 

completed or underway. These projects have conserved some 26,869 

acres of wildlife habitat and leveraged $11.3 million in partner contributions from the $4.9 million in the funding. 

The Hackberry Flat Project in Tillman County has led to the restoration of wetland habitat, and the area is now open for hunting 

waterfowl, dove, quail, rabbit, and sandhill cranes. When you compare the successes with the Federal mandates which most often do 

not achieve the conservation goals but give States unnecessary economic pain it is clear that the voluntary programs should be at the 

center of all conservation efforts. 

In addition to the NAWCA, we will be discussing several conservation bills today, including the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation Reauthorization Act, which is another promising voluntary effort. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is doing 

important work protecting the lesser prairie-chicken in order to 

help prevent this listing under the Endangered Species Act. Most 

importantly, the bill reduces the authorization level by $5 million 

while still giving the Foundation the ability to leverage funds for 

conservation projects. 

5 

The only other bill I have concerns about is S. 810, the Great 

Apes Protection Act. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Anderson 

from the National Institute of Health, his thoughts on this legislation. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, especially Greg Schildwachter, former Staff Director of this Subcommittee, who now works at Watershed Results LLC. With his 

background, he will be able to provide valuable insight on the effectiveness of these bills. I look forward to having an important dialogue about how best to achieve the conservation goals without 

causing more pain. 

And by the way, I always have trouble with his last name because, when he was on the Committee, we just called him Greg. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Anyway, we have the partnership programs, 

and others have been so successful, and I say to Director Ashe, as 

Oklahoma as kind of a good testing ground for these programs, and 

I think you probably came back with that same impression. 

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

I would like to thank Senator Cardin and Senator Sessions for holding this hearing on a number of important wildlife conservation bills. 

I would especially like to welcome Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Director Ashe traveled to my home State late last year to hear from 

Oklahomans about how devastating a listing of the lesser prairie-chicken would be 

for Oklahoma’s economy: this listing would significantly harm agriculture, the construction of highway infrastructure, and energy development, including numerous 

wind development projects in the Woodward area. But of course a listing isn’t the 

only option, and it certainly isn’t the best. While in Oklahoma Director Ashe also 

had the chance to hear about how Oklahomans have invested millions of dollars and 

a great deal of time in significant voluntary efforts which are increasing the number 

of lesser prairie-chickens without harming our economy. I continue to call for the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to allow these voluntary efforts to achieve results before 

going through with a listing decision. Recently there has been talk of a possibility 

of a 6-month delay, which would be most welcome as it would give Oklahomans 

more time to continue this important work. 

Today’s hearing is a great opportunity to put the spotlight on voluntary efforts, 

as time and time again they prove to be the best methods of achieving land and 

species conservation goals without destroying jobs and hurting our economy. One 

such example can be found in a bipartisan bill I am sponsoring with my good friends 

Senators Boxer and Vitter: the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension 

Act of 2012 (S. 2282). 

This program has such a good track record for conservation precisely because it 

is a voluntary effort; it incentivizes non-Federal funds for wetland wildlife habitat 

conservation. On average, each Federal dollar is match by $3.20 of non-Federal contributions. 

In my State of Oklahoma NAWCA currently has 12 projects either completed or 

underway. These projects have conserved 26,869 acres of wildlife habitat and leveraged $11.3 million in partner contributions from $4.9 million in NAWCA funding. 

The Hackberry Flat project in Tillman County has led to the restoration of wetland 

habitat, and the area is now open for hunting waterfowl, dove, quail, rabbit, and 

sandhill cranes. When you compare the success of NAWCA with Federal mandates 

which most often do not achieve conservation goals but give States unnecessary economic pain, it’s clear that the voluntary programs should be at the center of all conservation efforts. 

In addition to NAWCA, we will be discussing several conservation bills today, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (S. 1494), 

which is another promising voluntary effort. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is doing important work protecting the lesser prairie-chicken in order to help 

6 

prevent its listing under the Endangered Species Act. Most importantly this bill reduces the authorization level by $5 million while still giving the foundation the ability to leverage funds for conservation projects. 

I also support Senator Wicker’s bill, S. 2071, the Permanent Electronic Duck 

Stamp Act of 2012, which, as stated in the title, allows the purchase of electronic 

duck stamps for waterfowl hunters across all 50 States. Migratory waterfowl hunters are required to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the stamp grants them access to Federal Wildlife Refuges without any additional fees. This bill follows a successful pilot program by eight States that allowed 

the purchase of the Federal Duck Stamp online. Additionally, this bill comes at no 

cost to taxpayers. 

One bill, though, that I cannot support in its current form is S. 810, the Great 

Apes Protection Act. While we certainly want to treat animals as humanely as possible, this bill goes too far with an outright ban on chimpanzee research. Recently, 

the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report regarding the 

use of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. The IOM report states, 

‘‘The committee’s report does not endorse an outright ban on chimpanzee research’’ 

and warns ‘‘how disruptive an immediate outright ban would be, affecting animal 

care and potentially causing unacceptable losses to the public’s health.’’ It continues 

to state that ‘‘chimpanzees may prove uniquely important to unraveling the mystery 

of diseases that are unknown today.’’ 

Chimpanzee research has led to the development of vaccines for hepatitis A and 

B and has helped gain important insight into diseases such as hepatitis C, malaria, 

HIV, and cancer. An outright ban would be very shortsighted and may endanger 

public health. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here today, especially Greg 

Schildwachter, a former staff director of this Subcommittee who now works at Watershed Results, LLC. With his background he will be able to provide valuable insight on the effectiveness of these bills. 

I look forward to having an important dialogue about how best to achieve conservation goals without causing more pain in tough economic times. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Again, Senator Inhofe, thank you for your leadership on so many of these issues. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing on legislation to protect wildlife, including legislation that 

I introduced to address the threats to bats and other wildlife. 

Since 2006 more than 5 million hibernating bats have died from 

a disease called white-nose syndrome. And it is happening in 19 

States across the country, particularly in New Jersey. We have a 

sanctuary for bats called the Hibernia Mine. I went down into that 

mine in 1997 and visited with a bunch of bats. To be precise, 

30,000 of them were there, and I was very comfortable with them, 

I must tell you. 

The bat population, however, having remained constant for a 

decade, suddenly in 2009 it was discovered that the number of bats 

went from 30,000 down to just 700. Bat mortality rates in some 

caves are approaching 100 percent. You cannot make a mistake. 

The loss of these bats poses a major threat to entire ecosystems, 

with the potential to cause serious environmental and economic 

problems. 

Bats are one of nature’s best exterminators, helping to protect 

the public’s health and our crops. They prey almost exclusively on 

mosquitoes and other insects which spread disease, and moths and 

beetles which damage crops. A single bat can eat half of its body 

7 

weight in insects in a single night, and an entire colony will consume hundreds of millions of insects. 

In the 6 years since the white-nose syndrome was first discovered in New York State, we have made some progress in the fight 

against the disease. We had a hearing in this Subcommittee, last 

Congress, and have secured more than $5 million to address whitenose syndrome. The challenges that make white-nose syndrome so 

difficult to address are the same as those that affect many developing wildlife diseases. And as a result, Federal agencies have been 

able to determine the origin and cause of white-nose syndrome. 

Last month, Senator Leahy and I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee, signed by 11 other Senators, asking for additional 

funding for white-nose syndrome. But we must do more, which is 

why I introduced the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act. 

So, what we have to do is, we have got to really put our resources into this fight. Today, we are forced to scramble to develop 

a basic response to a disease, only to find out that the outbreak has 

surpassed the scale of the response. In the years since the whitenose outbreak began, the Fish and Wildlife Service has done great 

work to coordinate response across several agencies and with State 

governments. 

My bill would help Federal and State agencies to be better prepared to respond to future outbreaks of wildlife diseases. It would 

also authorize more resources to address wildlife disease emergencies, including the ongoing response to white-nose syndrome. 

The bill still is endorsed by 17 wildlife groups, including Bat 

Conservation International, the National Resource Defense Council, the Defenders of Wildlife, and many other distinguished agencies. In a letter of support, they note overarching coordination is 

necessary to promote efficiency and prevent redundancy and that 

this bill will provide that coordination. 

And I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be included in the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Our mission is clear. We have got to do 

more to stop this deadly outbreak and be better prepared to stop 

the next wildlife disease emergency. 

I thank the witnesses for being here. I look forward to hearing 

from them today on all of these bills. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 

8 


25052.001

American Bird Conservancy • Animal Welfare Institute • Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums • Bat Conservation International • Center for Biological Diversity • Defenders 

of Wildlife • EcoHealth Alliance • Endangered Species Coalition • Houston Zoo • 

International Fund for Animal Welfare • National Speleological Society • Natural 

Resources Defense Council• The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Chapter • Pollinator 

Partnership • Western Nebraska Resources Council • The Wildlife Society • The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation 

April24, 2012 

Dear Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Sessions, 

Thank you for holding a hearing on legislation that is so important to wildlife. As nongovernmental organizations engaged in conserving wildlife, including preventing and controlling 

wildlife disease, we are writing to express our support for the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, 

S.357. 

New and emerging diseases pose a critical and growing threat to the health of wildlife. Since 

1970, more than 40 previously undocumented diseases have been identified around the world. 

The global wildlife and pet trade, international travel, introduction of non-native species, and 

changes in human land-use have all contributed to wildlife coming into contact with pathogens to 

which they are unaccustomed and lack resistance. As globalization accelerates, this trend will 

only continue. Industrial byproducts such as mercury and lead. agricultural products like 

fertilizers and pesticides, and medicinal and other products in human sewage and garbage can 

also cause disease, often by suppressing immune response. Climate change's alterations to 

ecosystems will fbrther exacerbate disease outbreaks by creating conditions favorable to such 

vectors as ticks and mosquitoes. 

Wildlife disease affects human well-being. Bats and birds consume vast numbers of insects that 

would otherwise attack agricultural crops, for example, and bees pollinate crops and other plants. 

Losing these animals to White-nose Syndrome, West Nile Virus, and diseases impacting native 

pollinators affects not only wildlife, but also farmers and consumers. Other wildlife diseases kill 

animals we rely on for food. Prior to effective control strategies in the United States, avian 

influenza and Newcastle disease were transferred among wild birds and poultry, while viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia still affects both wild fish and aquaculture populations, with impacts for 

fisheries. Moreover, while not all emerging wildlife diseases cause illness in humans today, a 

disease may mutate from animal forms to human forms in the future, especially in the tace of the 

environmental changes described above. We are keen to prevent the human and economic tolls 

associated with such disease transfer as we have witnessed with the emergence of human 

immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from non-human primates. 

The gravity of emerging wildlife disease is compounded by institutions' difficulty addressing it. 

In many cases, little to no knowledge exists about an emerging disease, so researchers must start 

from scratch in order to gain scientific understanding. Wildlife managers arc obligated to 

develop protocols to handle the disease on the ground. Groups must educate the public, and 

policymakers have to learn about the disease in order to enact appropriate measures to combat it. 

Overarching coordination is necessary to promote efficiency and prevent redundancy. Federal 

1/3 
9 


25052.002

funds are needed for any of this to occur. Too often, the wildlife disease community scrambles 

to develop a basic response for a disease, only to find the outbreak's magnitude has surpassed the 

scale of the response. 

We support the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act because it would help remedy the major 

challenges inherent in responding to emerging wildlife diseases: lack of intellectual, logisticaL 

and financial resources. The coordinated response team and interagency Wildlife Disease 

Committee envisioned by this legislation will facilitate scientific discoveries and inform 

decision-making in the early stages of an outbreak. Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and other 

stakeholders, including NGOs, which the Secretary of the Interior may mobilize will provide 

logistical assistance needed to monitor and manage a disca'ie. The Wildlife Disease Emergency 

Fund and Grant Program will speed the delivery of funds to carry out the aforementioned work. 

These funds will also be money saved, since controlling a disease early is cheaper than dealing 

with a full-blown outbreak. Finally, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to declare a wildlife 

disease emergency will help legitimize a disease in the eyes of the public and of private funders. 

We thank Senator Lautenberg for introducing this legislation. We also thank Chairman Cardin 

and Senators Bingaman, Leahy, Menendez, and Sanders for co-sponsoring it. Because it 

addresses serious gaps in wildlife disease emergency response, we endorse it and urge its 

approval by the Senate. 

Sincerely. 

Laurie Davies Adams 

Executive Director 

Pollinator Partnership 

San Francisco, CA 

Mary Beth Beetham 

Director of Legislative Affairs 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, DC 

Scott Hoffman Black 

Executive Director 

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation 

Portland. OR 

Sylvia Fallon 

Senior Scientist 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Washington, DC 

2/3 

Nina Fascione 

Executive Director 

Bat Conservation International 

Austin, TX 

Jeffrey Flocken 

Director, Washington, DC Office 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 

Washington, DC 

Gina Hancock 

State Director 

The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee 

Chapter 

Nashville, TN 

Leda Huta 

Executive Director 

Endangered Species Coalition 

Washington, DC 
10 


25052.003

William B. Karesh 

Executive Vice President tor Health and 

Policy 

EcoHealth Alliance 

New York, NY 

Paul R. Krausman 

President 

The Wildlife Society 

Bethesda, MD 

Cathy Liss 

President 

Animal Welfare Institute 

Washington, DC 

Mollie Matteson 

Conservation Advocate 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Richmond, VT 

Buffalo Bruce Mcintosh 

Staff Ecologist 

Western Nebraska Resources Council 

Chadron, NE 

Steve Olson 

Vice President Federal Relations 

Association of Zoos & Aquariums 

Silver Spring, MD 

Peter Rigcr 

Vice-President of Conservation 

Houston Zoo 

Houston, TX 

Darin Schroeder 

Vice President for Conservation Advocacy 

American Bird Conservancy 

Washington, DC 

William Shrewsbury 

President 

National Speleological Society 

Huntsville, AL 

3/3 
11 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I will try to be 

brief since our colleagues are here. But I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing on all of these very important bills. 

This Committee has the important task of ensuring that wildlife 

throughout the Nation is appropriately managed. The bills before 

the Subcommittee today do a great deal to help ensure species are 

protected, watersheds are vibrant, and animals receive humane 

treatment. 

About 1 year ago I invited Senators Bingaman and Harkin to 

join me and ask the National Academy of Sciences to complete a 

study on the necessity for chimpanzee use in biomedical and behavioral research. This study was meant to lay out the scientific basis 

for the need for chimpanzees in research and to inform future policy decisions relating to invasive research on chimpanzees. 

I commend the National Academy of Sciences for taking on the 

task, which was assigned to and completed by the Institute of Medicine. The Institute was diligent in bringing in experts from diverse 

fields and allowing for public involvement. The resulting report is 

a non-biased resource for policymakers. 

I would also like to commend the National Institutes of Health 

for their quick and deliberate response to the report and look forward to hearing what progress the National Institutes of Health 

has made toward adopting the recommendations of the IOM. 

I also look forward to hearing from the other panelists today. 

The most important thing that they concluded was that, for the 

most part, chimpanzees are not needed in most research, which 

was a bit of surprise, I think, to everyone, and it looks like we are 

going to—Chairman Cardin, you mentioned this in your opening 

statement—move forward with those recommendations expeditiously. 

Jane Goodall just put together testimony, Chairman Cardin, on 

this particular issue, and I have a copy of that, and I would ask 

that it be put in the record. And I would also ask that the remainder of my opening statement be deferred and give the courtesy to 

our colleagues that are here to inform us on the pieces of legislation they are working on. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your full statement will be 

included in the record, as well as the additional comments from the 

other person mentioned. 

[The referenced testimony follows. The prepared statement of 

Senator Tom Udall was not received at time of print.] 

12 


25052.004

Statement of 

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE 

Founder. the .Jane Goodall Institute & 

UN Messenger of Peal·c 

For a Hearing of the 

IJ.S. Senate Committee on EnYironmcnt and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

April24, 2012 

406 Dirksen Offici' Building, I 0:15 a.m. 

Dear Chairman Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you fen· the opportunity to submit this statement in support ofS.810. the Great .-\pc 

Protection and Cost Savings Act of2011. I commend Senator Cardin for including this measure 

in the hearing today. 

I would like to begin hy expressing my deep appreciation fiJr the hard work of the Institute of 

lVkdicinc (10M) committee members who last year reviewed the status of chimpanzee 

biomedical and behavioral research as it stands today. I was particularly impressed by their 

expert analysis of the exciting alternatives to the chimpanzee model that haw been developed in 

the past tlvc to I 0 years and that arc likely to be developed in the near future-many ofv\ hich 

make no usc of animals at all. So many new research tools exist today that I could not have 

dreamed of when I began my research more than 50 years ago in what is now Gombc National 

Park in Tanzania. Some of these new tools can even be employed with chimpanzt>es in the vvild. 

Today, researchers at Gombe pcrf(mn a wide range of biomedical and behavioral studies. all 

without use of invasive methods of any kind. 

I would also like to say that we have a great deal of respect fix scientists at the National 

Institutes of HeaHh (Nil!) and elsewhere who are working so hard to find cures l(lr a broad range 

of human diseases. The majority of the researchers with whom I have met feel that it is \\rong to 

use chimpanzees in invasive research due to the scientif-Ic limitations of using this animal model 

and because ol" clear ethical concerns. I would not be surprised ifthcrc arc many s..:icntists 

working tor the government or doing government-funded research who arc quite relieved b) the 

IOM report and the very v\isc decision of the NIH to adopt its recommendations. 

It is critical that highly respected scientists at !OM and NIH have spoken on this issue. Without 

their thoughtful analysis. many legislators-and their constitueuts, l(1r that matlcr----vvould not 

feel comfortable discussing this issue. They might have continued to hear only a one-sided point 

ofvicv\. But, because ofthcse scientists' expert and candid assessment, we now know that most 

current usc or chimpanzees trlr biomedical research is unnecessary. And the 10M and NIH 

scientists have come up \vith very stringent regulations that would have tel be met betore any 
13 


25052.005

researcher would be allowed to usc a chimpanzee modeL For one thing, they would hai'C to 

prove that thcre was NO OTJ IER method which would enable them to get the infcJnnation, 

The scientists have spoKen, Now it is time for those 11 ho represent the general public to stand up 

and share their views, I hope that you will mow this piece of legislation i(Jmard, Tweak it if 

you must. but do pass this hilL In so doing, you will not just improve the lii'CS nf captive 

chimpanzees. but )OU will also advance the ethical standing of mankind, 

rhanJ.; : ou f(Jr all em ing me to contribute to this hearing, 

With kind wishes. I am respectfully 

Jane GoodalL l'ld,L DBl,; 

Founder. the Jane Goodall Institute & 

UN Messenger of Peace 
14 

Senator CARDIN. We will now turn to our colleagues. 

First, let me welcome Senator Mark Udall to our Committee. 

Senator Udall is the sponsor of S. 1249, the Target Practice and 

Marksmanship Training Support Act. 

It is a pleasure to have you before our Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in the 

spirit of my good cousin from New Mexico, I will also try to be 

brief. 

I want to thank you and Ranking Member Sessions for your support. I am also grateful to Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for including my bipartisan legislation into today’s hearing. I want to also acknowledge my good friend, Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. 

I have introduced the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act. It is designed to encourage the development of 

high quality shooting ranges which are open to the public by 

amending certain parts to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. That Act provides Federal support for certain wildlife restoration and hunter education programs. 

My bill would give the States greater flexibility over the Federal 

law than they already receive from the PR, the Pittman-Robertson 

funds, which would free up more money to build shooting ranges. 

The funds from Pittman-Robertson come from an excise tax on the 

sale of shooting and archery equipment. This bill helps those paying into the system, which are primarily sportsmen, get a better return on their investment. 

By focusing on flexibility with already allocated funds, the legislation will not cost taxpayers an additional dime. And in return, I 

believe it will be a tremendous boon for our sportsmen and our outdoor recreation communities which are not only an integral part of 

our national heritage but are a key component of our economy, especially in rural areas, which we all do represent. 

For those reasons, the bill has broad bipartisan support. Here, 

Senator Risch teamed up with me to author the bill. It has broad 

support within the sportsmen’s community, and I am grateful for 

the support that we have gotten from everybody from the National 

Shooting Sports Foundation to the National Rifle Association. 

As you all know, often the best ideas for legislation come from 

the local communities, and I really had overwhelming support in 

Colorado from people who want to see the development of more 

high quality shooting ranges. So, I want to finish with some comments from two of my constituents. 

Donald in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, which is down in the wonderful southwestern part of the State near my cousin’s State of 

New Mexico. He wrote to me, I have been a hunter education instructor for over 30 years and helped teach over 5,000 students. 

Since we have no public shooting facilities in the Pagosa Springs 

area, it is always a challenge to find a safe and accessible location 

for the range portion of the class. We desperately need a range facility in our area to be able to continue teaching our kids and those 

who are new to hunting how to safely handle firearms. 

15 

From Gary in Aurora, Colorado, my father helped to found and 

build a recreational shooting facility in the late 1950s. I was literally brought up at the range. I spent every weekend working 

there. These ranges are not just a place to shoot. They are a close 

knit family full of diverse people. Our club has also taught my son 

the love of shooting and safety along with me. I cannot stress this 

enough as we are seeing more and more clubs closing down. We 

need more places to teach, enjoy, and relax with fellow shooters. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me an opportunity 

to present my bill to you, and I look forward to working with the 

Committee to advance this important legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Udall. I appreciate your 

leadership on this and so many other issues. 

Senator Begich is the principal sponsor of S. 2156, the Migratory 

Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act. 

Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, and also the 

other members that are here for holding this hearing today, including S. 2156, the Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act. 

Since it was created in 1934 the Federal Duck Stamp Program 

has been one of the most successful conservation tools in history. 

It has raised over $750 million and has preserved over 5 million 

acres of wetlands to protect waterfowl habitat. It has preserved 

lands which maintain our hunting heritage and boosted waterfowl 

population for enjoyment by all. 

I introduced the bill to address two issues with the duck stamp. 

One is to adjust the price. The current price, $15, has not changed 

since 1991, and has lost over half its value due to inflation. Without a change, the Duck Stamp Program cannot continue to do the 

work it has been doing. 

Rather than just hike it, I propose to allow the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, to adjust the price once every 5 years. I think you will 

hear from the duck hunters that even they support this since they 

benefit directly from the program. 

My bill also allows the Secretary to grant limited waivers from 

the stamp fee. That is a response to subsistence shooters in my 

State who argue they have already done their part for wetlands 

conservation. Millions of acres of native lands have been set aside 

in refuges or in some other protected status. Such a waiver would 

have minimal impact on the Duck Stamp Program but will relieve 

subsistence users who still live off the land for most of their diet 

from the cost of this Federal program. 

I welcome your consideration of this bill and would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have as you move forward on this 

piece of legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Senator Begich and Senator 

Udall. We thank both of you for your leadership on these important 

issues. And I do not see that there are any questions from memVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25052.TXT SONYA
16 

bers of the Committee, so thank you very much. You are both excused. 

We will now turn to our first panel. We are pleased to have Hon. 

Dan Ashe with us. He is the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Nation’s principal Federal agency dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Director Ashe has a long and distinguished career in conservation. Prior to assuming the Director’s position, he served within the 

Fish and Wildlife Service as Deputy Director for Policy, as a 

science advisor, and as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System. I also am pleased to note that he is a Maryland constituent. 

We are also pleased to have Dr. James Anderson. Dr. Anderson 

is the Director of the Division of Program, Coordination, Planning 

and Strategic Initiatives of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. 

Anderson has expertise in both clinical medicine and academic research and has held key academic positions with the University of 

North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the Yale School of Medicine. 

Welcome, both of you, to our Committee. We thank you for your 

service to our country, and we thank you for being here today. 

We will start off with Mr. Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Senator Cardin, Committee members. It 

is great to be here. 

Senator Inhofe, I would start off by again saying thank you for 

the invitation to come to Oklahoma. It was a wonderful opportunity. It was tragic just about 2 weeks ago when I saw that a tornado had occurred in Woodward, and it made me feel for those 

great people up there. So, my heart goes out to everyone there, 

Senator. 

I would like to begin by saying the Committee is considering a 

great breadth of legislation today, things that really touch on the 

breath of challenges that we are facing in the wildlife conservation 

world today. As we think about those challenges, we have to think 

about the root of those challenges, and it really is us. 

We see, of course, continued expansion of population at the world 

scale but also at the United States scale. And it is not just an expansion in the total number of people. It is the expansion of affluence in both the United States and in the world as a whole. 

We all want a better place for our children and grandchildren. 

We want a strong economy; we want an expanding economy. But 

I think we have to realize that what that means for the land and 

the water resources of our Nation and the world is that we will be 

asking more of the land and water resources to produce more food, 

more fuel, more fiber, and more water for our human needs. And 

that means, of course, less for the rest of what we could collectively 

call biological diversity. 

So, as you see these pieces of legislation before you today you are 

really dealing with the root of the issues and challenges that we 

face, the continued fragmentation and destruction of habitat. 

I will point you to the prairies, the American prairies where, 

which are really the—we call it the duck factory as we think about 

waterfowl in the United States. We are seeing a perfect storm in 

17 

the American prairie today driven by $8 a bushel corn, but also 

new genetically modified crops that allow growing of crops in wetter and drier areas, new draining and tiling techniques that allow 

the removal of water from many of these systems. And so, we are 

seeing the conversion of wetland and grassland habitat in the prairies at rates that are unprecedented. 

So as you are considering today the reauthorization of the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the authorization for the 

Secretary to increase the price of the duck stamp, these will be 

vital tools to us as we seek to conserve America’s great wetlands, 

expand our partnership with Canada and Mexico, and continue to 

great heritage of waterfowl hunting and the great tradition that it 

supports. 

As we see habitats diminishing, it also means that our wildlife 

populations will be more susceptible to stressors like wildlife disease. Senator Lautenberg has been a leader in raising the profile 

of white-nose syndrome. We are also dealing with the challenges of 

chytrid fungus in amphibians, which is driving worldwide decline 

amphibians. 

Of course, again, the root of many of these problems is trade. We 

see trade globally escalating. And many of our laws like the Lacey 

Act, which is a key wildlife enforcement law, was written in 1900 

when trade moved by steam locomotive for the most part. And now 

we have, of course, global trade where we can move products and 

commodities across the globe on a 24-hour scale. 

So, as we think about the challenge of conservation, many times 

in the past we have driven our philosophy of conservation from a 

public land base, and public lands in the United States are about 

30 percent of the land base. I mean, 70 percent is in private ownership. 

So, the legislation that is before you to reauthorize the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation, of course, that public-private partnership, is essential to us as we think about conservation in the 

future, and organizations like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation that provide the opportunity to bring and leverage public 

and private partnerships are essential as we think about conservation in the 21st century, and of course expanding the opportunity 

for outdoor recreation as represented in Senator Udall’s legislation 

and Senator Begich’s legislation. 

I think that that opportunity to use an instrument like the Pittman-Robertson Program and the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program to expand opportunities for shooting on public land 

is a great opportunity for the future. 

So, expanding challenges in an era of diminishing resources 

means that we need exceptional leadership. And I want to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the members of the Committee, for 

your great leadership as represented by the legislation that you are 

hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 

18 


25052.006

TESTIMONY OF DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, 

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

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, REGARDING 

S. 357, THE WILDLIFE DISEASE EMERGENCY ACT OF 20ll; 

S. 1249, THE TARGET PRACTICE AND MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT; 

S. 2071, THE PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2012; 

S. 2156, THE MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT INVESTMENT AND ENHANCEMENT ACT 

OF 2011; S. 2282, THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION 

EXTENSION ACT; S. 1266, THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION ACT OF 

2011; AND S. 1494, THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011 

April24, 2012 

Introduction 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dan Ashe 

Director oft he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department of the Interior 

(Department). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on bills that address multiple 

responsibilities of the Service for the conservation of our nation's fish and wildlife for the benefit of 

our citizens, including conserving migratory birds and their habitats, administering critical funding 

for state conservation and sportsman programs, and addressing a matter of grave and growing 

significance to wildlife conservation, that of wildlife disease. 

The Service is the nation's premier conservation agency, dedicated to ensuring that Americans 

today and in future generations can enjoy the nation's abundance of wildlife. wander lands and 

winding waters. Whether they hunt game, cast for fish, climb trees, paddle canoes, snap 

photographs, ski downhill, or bike or hike up hills, the bills you are considering today will enrich 

their opportunities across the United States and its territories. The intrinsic value of these species 

and the sustainability of their populations is demonstrated through the millions of annual visitors to 

our National Wildlife Refuges and other federal lands; through the millions of people who support a 

wide array of wildlife conservation organizations and causes; and through the biHions of dollars in 

economic impact of hunters, fishers, photographers, and watchers as they purchase equipment and 

trip-related services to pursue the wildlife they enjoy. The Department appreciates the support and 

leadership of the Committee across a myriad of conservation issues as well as this opportunity to 

talk about a range of these issues. 

The Threat and Challenge of Wildlife Disease 

Although disease is present as a natural influence on living organisms, shaping population 

composition of species and evolution, human alteration of natural landscapes has resulted in an 

alarming increase in both the incidence and severity of new and emerging diseases affecting native 
19 


25052.007

fish and wildlife species in the past 40 years. These diseases can significantly impact matters of 

great importance to Americans in the broad categories of ecological, economic, and human health. 

The sources and transmission of many emerging tlsh and wildlife diseases are not well understood, 

but the impacts on affected fish and wildlife populations can be devastating. For example, whitenose syndrome in bats and chytrid fungus in amphibians have caused unprecedented declines in 

affected wildlife populations. Since its discovery in a New York cave in 2006, white-nose 

syndrome has killed an estimated 5 million bats, decimating populations of hibernating bats in the 

northeast, southeast, and Midwest States. The chytrid fungus has contributed to massive losses and 

extinctions of amphibians, including frogs and toads, in many nations around the world. As primary 

insectivores, both groups of species play an important ecological role in the balance of insect 

populations, some of which can have significant impacts on United States agriculture, as well as 

human health. 

Diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans, like West Nile virus or rabies, are called 

··zoonotic". The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 75 percent of diseases currently 

classified as '"new or emerging" are considered zoonotic. Rapid response to disease outbreaks can 

help contain them, however this requires quick access to adequate funding, coordination with 

partners at both the policy and ground level, and the ability to quickly ramp up infrastructure and 

activities. Limited and uncertain availability of resources coupled with the complexity of 

governance over both animal and human health~ split among federal, state, and local agencies--

make such responses, even to zoonotic diseases, very challenging. 

Sources of disease in wild animals may include disease transmitted by domestic animals to wildlife, 

the intentional imp01tation of disease organisms or vectors, accidental introduction through ballast 

water or on an animal that has stowed away in cargo, or it can arise through the evolution of a oncebenign organism into an invasive and vimlent new disease threat to humans, livestock, or other fish 

and wildlife species. Infectious disease organisms can include bacteria, viruses, prions, fungi, and 

parasites with a wide range of life cycles. Major health tlu·eats to fish and wildlife populations also 

arise from noninfectious diseases associated with natural toxicants and anthropogenically-derived 

environmental contaminants, such as pesticides, lead, and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Disease 

may be caused or exacerbated by declining environn1cntal conditions, caused by human activities 

on the landscape, which result in loss of food, water, or structural elements that provide shelter or 

territory for species that have evolved to live in a particular niche. The impacts of new and more 

aggressive disease organisms present tremendous challenges for conservation, both through their 

direct impact on the productivity of animal populations and through the Joss of the direct and 

indirect roles of these animals in their ecosystems. 

As illustrated by West Nile virus, public policy is generally reactive to emerging diseases not 

proactive and maintaining focus of public resources on managing any disease in the long term, let 

alone taking proactive steps, can be challenging. Changes in public priorities often shift limited 

resources away to other problems, and animal or human health issues can quickly overwhelm 

available funding. However, in addition to significant ecological impacts, diseases arising in or 

fostered through wildlife populations can threaten humans, livestock, as well as aquatic and 

terrestrial species of significant ecologic and economic importance. Our ability to prevent or 
20 


25052.008

respond to it requires a commitment of readily available resources and an ability to accelerate the 

necessary infrastructure and activities needed to effectively protect these public trust priorities. 

With ever-increasing globalization and significant ecological, economic, and human health interests 

at stake, ensuring effective fish and wildlife disease detection, response, and management is 

profi.)undly challenging. 

S. 357, the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act 

The Depm1ment supports the intent of this legislation to address wildlife disease, and with fi1rthcr 

work and amendments to reflect our comments below, we would strongly support its enactment. 

This proposal would vest in the Secretary of the Interior the authority to identify "'Wildlife Disease 

Emergencies" and to dedicate resources within a segregated account of funds to address them, 

including through the establishment of rapid response teams. It proposes to allow the Secretary to 

"establish a Wildlife Disease Committee to assist in increasing the level of preparedness of the 

United States to emerging wildlife diseases." 

Cunently, the Service employs a small number of veterinarians and other animal health specialists 

who specialize in avian and fish health or who have wildlife health expertise. The National Park 

Service (NPS) also employs a small number of veterinarians who work with NPS public health 

officials, and both agencies contribute to the Department's One Health Group, which facilitates 

coordination of actions across the Bureaus to monitor, identify, and respond to emerging diseases 

issues. These professionals work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Centers for 

Disease Control, and other federal and state agencies on a wide range of fish and wildlife health 

issues. The Service offers technical assistance and works cooperatively with other agencies, like 

USDA, that have authority to screen and stop shipments of animals or plants suspected of carrying 

disease that may affect agricultural interests or human health. 

Both the Service and the NPS work closely with the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife 

Health Center, which employs a broad range of veterinary expertise and specialized facilities to 

provide technical assistance to state, tribal, federal, and other wildlife agencies necessary to respond 

to and manage diseases in order to prevent wildlife losses. The National Wildlife Health Center also 

conducts diagnostic investigations and research to identify emerging diseases and to understand the 

impact of diseases on wildlife populations, as well as to devise methods through which we can 

more effectively manage these threats. 

The Service has in place tools and resources to address disease affecting particular groups of 

species, such as our nine National Fish Health Centers, which are located primarily in the 

Northwest, but are also in the north, south, and central regions. These Centers, which work 

collaboratively with the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center, play a critical role in identifying 

and managing fish disease in hatcheries, as well as aquatic ecosystems through the National Wild 

Fish Health Survey. Similarly, the NPS has a Wildlife Health Team that provides technical 

assistance to National Park units in preventing and managing disease. Ensuring capacity and 

adequate resources to address new and emerging diseases is challenging. New and emerging 
21 


25052.009

diseases quickly overwhelm the systems we have been able to put in place to address existing 

diseases, which continue to pose tlu·eats to the sustainability of wildlife populations. Y ct, addressing 

existing diseases is not part ofS. 357, as we interpret its language. 

Prevention of new diseases becomes increasingly challenging as the live animal trade grows. In 

November 2010, the Government Accountability Office noted the challenges that the Service and 

other federal agencies have in reducing the risk of disease through live animal imports. The 

potential for preventing disease from entering the United States tlu·ough this route is not included in 

s. 357. 

The Service has authority to list invasive species as "injurious wildlife" under the Lacey Act (Title 

18), which prohibits listed species from being impmted into the United States or transported across 

state lines. Species are almost always listed after they have already become established and are 

already inflicting significant ecological and economic damage. Even more challenging to the 

prevention of such invasions is that the increase in the number of newly listed species docs not 

correlate with increases to biological and law enforcement support to address the problem. The 

problem this poses, with regard to disease, in particular, is illustrated by a recent petition to the 

Service to list all amphibians under the Lacey Act "injurious species" provisions. The petition is 

based on the tlu·eat of the chytrid fungus to U.S. wild amphibian populations, because it has been 

documented as causing massive losses of amphibians worldwide. BullfJ-ogs grown on farms 

overseas for human consumption have been found to carry the chytrid fungus, and if the fungus 

reaches wild amphibian populations through this international market or through any importation of 

infected amphibians, it could decimate populations of these animals in the United States. However, 

listing all species of amphibians as "injurious" would quickly overwhelm current law enforcement 

capacity. 

The Service is working to improve both our implementation of the Lacey Act and our capacity to 

address fish and wildlife diseases. Although not focused on disease specifically, we have conducted 

an internal analysis of the Lacey Act and its implementation, through which we have developed 

draft recommendations. These are currently undergoing review. We are also working toward a more 

centralized, coordinated wildlife health network within the agency, and in the process we arc 

considering existing, effective governance models, such as the core national capability that the 

National Park Service has established in its Biological Resource Management Division. 

This legislation is a good beginning for what the Department perceives to be a growing need to 

develop a governance framework that can focus resources and comprehensive, coordinated efforts 

among all federal agencies with responsibilities related to human and animal disease to both prevent 

the establishment of new disease and respond to outbreaks of emerging diseases. For a fully 

functioning fi·amework, however, there is a need for certain, critical components that are missing 

from the bilL ·whether they are addressed in this legislation or in subsequent legislative proposals, 

the following policy items should be considered: 1) parameters on the establishment of cooperative 

goals toward which government action and public resources can be prioritized, such as human 

health, agricultural interests, wild species of economic importance, and ecosystem health: 2) a 

framework for multiple agencies to cooperate on the inspection and screening of imported animals; 

4 
22 


25052.010

3) a framework for multiple agencies to respond to disease outbreaks, and 4) a stable source of 

funding that enables rapid response to emerging diseases. 

The Department supports the intent of this legislation. We are glad to work with the Committee 

toward provisions that can support and strengthen the existing capacity of Department Bureaus and 

cooperation among federal agencies to address wildlife diseases, to specifically address the 

prevention of disease through the inspection of animal imports, and the provision of adequate 

resources and in!J-astructure to support both prevention and response. 

S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 

Shooting, whether with gun or bow. is an American tradition. Creating opportunities for young 

Americans to experience this tradition, and pursue the goal of"marksmanship'', also provides 

opportunity for them to learn about responsibility, about dedication, about accomplishment. The 

Department supports this legislation, because it will help create such opportunities, and we would 

like to work with the Committee to consider some technical corrections. 

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i) authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game depatiments, 

in wildlife-restoration projects. The Act also provides for grants for a variety of uses including 

reintroduction of declining wildlife species, wildlife population surveys, species research, hunter 

education, acquisition of wildlife habitat, and public target ranges. Currently, Pittman-Robertson 

funds can only be used to pay 75 percent of the cost of building or operating a public target range. 

S. 1249, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Support Act, would amend the Pittman-Robetison 

Wildlife Restoration Act to change the funding requirements to allow up to 90 percent of target 

range construction and maintenance to be paid for with Pittman-Robertson funds, thus reducing the 

match burden on state and local governments. 

In addition, S. 1249 would amend an existing requirement that Pittman-Robertson funding used for 

acquiring or constructing public target ranges be obligated within two years by allowing the funds 

to accrue over five years. This extension would allow individual projects to be funded over 

multiple budget cycles and significantly enhance the ability of states to acquire and build target 

shooting ranges. 

S. 2071, the Pem1anent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011 

The Department supports the intent ofS. 2071, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to continue to administer a program which enables hunters to purchase Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamps (Federal Duck Stamps) through approved state automated licensing systems. 

The proof of purchase receipt from this sale, bearing a unique serial number, serves as a permit to 

hunt migratory waterfowl for a limited time. This program was initiated through the Electronic 

Duck Stamp Act of2005 (P.L. 109-266), which directed the Secretary to conduct a three-year pilot 

program to determine if this approach would provide a cost effective and convenient means for 

issuing migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps. 

5 
23 


25052.011

In order to hunt migratory birds in the United States, hunters are required by 16 U.S.C. 718(a) et al. 

to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp and to CatTY the stamp with them while they are hunting. In 

September of2007, the Service initiated the pilot electronic Duck Stamp program (E-Stamp 

program). partnering with eight states: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Texas. and Wisconsin. Each participating state signed a Memorandum of Understanding to 

administer theE-Stamp program in cooperation with the Service, through their automated hunting 

license sales outlets. 

Through the E-stamp program, the proof of purchase hunters receive immediately upon purchase 

serves as a valid permit to hunt migratory waterfowl/or up to 45 days Jrom the date of purchase or 

until the customer receives the physical stamp. Like the physical Federal Duck Stamp, the 

electronic stamp proof of purchase allows ti·ec entry into all national wildlife refuges that charge a 

fee. 

The Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 directs the Secretary to conduct and evaluate a pilot 

program and submit a report on whether or not the program "has provided a cost-effective and 

convenient means tor issuing migratory-bird hunting and conservation stamps" and whether it has: 

(I) increased the availability of those stamps, (2) assisted states in meeting the customer service 

objectives of the states with respect to those stamps, (3) maintained actual stamps as an effective 

and viable conservation tool, and (4) maintained adequate retail availability of the physical stamp. 

After conclusion of the pilot program in December 2010. the Service finalized its evaluation, which 

included review and analysis of data from participating states, and submitted its report to Congress 

in September 20 II. 

TheE-Stamp pilot program has proven to be a practical method of selling Federal Duck Stamps that 

is readily accepted by the stamp-buying public. Since the program's inception, more than 600,000 

electronic Duck Stamps have been sold. Sales of E-Stamps increased from 58,000 in2007 to more 

than 350,000 in 2010, an increase of more than 420 percent. In 2010, E- Stamp sales accounted for 

more than 27 percent of total Duck Stamp sales nationwide, demonstrating the widespread 

acceptance of the pilot progran'l. With few exceptions, states reported ease in adn1inistering the 

program, and the pilot program did not negatively affect the availability of the physical stamp or its 

value as an effective and viable conservation tool. E-Stamps provide an additional avenue of 

availability lor stamp purchasers, though the program has not yet resulted in an increase in overall 

Federal Duck Stamp sales. 

The Service has continued to administer theE-Stamp program under the authority of the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. Although we understand we can continue to administer 

the program without additional authorities, the Department supports the intent ofS. 2071. We 

appreciate the support it represents for the overall Duck Stamp Program and its role in protecting 

wetlands that are home to a multitude of species, which, in turn, are enjoyed by those who purchase 

Duck Stamps. 

6 
24 


25052.012

S. 2156, the Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act 

An increase in the price of the Federal Duck Stamp is a priority for the Department and has been 

included in the President's budget proposals over the past several years, through the terms of two 

Presidents. The price of the Federal Duck Stamp is statutorily set through the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. We appreciate Senator Begich's leadership and the approach 

taken inS. 2156 to accomplish this important increase, and we strongly support the legislation with 

some simple further clarifications and technical changes. 

The restoration of North America's great migratory waterfowl populations is a conservation success 

st01y. It is a story that involves sportsmen in partnership with States, Congress, and Federal 

agencies applying science to habitat protection and restoration. Because of strategic actions taken to 

conserve key habitats along the four major North American flyways, migratory waterfowl 

populations are thriving. This work maintains our hunting tradition, and has provided a linchpin tor 

the economies of many states supported by the recreational activities of hunters and outdoor 

enthusiasts. 

The Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, commonly known as the Federal 

Duck Stamp, plays a critical role in this conservation partnership and its success story. Originally 

created in 1934, the Duck Stamp represents the permit required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918 to hunt waterfowl, and every waterfowl hunter is required to cany one into the field. Ninetyeight percent of the receipts from stamp sales are used to acquire important migratory bird breeding, 

migration, and wintering habitat, which are added to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Since 

1934, sales of the Duck Stamp have helped to acquire more than 5.3 million acres of waterfowl 

habitat for the Refuge System. These protected lands not only benefit waterfowl, but also countless 

other wildlife species, as well as increase opportunities for outdoor and wildlife-dependent 

recreation. 

The cost of the Duck Stamp has remained the same since 1991. Based on the Consumer Price 

Index, the stamp would need to cost more than $24 today to have the same buying power that $15 

had in 1991. As an example, in 1991, revenue from the Duck Stamp enabled the Service to acquire 

89,000 acres of habitat for the Refuge System at an average cost of$306 an acre. In 2010, the 

Service was able to acquire significantly less habitat because land values had tripled to an average 

of$1,091 an acre. 

In his FY 2013 Budget Proposal, the President included a legislative proposal to amend the 

Migratory Bird and Hunting Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718b), to increase the sales price 

for Duck Stamps from $15 to $25, beginning in 2013. With the additional receipts that would be 

generated from the proposed price increase, the Service anticipates additional a1111ual acquisition of 

approximately 7,000 acres in fee and approximately 10,000 acres in conservation easement. Total 

acres acquired for 2013 would then be approximately 24,000 acres in fee title and 33,000 acres in 

perpetual conservation easements. These funds can be targeted to acquire habitats lor waterfowl 

that can provide the greatest possible conservation benefit. 

7 
25 


25052.013

S. 2156 would require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a price for the Federal Duck Stamp 

every 5 years, in consultation with the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. beginning with 

calendar year 2013. The price of the stamp would be collected by the !J.S. Postal Service if the 

Secretary determines that all amounts collected during the previous calendar year arc obligated. It 

also would allow the Secretary to waive requirements under the Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act for such individuals the Secretary, in consultation with the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, determines to be appropriate. The Department would be glad to work 

with the Committee as you continue to consider this legislation. 

S. 2282, the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act 

The Department strongly supports S. 2282, which would reauthorize the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NA WCA). NA WCA was originally passed by Congress in 1989 to support 

partnership efforts to protect and restore habitats for wetland-associated migratory birds. N A WCA 

provides matching grants to organizations, agencies, and individuals to carry out wetlands 

conservation projects in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Since its inception, this program has been 

among the most successful leveraged fimding mechanisms for the conservation of wetland habitats 

that benefit waterfow I and other birds, as well as other wildlife species. 

Over the past 22 years we have witnessed remarkable achievements in conservation through this 

landmark legislation. Partnerships applying NA WCA funds to wetland conservation projects 

include nationally recognized conservation organizations. State fish and wildlife agencies, local 

governments, grass-roots organizations, and private landowners. They have supported thousands of 

cooperative projects across North America, leveraging billions of partner dollars and affecting more 

than27 million acres of bird habitats. 

Like the Joint Ventures, NAWCA supports activities under the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. However, NA WC A also iiJCuses on the conservation of wetlands nationwide for 

all birds and wildlife dependent upon wetland habitats. NA WCA is widely recognized for its 

support of other bird conservation plans, including Partners in Flight, the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The program's connection 

to these conservation plans was formalized in the 2002 reauthorization ofNAWCA 

The maintenance of healthy populations of wetland-associated migratory birds in North America is 

dependent on the protection, restoration, and management of wetland ecosystems and associated 

upland habitats in the U.S. as well as in Canada and Mexico. Many North American migratory birds 

nest in Canada, including waterfowl species that generate the greatest economic gains for states and 

local economics in the United States. Many of these migratory species depend on southern U.S. and 

Mexican wetlands for wintering habitat. Wetlands destruction, loss of nesting cover, and 

degradation of migration and wintering habitat have historically contributed to significant declines 

in North American birds. 

NA WCA projects provide wetland habitat where it is needed across the country and the continent, 

including in the northern breeding grounds, along widespread migration routes. and in southern 

8 
26 


25052.014

areas where some species spend the winter months. In the critical waterfowl breeding grounds of 

the prairie pothole region in the north-central U.S., NAWCA has conserved more than 2.1 million 

wetland and associated grassland acres by leveraging SI04 million in Federal funds to generate 

another S 170 million in partner contributions since the start of the program in 1991. 

For example, the Missouri Coteau Habitat Conservation Projects have protected and restored 

wetland and native prairie grassland habitats, which are critically important components ofNotth 

Dakota's prairie pothole ecosystem. Protecting native prairie surrounding vital prairie pothole 

wetlands provides essential nesting habitat for waterfowl and other species and minimizes the 

influx of sediments, herbicides, and pesticides into these wetlands. NA WCA projects along the 

Samish River in Washington State offer both breeding and migrating habitat. The Whatcom Land 

Trust has used NA WCA grant funds to add about I 00 acres to an existing preserve, permanently 

protecting more of the freshwater and riparian habitats that provide critical feeding and breeding 

areas for waterfowl and other migrants. 

NAWCA projects are reviewed by the North American Wetlands Conservation Conncil, which 

draws its strength from its diverse membership. It is comprised of the Executive Director of the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, four directors 

of State fish and wildlife agencies representing each of the four migratory bird Flyways, and three 

non-profit organizations actively involved in habitat conservation. The Council has been widely 

viewed as a leader in intemational habitat conservation activities through their implementation of 

NAWCA. 

The key to NAWCA's accomplishments is that it fosters cooperative efforts. Project proposals arc 

developed through local partnerships, basing their objectives on the bird conservation goals and 

information created on a continental scale, through the Notth American Waterfowl Management 

Plan and the other continental bird plans, and using the best science available. These proposals are 

recommended by a Council ofpmtners, and they are also shared with the Joint Ventures. The Joint 

Ventures review the proposals based on how well they reflect the habitat goals of the Joint Ventures 

in the geographic regions in which they occur. 

In 2006, Congress reauthorized appropriations for the Act through fiscal year 2012, reflecting the 

continued support of Congress and the public support for NAWCA's goals. S. 2282 will extend 

authorization for the Act through fiscal year 2017. We support this bill and look forward to 

continuing to administer this outstanding program to build on its impressive legacy of 

accomplishment for both the American people and the wildlife it treasures. 

S. 1266, Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2011 

The Depattmcnt supports the goals of the Delaware Basin Conservation Act of2011, and we agree 

with the legislation's assertion that the Delaware River basin is a national treasure of great cultural, 

environmental, and ecological impottance, and that it is of extraordinary value. The bill would 

direct the Service to establish a Delaware River Basin restoration program, under which the 

Director would work with relevant management entities and partners in the four-state Delaware 

9 
27 


25052.015

Basin to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration and protection activities within the Basin. 

Through the proposal, the Service would provide technical assistance toward restoration and 

establish and administer a grant program for matching grants to suppmt restoration projects. 

The Delaware River is the largest undammed river east of the Mississippi. with 330 miles of 

unimpeded river flow for numerous federal tmst species. The Delaware Bay supports the largest 

known spawning aggregation of horseshoe crabs, with unique importance to migrating shorebird 

populations as well as to the biomedical and human health industry. Careful and pmdcnt measures 

are critical for the effective conservation of this vibrant ecosystem. 

The Service believes that the Delaware River basin represents the best example of a wild river 

system in the eastern U.S. and, as such, it can be used as a standard by which restoration eff01is in 

other river systems are measured. Due to the proximity of the Delaware basin to a large portion of 

the U.S. population, the Service acknowledges the tremendous economic importance of the 

Delaware River as a freshwater port, drinking water supply, and as resource that enables many 

industries to function in the basin. However, we would like the opportunity to work with the 

Committee to ensure that the restoration program works with existing Service obligations in the 

region. We would also like to ensure that it is complementary to the North Atlantic Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative, through which we arc working with partners to identify large-scale 

needs for scientific information that is not only foundational to the success of such an initiative, but 

can also help ensure that limited resources are used most effectively. 

S. 1494, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2011 

The Department fully supports S. 1494, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization 

Act of20ll. We appreciate the leadership of Chairman Boxer, Chairman Cardin, and the bill's 

bipartisan cosponsors in continuing Congressional authorization for the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (Foundation), which plays an important role in funding on-the-ground conservation 

projects and managing and leveraging taxpayers funds with private contributions. The bill 

reauthorizes the program through 2015 and makes amendments which strengthen the Foundation· s 

ability to carry out its purposes. 

The Foundation was established by Congress in 1984 to encourage, direct, and administer private 

funding to supp01t fish and wildlife conservation, among other purposes. Its principle purpose is to 

match public conservation dollars with private funds toward pressing conservation needs. Working 

with a li.lll complement of individuals, foundations, government agencies, non-profits, and 

corporations, the Foundation is able to achieve partnerships that can supply both a diversity of 

funding and ideas to some of our most intractable conservation challenges. Through the 

authorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act, the Foundation 

receives federally appropriated funds to forge effective partnerships for locally-driven natural 

resource conservation efforts that support larger landscape level efforts. The Service works closely 

with the Foundation to develop and evaluate projects that support the Service's statutory obligations 

and priorities. 

10 
28 


25052.016

Since 1984, the Foundation has leveraged approximately $576 million into over S2 billion to fund 

11,600 grants for on-the-ground projects that benefit conservation in all 50 states. This includes 

more than 3,700 grants supported with funding through the Service, leveraging S 174 million in 

Service funds into more than $618 million for conservation. Its efforts to increase the public fund 

investment in the conservation offish and wildlife resources have yielded an average 3-to-1 ratio in 

private matching funds, although its statutory requirement is only a1-to-1 match. 

The Service's Mission, which is "working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitatsfor the conrinuing benefit of the American people", is greatly 

advanced by the work of the Foundation, and we look forward to our continued partnership in the 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources. The Department supports amendments proposed inS. 

1494, and we strongly support reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Conclusion 

We greatly appreciate the continued interest and leadership of the Subcommittee in protecting 

America's fish and wildlife, in your consideration of this important legislation and in working so 

closely with us on myriad conservation issues. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to 

improve and clarify provisions in the hills for which we indicated concerns or reservations and to 

assist you in any way we can as this entire slate of bills continues to be considered. 

11 
29 


25052.017

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Legislative Hearing- April 24, 2012 

mrector Dan Ashe Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

I. Can you please describe the importance of investing in the conservation programs that 

would be authorized or reauthorized by the legislation considered at this hearing? What 

wildlife and economic benefits can be expected? 

Response: A number of the programs for which legislation was heard by the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife on April24, 2012 have a 

long history of benefits to wildlife and to the American economy. Two of these, the Federal 

Duck Stamp and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA), have provided 

decades of conservation value for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife, through the 

protection and restoration of wetland habitats across the nation. Through these and other 

programs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) implements its responsibility to conserve 

sustainable populations of migratory birds. Alone and in combination with other conservation 

efforts. these two programs have helped re-establish and sustain healthy waterfowl populations, 

and they benefit other wetland-dependent species, as well. Ninety-eight cents of each dollar 

from Federal Duck Stamp sales goes toward the purchase of fee title or easements to protect 

waterfowl habitat wetlands and associated uplands. Since its inception in 1934, the Federal 

Duck Stamp has protected more than 5.3 million acres of such habitat. With the additional 

receipts that would be generated from the proposed price increase, the Service anticipates the 

ability to acquire an additional 7,000 acres in fee and I 0,000 acres in conservation easement, 

approximately, each year. Total acres acquired for 2013 would then be approximately 24.000 

acres in fee title and 33,000 acres in perpetual conservation easements. These funds are and 

would be targeted to acquire habitats for waterfowl that can provide the greatest possible 

conservation benefit. 

NA WCA was enacted, in part, to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

which is a tri-partite agreement among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to recover and sustain 

North American waterfowl. NA WCA provides lederal funds to restore wetlands through 

partnership projects- wetlands that support waterfowl nesting in the north, migration throughout 

the continent, and wintering habitat, primarily in the U.S. and Mexico. In the critical waterfowl 

breeding grounds of the prairie pothole region in the north-central U.S., NA WCA has conserved 

more than 2.1 million wetland and associated grassland acres by leveraging $104 million in 

Federal funds to generate another $170 million in partner contributions since the start of the 

program in 1991. 

These programs can provide additional lands for hunting and other wildlife-associated recreation, 

and they help ensure the birds are there to enjoy for future generations. Waterfowl hunting 

provides significant economic support to rural communities across the nation, and it serves as an 

economic anchor for several such communities. According to the Service's Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, last conducted in 2006, 1.3 million Americans 

participated in waterfowl hunting and 15.4 million traveled in the country to view or photograph 
30 


25052.018

waterfowl. Migratory bird hunters spent $1.3 billion in trip and equipment-related expenses, 

while wildlife watchers-- ninety-four percent of which are bird watchers-- spent more than 

$45.6 billion. Without these and other migratory bird conservation programs, the U.S. and the 

communities that suppoti hunting and wildlife-watching would not realize these economic 

benefits. 

Since 1984, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) has leveraged approximately 

$576 million into over $2 billion to fund 11,600 grants for on-the-ground projects that benefit 

conservation in all 50 states. This includes more than 3.700 grants supported with funding 

through the Service, leveraging $174 million in Service funds into more than $618 million for 

conservation. Its efforts to increase the public fund investment in the conservation of fish and 

wildlife resources have yielded an average 3-to-1 ratio in private matching limds, although its 

statutory requirement is a 1-to-1 match. NFWF has provided and will continue to facilitate 

mechanisms through which the greatest conservation benefit can be achieved through a 

combination of federal and non-federal funds, and the projects that have funding facilitated 

through NFWF help ensure fish and wildlife populations are sustained for the enjoyment of all 

Americans and for the economic support of communities that depend on wildlife-associated 

recreation. 

The Service has acknowledged the tremendous economic impacts of the Delaware River to the 

highly populated region in which the river basin lies. and a landscape-level approach to 

conserving its fish and wildlife and other resources can be cost etlective. The Notih Atlantic 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative is the larger landscape-level effort to identify priority 

science products needed to conserve fish and wildlife in the region, and participation of the larger 

Delaware River Basin partnership in the North Atlantic LCC will help ensure that limited 

resources for conservation science across the region will be used most effectively. 

It is difficult to predict the conservation or economic benefits of the Wildlife Disease Emergency 

Act while it has no identified source of funds. The primary purpose of the Act is to establish a 

Fund through which the Secretary of the Interior can rapidly dedicate the resources necessary to 

put into place infrastructure to address emerging diseases that threaten our ecosystems as they 

arise. With the resources to support a fund, the bill could contribute to ensuring that the 

Department can mount the necessary response to contain and manage the outbreak of fish and 

wildlife diseases that threaten their populations in the wild. the ecosystems that support their 

habitats. and the cconom ic bene tits derived from them. 

2. Can you please describe the successful partnership with Canada and Mexico on migratory 

bird conservation° How has the North American Wetlands Conservation Act contributed to 

this partnership? What benefits do sportsmen in the U.S. receive from conservation efforts in 

Canada and Mexico? 

Response: The U.S. has a long-standing partnership with Canada and Mexico to conserve the 

migratory bird species we share. Because migratory birds use nesting habitat in northern 

latitudes, migrating habitat across the continent, and winter habitat in more southern latitudes, 

their conservation depends upon each nation having laws that prevent unsustainable mortality 

rates and programs to protect migratory bird habitats. In 19 I 6. the U.S. entered into a treaty with 

Great Britain (for Canada) to protect birds species that migrate between the two North American 

2 
31 


25052.019

nations. In 1936, the U.S. joined Mexico in signing the Convention between the U.S. and 

Mexico for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals. The Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-713) (MBTA) was first enacted in the U.S. to implement our treaty 

with Great Britain (Canada), and it was later amended to accommodate the provisions of the 

1936 treaty with Mexico. It was subsequently amended further to accommodate similar treaties 

with Japan in 1974 and Russia in 1978. 

The MBTA implements the underlying obligation of the United States for the conservation of 

migratory birds. It prohibits the ''take" of protected species without a tederal permit, and it 

provides for conditions under which permits may be given. "Take" includes killing, possessing, 

transporting, or selling any protected bird or part of a bird, egg, or nest. Despite the measures 

taken by the Federal government, in partnership with the states, to conserve migratory waterfowl, 

North American populations of several species declined, and by the late-1970's and early 1980's, 

the declines were alarming. By 1985, the Service estimated that 53 percent of the original 221 

million wetland acres found in the contiguous United States had been destroyed since early 

settlement, while 29 to 71 percent of wetland losses across Canada were lost in that time frame. 

In 1986, the United States and Canada signed an agreement. called the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan (Plan), to rescue waterfowl populations through regional 

implementation of management approaches by Federal-state-tribal-private partnerships, called 

Joint Ventures, and through the financial support of partnership projects specifically to restore 

wetland habitats through the North American Wetland Conservation Act (NA WCA). In 1994, 

Mexico also signed on to the Plan. On May 31. 2012, Secretary Salazar joined with 

representatives from the Canadian and Mexican governments to recommit to the Plan in a 

revision that addresses three ovcrarching goals tor waterfowl conservation: I) abundant and 

resilient waterfowl populations to support hunting and other recreational uses without imperiling 

habitat; 2) sufficient wetlands and related habitats to sustain waterfowl populations at desired 

levels, while providing places to recreate and ecological services that benefit society; and 3) 

increasing numbers of waterfowl hunters, other conservationists and citizens who enjoy and 

actively support waterfowl and wetlands conservation. To implement the Plan, NA WCA, and the 

Joint Ventures for migratory birds, the Service works closely with relevant agencies in Canada 

and Mexico. 

Senator Tom Carper 

I. Based on your expertise as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wild lite Service, can you please 

expand upon the importance that you mentioned in your testimony of protecting the 

Delaware River basin watershed? What are some of the risks, ecological, economic and 

otherwise, that might come to be if investments are not made in protecting the Delaware 

River? 

Response: The Delaware basin, like the Chesapeake Bay and other coastal and aquatic systems, 

supports myriad native species. A number of these species fall into the Service's Trust species, 

including those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

Within its focused role for conservation in the basin, the Service has pointed out in testimony 

that the Delaware River is the largest undammed river east of the Mississippi, with 330 miles of 

unimpeded river flow. This is particularly valuable for the anadromous species that fall within 

the Service's purview. The Delaware Bay supports the largest known spawning aggregation of 

3 
32 


25052.020

horseshoe crabs, and these are of critical importance to red knots and other shorebirds, as well as 

to the biomedical and human health industry. To support the conservation of anadromous and 

other inter-jurisdictional fish species, the Service currently has a Delaware River Coordinator 

Oftice. This oftice works with the four Delaware River basin states: Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

New York, and New Jersey to assist in all interstate activities related to anadromous fish 

management and restoration as well as activities related to management and restoration of other 

inter-jurisdictional fish species with economic or ecological significance in the Delaware basin. 

Over 15 million people (approximately five percent of the nation's population) rely on the waters 

of the Delaware River Basin for drinking, agricultural, and industrial use. This figure includes 

about seven million people in New York City and northern New Jersey who live outside the 

basin. New York City gets roughly half its water from three large reservoirs located on tributaries 

to the Delaware. Management of the water quality and distribution, now the focus of the 

Delaware River Basin Commission, are of paramount importance to fish and wildlife and among 

the greatest challenges faced by the human and fish and wildlife inhabitants of the region. 

The landscape conservation model for large, aquatic ecosystems has evolved through our 

experiences in addressing Chesapeake Bay, Everglades, Great Lakes, and other large, aquatic 

ecosystems and their restoration. Beyond the underlying challenges of preserving or restoring 

water quality and managing distribution of water to meet human needs. the landscape 

conservation challenge we face. in part, is identifying the scale at which an aquatic resource 

should be conserved and at what scale should the scientific research, monitoring, and 

management tools be developed to identify and address underlying and priority conservation 

challenges. such as the extraction of fuels or energy production. Environmental conditions and 

landscape challenges, including climate change, invasive species. disease, and drought can 

greatly impact the success of more focused fish and wildlife conservation initiatives. To that end, 

the Service has led the creation of a North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative in the 

region in which the Delaware River basin lies. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are 

self-directed, multi-partner entities that develop science-based and adaptive tools for 

conservation at the landscape level. and this approach including 22 such entities across the 

nation- was spearheaded by the Department of the Interior through Secretarial Order 3289. The 

Service encourages the stakeholders involved in the Delaware River Basin initiative to work with 

the North Atlantic LCC to identify priority landscape-level conservation science needs. 

Senator Frank R. Lauten berg 

I. The Wild lite Disease Emergency Act would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to declare 

wildlife disease emergencies and lead cross-agency efforts to fight those diseases. It would 

also authorize additional resources. 

How could those new tools help your agency address outbreaks of wildlife diseases? 

Response: The Service currently has the authority to develop the infrastructure necessary to 

respond to the outbreak of wildlife diseases and to establish a committee similar to that described 

in Section 6. The new authority proposed in S. 357 lor the Secretary to enable the Secretary to 

declare a "Wildlife Disease Emergency"- would be of assistance to the agency in dedicating 

resources to the rapid establishment of infrastructure necessary to quickly assemble partners, 

4 
33 


25052.021

identify and conduct or contract necessary research, and identify and implement management 

steps to contain or eradicate the disease. However, without an identified funding source to 

support the Wildlife Disease Emergency Fund, the effect of this authority, beyond the Service's 

existing authorities, is limited. 

2. In the last few years. the Delaware River Basin has experienced serious flooding on a 

regular basis. 

What conservation and habitat restoration programs could you implement under the 

Delaware River Basin Conservation Act that would also help control flooding in the 

region? 

Response: The Service anticipates a role under the Delaware River Basin Restoration Act that 

coordinates and supports the functions of existing Federal and state agencies and regional 

entities, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, in carrying out their existing and 

separate statutory authorities and responsibilities. One of the ways habitat restoration and 

conservation provides benefits to society is by restoring fully functioning wetlands and riparian 

habitats, which mitigate the impacts of flooding. Accordingly, under the legislation, the Service 

would continue to work with the relevant states and other stakeholders to restore fully 

functioning wetlands and other riparian habitats in the watershed. In addition to mitigating the 

impacts of flooding, investments in proactive, on-the-ground habitat restoration provide 

significant conservation benefit to migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened and 

endangered species and also buttress the ecosystem services on which we so critically depend. 

Another key consideration is that each of these benefits enhance the economy, including by 

reducing flood damage and enhancing opportunities for wildlife dependent activities. 

Senator Benjamin Cardin 

Target Practice and Markmwnship Training Support Act (S. I 249) 

I. Docs the Service support use of funds to develop and maintain shooting ranges? 

a. Why/why not? 

Response: The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (!6 U.S.C. 669-669i) authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game 

departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. The Act also provides for grants for a variety of uses 

including reintroduction of declining wildlife species, wildlife population surveys, species 

research, hunter education, acquisition of wildlife habitat, and public target ranges. S. 1249, the 

Target Practice and Marksmanship Support Act, would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 

Restoration Act to change the funding requirements to allow up to 90 percent of target range 

5 
34 


25052.022

construction and maintenance to be paid for with Pittman-Robertson funds, thus reducing the 

match burden on state and local governments. The Department supports S. 1249 because it 

creates an opportunity for young Americans to learn about responsibility, about dedication, about 

accomplishment. Yes. we support the use of funds to develop and maintain shooting ranges. 

2. Do you see detrimental impacts to FWS wildlife conservation and protection efforts resulting 

from shooting ranges on public lands? 

Response: The Service does not maintain shooting ranges on public lands and therefore does not 

possess comprehensive data on the impacts to wildlife conservation and protection from these 

areas. Any potential detrimental impacts to wildlife conservation and protection from a proposed 

shooting range construction and operation would be evaluated through an environmental 

assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

a. Are these impacts offset by potential benefits to local economies or state revenues? 

Response: The Service does not maintain data on the beneiits to local economies or state 

revenues generated by shooting ranges on public lands. The 1991 Survey of Fishing. Hunting and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation included questions about hunters participating in target shooting, 

but the Service did not pursue this data in the 1996, 200 l, or 2006 surveys, and the 1991 data did 

not represent all target shooters. 

b. Could FWS mitigate these negative impacts to wildlife? 

Response: As noted above. the Service does not maintain shooting ranges on public lands and 

therefore does not possess comprehensive data on the impacts to wildlife conservation and 

protection from these areas. The Service believes that any impacts to wildlife can be addressed 

through current laws, regulations and policies. 

Delaware River Basin Consen•ation Act (S. I 266) 

3. As we've seen in the Chesapeake Bay, regional coordination on large water bodies is one of 

the most eJTcctive ways to protect the habitats of wildlife dependent on these systems and 

improve overall improve environmental conditions. 

a. Does FWS suggest any corrections to the bill to ensure that this legislation is an 

effective conservation tool? Please elaborate. 

Response: The Service is concerned that the legislation, as statute, could be interpreted to 

overlap the statutory authorities and obligations of existing federal and state agencies and 

regional entities, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and relevant state agencies with jurisdiction over 

those waters. Section 4(b) should be redrafted to clarify that: I) the Secretary's role is in 

coordinating (and not implementing) the conservation work occurring in the basin beyond its 

existing statutory authorities. Section 4 (c), entitled "Coordination" should be followed by 

direction tor the Secretary to coordinate, not "consult" with the list of agencies that lollow. 

Absent these changes, the Service recommends including a clause which clearly states that the 

6 
35 


25052.023

Act is not intended to supersede existing federal authorities or state jurisdiction. 

North American Wetlands Conservation E-.:tension Act (S. 2282) 

4. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act provides an excellent return on every 

federal dollar spent. For each federal dollar used in the program, the average match is over 

three dollars. This wetlands conservation protects a range of wildlife. 

a. Does FWS support this bill? 

Response: The Service strongly supports reauthorizing the Not1h American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NA WC A). S. 2282 would simply authorize this program through 2017. 

b. Does FWS recommend any alterations to the bill? 

Response: The Service appreciates the Committee's leadership in supporting and perfecting 

NA WCA throughout its history. No further statutory changes are needed at this time. 

Senator James lnhofe 

1. You mentioned that 70% of the prairie wetlands are in private ownership. In your opinion, 

arc land owners in this area of the country willing to take part in voluntary conservation 

efforts? 

Response: Based on our experience in implementing wetland conservation programs under 

our authority and in our work with USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service in 

implementing the Farm Bill's Wetland Restoration Program, more landowners are interested in 

wetland restoration project support, on a voluntary basis, than there are Federal funds to 

accommodate them. 

2. How do you coordinate conservation efforts with other federal agencies to ensure 

minimizing duplication and maximizing proper use of federal funds? How do you 

coordinate with private and state efforts? 

Response: The Service has responsibility, directed by Congress, for the conservation of 

certain wild and native fish, and wildlife species of national significance. These statutes 

include the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, the Federal Aid in Sporttish Restoration Act, and the 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. In the implementation of our statutory responsibilities, 

the Service engages the states, with which we share federal and state statutory obi igations, 

respectively, to conserve. These include federally endangered or threatened species, migratory 

birds, and certain species ofanadromous fish. We have developed efficient and effective 

partnerships and joint processes to carry out these obligations, some of which date to the turn 

of the 20'h Century, and these partnerships have demonstrably contributed to the restoration of 

fish and wildlife populations and to the provision of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated 

recreation. Although the Service manages National Wildlife Refuges for purposes directed by 

Congress, we work closely with state wildlife agencies and local governments to ensure that 

7 
36 


25052.024

the purpose of each Refuge is supported by local policies and constituents. Congress has 

directed or authorized the Service to carry out a wide range of conservation partnership 

programs, and the Service works to ensure that funds appropriated for these purposes are 

directed toward projects that are in line with Congressional direction and that address priorities 

shared by all relevant partners. In addition, the Service has initiated partnerships under existing 

authorities. to implement its conservation responsibilities, such as the Joint Ventures for 

migratory birds. These landscape level partnerships not only strengthen the cooperative work 

of the partners, including states, tribes, other federal agencies, private organizations, and 

academic institutions, but they also help clarify the roles of each partner so that duplication of 

effort is minimized. The Service has led the development of several Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs) and is now a partner in all 22 of these self-directed, multi-partnered 

ent1t1es including relevant Federal, state, tribal and local government agencies to identify 

priority science needs and to develop science-based, adaptive conservation tools to address 

landscape-level challenges to fish, wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources. Through 

LCCs, spearheaded by the Department of the Interior through Secretarial Order, all 

participating agencies that are statutorily or otherwise responsible for these resources can pool 

together and maximize the conservation value of limited resources by reducing redundancies 

and magnifying the effectiveness of each partner. 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

I. Would S. 2071 (the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act) allow the States to save some 

costs over current practice? Would it be easier for purchasers of duck stamps if they had an 

electronic option? Would duck hunters, who prefer receiving the paper duck stamp, still be 

able to obtain the traditional stamps? 

Response: P.L. I 09-266 required the Service to conduct a pilot program to offer the sale of 

electronic Federal Duck Stamps and to prepare a report to Congress to describe its results. The 

report was released in August of2011. The Service included data in the report to show that the 

percentage of total Federal Duck Stamp sales purchased online in each participating state 

increased during the first two years. In several participating states, the increase was dramatic, 

indicating that this mechanism appeals to Duck Stamp purchasers. All waterJowl hunters must 

carry a paper stamp into the Held, and each hunter purchasing a Federal Duck Stamp receives a 

paper stamp. Hunters purchasing the Federal Duck Stamp online will receive a paper Duck 

Stamp in the mail, but they may use their receipt from the online sale- with its unique serial 

number tor 45 days after its purchase. Each state has its own game laws and administrative 

process for issuing hunting licenses, including Federal Duck Stamps. The Service has not 

surveyed the states for relative costs of administering the direct Duck Stamp sales versus 

electronic sales, but the current law allows the states to charge "a reasonable fee" to recover 

costs associated with the electronic Duck Stamp sales. All but one of the participating states has 

charged a fee, ranging from $] per stamp to $3.50 per stamp. 

2. Our federal debt is unsustainable. All programs have to take a serious look at doing with 

less. In your view, is it possible to reauthorize programs like the National Fish & Wildlife 

Foundation program at somewhat reduced authorization levels and still accomplish the 

program's primary objectives? If so, what level would be appropriate in your view? 

8 
37 


25052.025

Response: The Service will do everything possible to maximize the conservation value of every 

dollar appropriated by Congress for this and other programs. The National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (NFWF) is a highly efficient conduit for federal conservation dollars, and cutting 

funds for NFWS would also eliminate this facilitator ofnonfederal funds for important projects. 

However, the Service defers to NFWF regarding what specific authorization level is necessary to 

accomplish its primary objectives. 

3. The Fish & Wild lite Service plays an important role in administering the North American 

Wetlands Conservation (NA WCA) program. My understanding is that NA WCA currently 

requires 30-60% of the program's funds to be spent on projects in Canada and Mexico. 

Should this committee give consideration to recalibrating that percentage, to increase the 

amount of conservation dollars spent in the United States? How much is Canada spending 

on wetlands conservation programs of a similar nature to NA WCA? 

Response: Most North American waterfowl nesting habitat lies in Canada, and Mexico contains 

important winter habitat for many of these species. Migratory waterfowl species depend on 

nesting habitat in northern latitudes, migrating habitat across the continent, and winter habitat in 

more southern latitudes, and it is critical to invest in conservation of these habitats to meet their 

transcontinental and seasonal needs. NA WCA was enacted as part of the implementation of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (the Plan), a tri-partite agreement among the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico, initiated in 1986 by Canada and the U.S. to combat historical 

declines in waterfowl recorded in the late 1970's and early 1980's. NA WCA is the mechanism 

through which wetland acres -- prime waterfowl habitat -- are conserved and restored through 

partnership projects across the nation and in Canada and Mexico. Because much of the nesting 

habitat for our waterfowl species lies in Canada, the Service recommends that NA WCA funds, as 

appropriate, be spent on Canadian projects. A smaller percentage of funds are invested in Mexico 

to conserve winter habitat for those species that migrate to Mexico. At this time, the Service does 

not believe it is appropriate, for the purposes of waterfowl conservation, to recalibrate the 

percentage ofNA WCA funds that may be invested in Canada and Mexico. It is simply not 

possible to capture, within the borders of the U.S., the significant, latitude-dependent waterfowl 

nesting habitat found in Canada or the important wintering habitat found in Mexico. The current 

flexibility of percentages ofNA WCA funds that may be awarded to projects in Canada and 

Mexico ensures that the Service can apply all available funding to the most productive projects 

across the continent each year. NA WCA projects in Canada are matched with Canadian funds. 

The Service would be pleased to provide a detailed account of Canadian NA WCA projects. The 

Service defers to the Canadian government to provide detailed accounting of other spending its 

Federal government, provincial governments, or private organizations spend on wetland 

restoration. 

4. NA WCA currently requires a I: I match for federal dollars, but !understand that the 

program is highly competitive and over-subscribed. l also understand that, on average, 

NA WCA obtains a 3: I level of non-federal matches for projects. That is very good. Should 

this committee consider recalibrating the ratio to maximize the ability to leverage nonfederal support for our scarce federal dollars? 

Response: Although it is possible for NAWCA projects to achieve a 3:1 match, the current 

9 
38 


25052.026

match gives the Service the t1cxibility to apply available funds toward projects that will yield the 

greatest benefits to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent migratory bird species across the 

continent and in the United States. Although more applications are received than can be funded, 

not all projects are equally valuable to these resources. The Service is usually able to fund all of 

the highest quality projects proposed. Setting the bar for match at 3: I in statute would eliminate 

funding for many projects that have significant value for wetland habitat conservation. In the 

prairie pothole region, where most North American waterfowl species nest, matches for 

NA WCA projects on average remain at about I: I. 

5. The Fish & Wildlife Service recently entered settlement agreements with environmental 

organizations whereby your agency agreed to publish listing determinations for more than 

750 species-more than 150 of which are in Alabama. This is an enormously expensive 

undertaking that re-shuffled federal priorities under the Endangered Species Act without the 

involvement of Congress. In November, Sen. lnhofe and I asked your agency to provide us 

with copies of communications between your agency and the plaintiffs related to the 

litigation and settlement agreements. Your agency responded that the documents were 

protected by "attorney-client privilege." We did not agree with your agency's response, as no 

attorney-client relationship existed between the government and plaintiffs. On March 23rd, 

you wrote a letter to me stating that the documents would not be disclosed because of a 

federal district court's "local rules" that prohibit disclosure of "any written or oral 

communication made in connection with or during any mediation session." 

a. Wouldn't you agree that, as the Ranking Members of the EPW Committee and Water 

& Wildlife Subcommittee, Sen. lnhofe and I have oversight responsibilities with 

regard to these issues? 

b. Has your agency sought leave of court to provide any documents that are responsive 

to our request? 

c. Could you tell us when mediation began in this litigation. and how many responsive 

documents in your agency's possession were produced either before mediation began 

or after it was concluded? 

d. Will you give me your personal assurance that your agency will do everything it can, 

within the law. to ensure that Sen. lnhofe and I arc able to review all documents that 

arc responsive to our request? 

Response: We agree that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has oversight 

responsibility for issues related to the Endangered Species Act. In this regard, it is important to 

clarify that these settlement agreements neither re-shuffled federal priorities nor resulted in 

enormous expense. The settlements actually ret1cct our biological priorities and restore our 

ability to set biologically-driven priorities in the future. We can meet all of our obligations 

under these settlements within our current funding levels. 

Your questions were also raised in your May 24. 2012, letter, co-signed by Senator lnhofe, and 

10 
39 


25052.027

we are working closely with our legal counsel in the Office of the Solicitor and the Department 

of Justice on the response, which we will provide under separate cover. The Service is 

committed to working with you to address your information request in a manner that respects 

the bureau's confidentiality interests and legal obligations. 

11 
40 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Ashe. 

Dr. Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ANDERSON, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

DIVISION OF PROGRAM COORDINATION, PLANNING AND 

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF 

HEALTH 

Dr. ANDERSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to testify about NIH’s efforts to implement the recent recommendations offered in a December 15, 2011, report by 

the Institute of Medicine [IOM] and accepted by the NIH regarding 

the use of chimpanzees in NIH-supported research. 

As the Subcommittee begins consideration of S. 810, the Great 

Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, I look forward to discussing 

the recommendations of the IOM and NIH’s efforts to implement 

them as we continue to focus on our mission of improving human 

health and saving lives. 

The use of animals in research has enabled scientists to identify 

new ways to treat illness, extend life, and improve health and wellbeing. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, providing exceptional insight into human biology and the 

need for special consideration and respect. NIH is deeply committed to the care and welfare of chimpanzees. 

While used very selectively and in limited numbers, research involving chimpanzees has served an important role in advancing 

human health in the past. Just a few examples, contributing significantly to the development of oral vaccine for polio and the vaccines for hepatitis A and B, developing FDA approved antibodies 

for the use and treatment of lymphomas and other cancers, and 

pioneering new uses for immune cells in cancer immunotherapy. 

However, new methods and technologies developed in the biomedical community have provided alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in several areas of research. Consequently, in December 

2011, with the encouragement of Senator Udall on this Subcommittee and other Members of Congress, NIH commissioned a 

study by the IOM to assess whether chimpanzees are or will be 

necessary for biomedical and behavioral research. 

A year later, December 15, 2011, the IOM issued its findings and 

concluded, among others, that the use of chimpanzees in current 

and future research should be guided by specific principles and criteria. And based on these principles, they concluded that most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary 

with the exception of some areas that may still require their use. 

Of special relevance to today’s hearing, they also concluded that 

new, emerging, or re-emerging infectious diseases may present 

challenges that defy non-chimpanzee models and therefore may require that chimpanzees be used in future research. 

After accepting the IOM recommendations, NIH immediately 

halted issuance of any new awards for research involving chimpanzees until processes for implementing the recommendations are 

in place. 

In addition, the NIH has assembled a working group within the 

NIH Council of Councils—that is a Federal advisory committee— 

41 

to provide advice on the implementation of the IOM recommendations and to consider the size and placement of active and inactive 

populations of NIH-owned or supported chimpanzees. 

The working group began their work in early February of this 

year, and NIH anticipates they will present their final report during a session of the Council of Councils in early 2013. After the 

Council considers the working group’s report and recommendations, the NIH will open a 60-day public comment period on the implementation of the report and recommendations. 

Throughout this process, NIH remains committed to conducting 

and supporting high quality science in the interest of advancing 

public health and to the humane care of animals used in NIH research. Animals used in federally funded research are protected by 

laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the greatest commitment 

to their physical and emotional comfort and welfare. 

I would like to close by thanking the Subcommittee for inviting 

NIH to provide an update on its activities to implement the IOM 

recommendations. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, that we place the appropriate care and 

use of animals as a fundamental principle at the core of all our research activities. 

I would be happy to try and answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:] 

42 


25052.028

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 

Witness appearing before the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

James Anderson, M.D., Ph.D. 

Director of the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, NIH 

April24, 2012 

1 
43 


25052.029

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions and Members of the Subcommittee. 1 am 

James Anderson, the Director of the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic lnitiatives 

("the Division") in the Office of the Director at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased to appear before you today to testify about 

NIH's efforts to implement recent recommendations offered in a December 2011 report' by the Institute 

of Medicine (10M) and accepted by NIH regarding the use of chimpanzees in NIH-supported research. 

As the Subcommittee begins consideration of S. 810, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, I 

look forward to discussing the recommendations of the !OM and NIH's efforts to implement them as we 

continue to focus on our mission of improving human health and saving lives. 

About the Division 

First, I would like to tell you about the Division and its role in NIH-supported chimpanzee research and in 

implementing the !OM report recommendations. Among its activities, the Division plans and implements 

trans-NIH, transformative initiatives and coordinates research across NIH related to AIDS, behavioral and 

social sciences, women's health, disease prevention, and-· more recently and relevant to this hearingresearch infrastructure. Included in the mission of the research infrastructure office is NIH's Chimpanzee 

Management Program, a program that supports long-term, cost-effective housing and maintenance at 

facilities for chimpanzees. The Chimpanzee Management Program provides programmatic oversight of 

the facilities and ensures they comply with the Animal Welfare Act, and policies conceming laboratory 

animal care and use. These activities were previously supported by the National Center for Research 

Resources (NCRR). As a result of a recent organizational change within the NIH, independent of the 

10M report, the Division gained this and other research infrastructure activities fi·om NCRR .. 

1 http:'/'.>Jww .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books;?<'BK82797 /pdfinap i 3257 .pdf 

2 
44 


25052.030

The Division is advised by the NIH's Council of Councils, a Federal Advisory body composed of 

approximately 27 members selected from the NIH Institutes and Centers' Advisory Councils and broad 

lay representation, including a member of the NIH Council of Public Representatives. The Council 

advises the NIH Director and me on matters related to the policies and activities of the Division. A 

working group of this Council is currently developing recommendations on how NIH should implement 

the !OM recommendations. 

Background 

The use of animals in research has enabled scientists to identify new ways to treat illness, extend life, and 

improve health and well-being. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, providing 

exceptional insights into human biology and the need for special consideration and respect. NIH is deeply 

committed to the care and welfare of chimpanzees. 

While used very selectively and in limited numbers for medical research, research involving chimpanzees 

has served an important role in advancing human health in the past. For example: 

Contributing significantly to the development of vaccines against hepatitis A and B infection that 

are in use today. These vaccines most often are given as pediatric immunizations. Since 1991, 

there has been a 98 percent decline in hepatitis B in children under the age of 15 years. The rate 

of new hepatitis A infections in the United States declined by more than 92 percent between 1995 

and 2008. 

Determining that dietary salt is a major causative factor of elevated blood pressure (Denton et al., 

1995). 

Developing FDA-approved monoclonal antibodies for use in treating lymphomas and other 

cancers, and establishing that certain in vitro differentiated immune cells can serve as vehicles for 

cancer immunotherapy (Larsson et al., 2004). 

3 
45 


25052.031

However, new methods and technologies developed by the biomedical community have provided 

alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in several areas of research .. 

About the IOM Report 

In December 2010, with the support from Senator Udall on this subcommittee and other members of 

Congress, NIH commissioned a study by the !OM to assess whether chimpanzees are or will be necessary 

for biomedical and behavioral research in today's advanced technological environment. Specifically, the 

!OM committee reviewed the current use of chimpanzees for biomedical and behavioral research and 

explored contemporary and anticipated future alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in biomedical and 

behavioral research that will be needed for the advancement of the public's health. 

A year later on December 15,2011, the IOM issued its findings. The !OM concluded that: 

The use of chimpanzees in current and future research should be guided by the following 

principles and criteria (pp. 4-5): 

o The knowledge gained must be necessary to advance the public's health. 

o There must be no other research model by which the knowledge could be obtained, and 

the research cannot be ethically performed on human subjects. 

c The animals used in the proposed research must be maintained either in ethologically 

appropriate physical and social environments (i.e., as would occur in their natural 

environment) or in natural habitats. 

Based on these principles, the IOM concluded that most current use of chimpanzees for 

biomedical research is unnecessary, with the exception of some areas of research that may still 

require their use, including (pp: 4-5): 

o some ongoing research on monoclonal antibody therapies; 

o research on comparative genomics; and 

4 
46 


25052.032

o non-invasive studies of social and behavioral factors that affect the development, 

prevention, or treatment of disease. 

The committee was evenly divided on the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of 

prophylactic hepatitis C virus vaccine. 

New, emerging, or re-emerging infectious diseases may present challenges that defy nonchimpanzee models and therefore, may require that chimpanzees be used in future research. 

NIH should continue development of non-chimpanzee models and technologies. 

After careful consideration, the NIH Director decided to accept the !OM recommendations, and 

announced that NIH was in the process of developing a plan for implementing the !OM's guiding 

principles and criteria. Upon accepting the !OM recommendations, NIH immediately halted issuance of 

any new awards for research involving chimpanzees until processes for implementing the 

recommendations are in place. In addition, the NIH has assembled a Working Group within the Council of 

Councils to provide advice on the implementation of the TOM recommendations, and to consider the size 

and placement of the active and inactive populations of NIH-owned or -supported chimpanzees. 

Status of the Working Group 

The Working Group was officially charged on February I, 2012 and held their first meeting a day later, 

on February 2. They have been charged with: 

Developing a plan for implementation of the TOM's guiding principles and criteria; 

Analyzing currently active NIH-supported research using chimpanzees to advise on which studies 

currently meet the principles and cliteria defined by the IOM report and advising on the process for 

closing studies if any do not comply with the !OM recommendations; 

Advising on the size and placement of active and inactive populations of NIH-owned or NIHsupported chimpanzees that may need to be considered as a result of implementing the !OM 

recommendations; and 

5 
47 


25052.033

Developing a review process for considering whether potential future use of the chimpanzee in NIHsupported research is scientifically necessary and consistent with the !OM principles. 

Ongoing research involving NIH-owned or -supported chimpanzees is currently being reviewed on a 

project-by-project basis by the NIH Working Group to assess whether it meets the IOM principles and 

criteria. Projects that are found not to meet those standards will be phased out, but in a fashion that 

preserves the value of research already conducted, and minimizes the impact on the animals involved. 

Therefore, until the NIH Working Group has made their recommendations, currently funded projects will 

continue. 

NIH welcomes public input into the Working Group's deliberations. In fact, the NIH has already begun 

seeking public input to further inform the Working Group's deliberations through a Federal Register 

Notice that was published in February. Our public website2 provides information about the members of 

the Working Group, their charge, and upcoming Council of Councils meetings. With regard to timing, the 

Working Group will update the Council of Councils during the open session of the June 5, 2012 meeting, 

and again in September 2012. The NIH anticipates that the Working Group will present its final report 

during an open session of the Council of Councils in early 201 J. After the Council considers the Working 

Group's report and recommendations, the NIH will open a 60-day public comment period on the 

implementation of the report and recommendations. 

NIH's Commitment to Care and Welfare 

Throughout this process, NIH remains committed to conducting and supporting high-quality science in 

the interest of advancing public health, and to the humane care and use of animals used in NIH research. 

It cannot be emphasized enough that all animals used in Federally-funded research are protected by laws, 

2 http:i/dpcpsi.nih.gov/council/working_group.aspx 

6 
48 


25052.034

regulations, and policies to ensure the greatest commitment to their physical and emotional comfort and 

welfare. 

Since 200 I, the animals housed in our four chimpanzee facilities constitute a closed colony; no new 

animals arc introduced into this population from non-NIH facilities and none are transferred to other 

chimpanzee populations, such as zoos, other entertainment, or wild populations. This policy helps to 

ensure these chimpanzees are maintained as a unique and distinct population based on highly regulated 

and monitored welfare and guaranteed lifetime care and housing. NIH-supported chimpanzee facilities are 

uniquely designed for these large animals, including indoor housing with air conditioning/heating, special 

wall furniture, and outdoor housing tailored to chimpanzee size and behavior. In 2002-2004, NIH 

constructed a Federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven to provide lifetime housing for 

approximately 130 Federally-owned chimpanzees that have been retired from research. 

Based on an analysis of the most recent awards and payments, NIH spends an average of $35 per day per 

chimpanzee (n=42l) in research facilities; $47 per day per chimpanzee (n=119) in the Federal sanctuary 

facility operated by Chimp Haven; and $67 per day per chimpanzee (n= 173) in the research reserve 

facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility. 

Closing 

I would like to close by thanking the subcommittee for inviting NIII to provide an update on its activities 

to implement the !OM recommendations. NIH shares the concern over animal welfare, and I want to 

assure you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, that we place the appropriate care and use 

of animals as a fundamental principle at the core of all of our research activities. The agency also is 

driven by its mission to improve human health and save lives: for example, deaths of children from 

leukemia and other loved ones from heart disease, and illnesses from liver disease have been prevented 

through the use of animal models to develop treatments and vaccines. 

7 
49 


25052.035

While we pursue this mission, NIH seeks to minimize the use of animals wherever possible to find 

appropriate alternatives. As we continue to manage an important population of animals-- our Federally 

supponed chimpanzees-- we look forward to hearing the Working Group's recommendations on how the 

agency should implement the IOM recommendations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this update to you. I will be happy to try to answer any 

questions. 

8 
50 


25052.036

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Legislative Hearing (Including the Great Ape Protection Act· S. 810) 

Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

April 24, 2012 

Boxer questions: 

1) Is it correct that the Institute of Medicine (10M) concluded that the "present trajectory 

indicates a decreasing scientific need for chimpanzee studies due to the emergence of non· 

chimpanzee models and technologies" and recommended that the NIH significantly limit the 

use of chimpanzees in biomedical research, unless the proposed research meets a specific set 

of criteria? 

Answer: Yes. The use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is decreasing. Scientists develop 

new technologies and these new technologies are used to develop better ways to answer 

specific biomedical questions and this reduces the use of animal models to answer those 

questions. The 10M recommended limiting the use of chimpanzees to specific research 

applications and these research applications should meet a specific set of criteria. 

Do the criteria outlined by the 10M offer a promising framework for evaluating future 

research needs and reducing the use of chimpanzees in medical research? 

Answer: Yes. The principles and criteria outlined by the 10M provide a framework to evaluate 

the need for future research and the NIH expects this will result in a reduction in the use of 

chimpanzees in biomedical research. The NIH is now in the process of developing a complete 

plan for implementation of the 10M's guiding principles and criteria. The NIH has assembled a 

working group within the NIH Council of Councils to provide advice on the implementation of 

the recommendations, and to consider the size and placement of the active and inactive 

populations of NIH-owned or -supported chimpanzees. 

Cardin questions: 

1) The Institute of Medicine recently released a report assessing the need for chimpanzee use in 

NIH-funded biomedical and behavioral research. The report concluded that most current 

biomedical research use of chimpanzees is not necessary, but did not endorse an outright ban 

on chimpanzee research. Instead, the report established a set of uniform criteria to guide 

current and future research of chimpanzees. 

a. Could you identify what specific modifications could be made to the bill that would 

incorporate the Institute of Medicine's and NIH's initial concerns? 

Answer: HHS is currently reviewing the bill. 

b. Does NIH have any concerns about tailoring a statutory exception for research in line 

with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations? 

i. How should such an exception be written? 

ii. What key ideas should be included? 

1 
51 


25052.037

Answer: We would be happy to prov1de technical assistance for any possible legislative 

language that would provide a statutory exception in line with the Institute of 

l'v1ed1cine's recommendations. The NIH would suggest flexibility, so that the working 

group can continue its work. The working group has been meeting with experts and 

reading all the public comments we received in April on how to proceed. They are doing 

a thorough job which will result in an informed set of recommendations. NIH expects 

interim recommendations in September w1th a final report in January 2013. At that 

point, NIH will seek public comment on the proposal before it IS final. We are moving 

swiftly while being certain to ensure appropriate consideration of public comment. 

2) Would this legislation, if implemented, represent a cost increase or a cost savings as 

compared with the current treatment of great apes? Please elaborate. 

Answer: HHS is currently reviewing the bill. 

There are two types of costs associated with the long-term care of chimpanzees owned by the 

NIH: appropriate facility construction and chimpanzee care and welfare costs. Below, is a 

summary of current costs associated with long-term care of chimpanzees. 

Facility Construction Costs 

Chimpanzee facilities are uniquely designed for these large animals, including indoor housing 

with air conditioning/heating, special wall furniture, etc., and outdoor housing tailored to 

chimpanzee size and behavior. In 2002-2004 NIH spent approximately $11.8 million to construct 

a federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven, Inc. to appropriately house 130 federallyowned chimpanzees over their life-time. In today's economy at the same location the 

anticipated construction cost would be $125K per animal. We estimate that construction of 

additional Federal Sanctuary space to retire the remaining ~600 NIH -owned chimpanzees 

would cost at least $751'v1. 

Chimpanzee Care and Welfare 

Based on the most recent posting of awards and payments for maintaining chimpanzee care 

and welfare 

(http:[/grants.nih.gov/gr;mts/policy/air/cost for caring housing of chimpanzees.htm), NIH is 

spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67 per day per 

animal for chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and 

$47 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. Inc. The 

average cost for non-sanctuary facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at 

APF is included. Sec Table 1 for detailed figures. 

Costs for chimpanzee maintenance vary among research facilities based on local economy, size 

of the facility (some facilities have thousands of monkeys in addition to chimpanzees), and the 

amount of research conducted. Research facilities also have more extensive hospital and 

emergency care capabilities and a larger veterinary care staff than sanctuaries. Compames that 

use chimpanzees for research studies pay for care and maintenance, and any specialized 

procedures, reagents, or personnel during the course of the study. A general animal use fee is 

also charged. These fees go mto reducing the cost to the government. 

2 
52 


25052.038

Table 1 demonstrates how the cost to maintain chimpanzees is affected by their use or non-use 

in research. The Southwest National Primate Research Center (SNPRC) has two colonies. The 

P51 colony is part of a large primate facility that was awarded funds prior to the current ban on 

new chimpanzee research. The original budget request provided to NIH to cover the costs of 

chimpanzees over a five-year grant period was based on anticipated savings from program 

income derived from the use of chimpanzees in research protocols ($22.4/day/animal). More 

recently, the same facility received another award, U42, to cover the care and maintenance of 

chimpanzees that were not anticipated to be used in research; the cost is $56.3/day/animal. The 

quality of care is identical for the two populations, but the cost differs because of research use. 

The New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) U42 costs ($28.8/day/animal) are similar to the SNPRC 

P51 costs because of a similar amount of research use. The Keeling-Center for Comparative 

Medicine Research (K-CCMR) costs ($45.5/day/animal) are higher due to less research than 

either SNPRC or NIRC and K-CCMR is a smaller facility. The Alamogordo Primate Facility costs 

($67.4/day/animal) are the highest because research has never been allowed, and it is the 

smallest facility. 

Udall questions: 

1} It is my understanding that the NIH is now working on a plan to implement the 

recommendations of the 10M study of the necessity for Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research 

that was released in December of last year. 

a. Is the NIH planning to issue any new funding or contracts involving chimpanzees 

before the new implementation plan is in place? 

Answer: No. Upon acceptance of the 10M recommendations, NIH immediately halted 

issuance of any new awards for research involving chimpanzees until processes for 

implementing the recommendations are in place. 

b. Is the team putting the implementation plan together considering the use of 

chimpanzees in ongoing research? 

Answer: Ongoing research involving NIH-owned chimpanzees is being reviewed on a 

project-by-project basis by the NIH working group to assess whether it meets the IOM 

principles and criteria. Projects that are found not to meet those standards will be 

phased out in a fashion that preserves the value of research already conducted and 

minimizes the impact on the animals. Until the NIH working group has made these 

recommendations, currently funded research continues. 

2) It is my understanding that the laboratory Texas Biomed received funding from the NIH in 

September 2011 to use 25 chimpanzees from the Alamogordo Primate Facility in invasive 

research. 

a. Is there currently any active research being conducted on the Alamogordo chimps at 

Texas Biomed or are all the tax dollars allocated to this private laboratory for these 

chimps simply for care and maintenance? 

Answer: There is no research being conducted with the 25 chimpanzees from APF now 

located at the Texas Biomed facility. The funding provided is for high quality care for 

3 
53 


25052.039

these animals. These funds for care and maintenance will continue for as long as the 

animals remain at this facility. 

lnhofe question: 

1) Can you expand on the cost of maintaining chimpanzees in research facilities? Is it cheaper 

than keeping them in Federal sanctuary facilities such as Chimp Haven? 

Answer: There are two types of costs associated with the long-term care of chimpanzees owned 

by the NIH: appropriate facility construction and chimpanzee care and welfare costs. Below, is a 

summary of current costs, which depend on a number of factors. 

Facility Construction Costs 

Chimpanzee facilities are uniquely designed for these large animals, including indoor housing 

with air conditioning/heating, special wall furniture, etc., and outdoor housing tailored to 

chimpanzee size and behavior. In 2002-2004 NIH spent approximately $11.8 million to construct 

a federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven, Inc. to appropriately house 130 federallyowned chimpanzees over their life-time. In today's economy at the same location the 

anticipated construction cost would be $125K per animal. We estimate that construction of 

additional Federal Sanctuary space to retire the remaining ~600 NIH -owned chimpanzees 

would cost at least $75M. 

Chimpanzee Care and Welfare 

As of December 2011 

(http:/ /grants. n ih.gov /grants/policy /air I cost_for _caring_ housing_ of_ chimpanzees.htm), NIH is 

spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67per day per animal 

for chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and $47 

per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. The average 

for research facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at APF is included. See 

Table 1 for detailed figures. 

Costs for chimpanzees maintenance varies among research facilities based on local economy, 

size of the facility (some facilities have thousands of monkeys in addition to chimpanzees) and 

the amount of research conducted. Research facilities also have more extensive hospital and 

emergency care capabilities and a larger veterinary care staff than sanctuaries. 

Table 1 demonstrates how the cost to maintain chimpanzees is affected by their use or non-use 

in research. The SNPRC has two colonies. The PSl colony is part of a large primate facility that 

was awarded funds prior to the current ban on new chimpanzee research. The original budget 

request provided to NIH to cover the costs of chimpanzees over a five-year grant period was 

based on anticipated savings from program income derived from the use of chimpanzees in 

research protocols ($22.4/day/animal). More recently, the same facility received another award, 

U42, to cover the care and maintenance of chimpanzees that were not anticipated to be used in 

research; the cost is $56.3/day/animal. The quality of care is identical for the two populations 

but the cost differs because of research use. 

The NIRC U42 costs ($28.8/day/animal) are similar to the SNPRC PSl costs because of a similar 

amount of research use. The K-CCMR costs ($45.5/day/animal) are higher due to less research 

4 
54 


25052.040

than either SNPRC or NIRC and K-CCMR is a smaller facility. The APF costs ($67.4/day/animal) 

are the highest because research has never been allowed and it is the smallest facility. 

Sessions questions: 

1) I have heard from constituents who are genuinely concerned about the humane treatment of 

chimpanzees in research facilities. My understanding is that the NIH is in the process of 

reviewing and implementing the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, is that 

correct? 

Answer: We are in the process of reviewing the 10M recommendations regarding the use of 

chimpanzees in research. 

Regarding concerns about humane care, all animals used in federally-funded research are 

protected by laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the smallest possible number of subjects 

and the greatest commitment to their welfare. Fulfilling these protections is a collaborative 

effort between NIH, federally-supported scientific investigators, and research institutions. 

NIH's Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) provides oversight of all NIH-supported 

research activities that involve animals. OLAW monitors NIH-funded institutions to ensure their 

compliance with animal welfare laws and policies. OLAW also investigates allegations 

concerning animal welfare and appropriate animal care in NIH-funded studies. 

Federally-supported scientists are accountable for the protection of research animals' welfare 

from the earliest stages of planning until the project's completion. Before beginning the 

research, scientists must provide thorough, written justification for animal use, as well as a 

meticulous description of how animals will be housed and cared for and how veterinary care will 

be provided. 

The NIH peer review system rigorously evaluates these descriptions. Peer reviewers are 

scientists from institutions around the world who understand scientific value of a particular 

animal model for understanding the biological processes of a health condition and its 

treatments. Their evaluations ensure that only the highest quality research projects are 

considered by NIH for funding. 

A committee at each institution called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) 

also evaluates the proposed research. Comprised of local scientists, nonscientists, community 

members, and veterinarians, IACUCs closely monitor the research and ensure that the research 

conducted is in accordance with all provisions of the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on 

Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The NIH will not fund research that uses animals if 

the IACUC has not given its approval to the proposed study. 

Throughout the research process, the IACUC monitors the care and use of animals at the 

institution, and it has the authority to suspend any activities involving animals if the research is 

not in compliance with federal requirements. NIH-funded institutions must report promptly to 

OLAW if the IACUC finds any violation of the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory 

Animals. OLAW then considers these reports and requires the institution to make appropriate 

corrections and to prevent further violations. 

5 
55 


25052.041

Working together with the research institutions it funds, NIH upholds its commitment to the 

safety and welfare of laboratory animals so that researchers may continue to understand the 

biological processes of health and disease and to develop treatments that improve quality of life 

for both people and animals. 

2) Do you believe that Congress, before enacting a bill like S. 810 (Great Apes Protection Act), 

should allow the experts at the NIH to finish their task of reviewing the Institute of Medicine 

recommendation? 

Answer: We believe we should complete our plan to review and implement the IOM 

recommendations and provide Congress with thts information. 

3) How much does the federal government spend annually on keeping chimpanzees at the NIH 

facilities? Would S. 810 result in cost savings to the federal government? 

Answer: HHS is reviewing S. 810. Below is a summary of current costs, which vary depending on 

a number of factors. 

The cost to provide appropriate facilities and care to the former National Center for Research 

Resources (NCRR)* owned and supported chimpanzee population is approximately $45 per day 

per chimpanzee. This figure includes chimpanzees in active research, research reserve, and 

retired. See the following webpage for more information about costs for caring for and housing 

chimpanzees: 

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/cost for caring housing of chimpanzees 20110609.ht 

ill. 

The cost to support the NIH Division of Veterinary Resources-owned chimpanzees (18 as of Dec. 

15, 2011) located at the Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, Bastrop, Texas, 

is $74 per day per chimpanzee. The new contract anticipated to go into effect in August 2012 

will have a cost of approximately $50 per day per chimpanzee. 

From September 2002 to September 2011, NIAID had a contract with the New Iberia Research 

Center (NIRC) that covered the leasing of chimpanzees from the NIRC-owned colony for use in 

research studies on hepatitis C and other important mfectious drseases. NIAID spent $6,757,000 

on this contract over its lifetime. This figure includes costs beyond care and maintenance, such 

as special research requirements. 

There are two types of costs associated with the long-term care of chimpanzees owned by the 

NIH: appropriate facility construction and chimpanzee care and welfare costs. 

Facility Construction Costs 

Chimpanzee facilities are uniquely designed for these large animals, including indoor housing 

with air conditioning/heating, special wall furniture, etc., and outdoor housmg tailored to 

chimpanzee size and behavior. In 2002-2004 NIH spent approximately $11.8 million to construct 

a federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven, Inc. to appropriately house 130 federally· 

owned chimpanzees over their life-time. In today's economy at the same location the 

anticipated construction cost would be $125K per animal. 

6 
56 


25052.042

Chimpanzee Care and Welfare 

Based on the most recent posting of awards and payments for maintaining chimpanzee care and 

welfare 

(http:/ /grants.n ih.gov /grants/policy /air /cost_ for _caring_housing_ of_chim panzees.htm), NIH is 

spending an average of $35 per day per chimpanzee in research facilities; $67.00 per day per 

animal for chimpanzee in the research reserve facility at Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF); and 

$47 per day per chimpanzee in the federal sanctuary facility operated by Chimp Haven. The 

average for research facilities becomes $44 per day if the research reserve facility at APF is 

included. See Table 1 for detailed figures. 

Costs for chimpanzees maintenance varies among research facilities based on local economy, 

size of the facility (some facilities have thousands of monkeys in addition to chimpanzees) and 

the amount of research conducted. Research facilities also have more extensive hospital and 

emergency care capabilities and a larger veterinary care staff than sanctuaries. 

Table 1 demonstrates how the cost to maintain chimpanzees is affected by their use or non-use 

in research. The SNPRC has two colonies. The PSl colony is part of a large primate facility that 

was awarded funds prior to the current ban on new chimpanzee research. The original budget 

request provided to NIH to cover the costs of chimpanzees over a five-year grant period was 

based on anticipated savings from program income derived from the use of chimpanzees in 

research protocols ($22.4/day/animal). More recently, the same facility received another award, 

U42, to cover the care and maintenance of chimpanzees that were not anticipated to be used in 

research; the cost is $56.3/day/animal. The quality of care is identical for the two populations 

but the cost differs because of research use. 

The NIRC U42 costs ($28.8/day/animal) are similar to the SNPRC P51 costs because of a similar 

amount of research use. The K-CCMR costs ($45.5/day/animal) are higher due to less research 

than either SNPRC or NIRC and K-CCMR is a smaller facil1ty. The APF costs ($67.4/dayjanimal) 

are the highest because research has never been allowed and it is the smallest facility. 

In summary, the increased cost to the taxpayer to retire animals would derive from construction 

costs and an increased per diem costs. 

4) In your opinion, is it in the national interest to ban chimpanzee research at this time? 

Answer: In my professional scientific opinion, I concur with the I OM, which notes that limited 

research meeting specific criteria may be warranted now and in the future. Also, as indicated by 

the I OM, the use of chimpanzees is already decreasing. This decreased use of chimpanzees is a 

natural progression of science; as scientists learn more from the use of animal models, the need 

for their use decreases and as technology advances more alternatives to animal use are 

developed 

5) Is it possible that a severe pandemic or other public health crisis could occur that would justify 

the continued use of chimpanzees for medical research? 

7 
57 


25052.043

Answer: The answer to this question is perhaps best highlighted by the thoughts of the 10M 

panel, a collection of world class scientists who considered this question for many months. The 

following is a direct quote from the !OM report, page 64: 

"As highlighted throughout this report, over many years scientific advances that have led 

directly to the development of preventive and therapeutic products for life-threatening or 

debilitating diseases and disorders have been dependent on scientific knowledge obtained 

through experiments using the chimpanzee. In addition, many preliminary proof-of-concept 

experiments have been carried out in the chimpanzee; for example, development of human and 

humanized monoclonal antibody therapies have required preclinical testing in the chimpanzee 

{!warson eta!., 1985). The same has been the case for early evaluation of therapeutic concepts 

based on RNAi, micro RNA, and antisense RNA {e.g., for treating chronic HCV infection), and for 

evaluation of TlR7 antagonists {e.g., for treatmg chronic HBV infection) {lanford et al., 2011). 

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH has identified eight instances 

over the past two decades where research on new {or newly recognized), emerging, and 

reemerging infectious diseases has called for use of the chimpanzee to answer crucial questions 

pertaining to pathogenesis, prevention, control, or therapy. In five of these, the chimpanzee is 

still being used. At the same time, as has been the case rather often in the past, an important 

new, emerging, or reemerging disease may present treatment, prevention, and/or control 

problems that defy available alternative experimental approaches, including the most novel, 

innovative approaches, and therefore may require use of the chimpanzee-rare as this may be, 

this possibility cannot be discounted over the long term. The committee recognizes that the 

limited number of available animals and the potential need to perform experiments under 

conditions of biocontainment could potentially constrain the value of the chimpanzee during a 

public health emergency. The similarity in the neuroanatomy between the human and the 

chimpanzee may make it a model for neuropsychiatric disorders, for example, expressing human 

nsk genes via viral vectors or from optogenetic methods that exploit the chimpanzee functional 

neurot:~notomy." 

6) Does S. 810 contain provisions that would allow sufficient flexibility to use chimpanzees for 

research under appropriate circumstances? 

Answer: 5. 810 is currently under review. However, we note 5. 810 does not allow for invasive 

research on chimpanzees under any circumstance, as it prohibits all invasive research on great 

apes and requires the retirement of all federally owned great apes. 

8 
58 

Senator CARDIN. Again, thanks to both of you for your presence 

and your testimony. 

Mr. Ashe, let me start with you if I might. You commented about 

the bills that are basically under the jurisdiction of your agency, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are seven bills here that 

generally come under your jurisdiction. Could you tell us specifically whether you have a position in support of this legislation, 

these bills, or whether there are any suggested changes that you 

would like to see us consider as we look over the seven bills that 

would generally come under Fish and Wildlife? 

Mr. ASHE. Mr. Chairman, my written testimony goes through 

each bill one by one. I would say that we either support, or support 

the intention of, each of the bills today. We have indicated in a couple of instances things where we might like to see some changes 

or expansion in the direction of the bills. And so, we are happy to 

work with the Subcommittee on each and every one of those bills. 

We would like to, I think we would enjoin to see enactment of all 

of them, and we look forward to working with the Committee as 

you go forward. 

Senator CARDIN. And your full statement will be, both of your 

full statements, will be included in our record. 

I think that is very helpful. It is very positive. I know that Senator Lautenberg has worked very hard on the, dealing with the 

concerns of the wildlife disease emergencies, and it is well beyond 

just the problems with the white-nose syndrome for bats. There are 

other areas of equal concern. And the white-nose syndrome is far 

beyond just one State. There are many States that are involved in 

it. 

Do you see that bill as an opportunity for us to better coordinate 

responses to these types of emergencies? 

Mr. ASHE. We do. And the issue of wildlife disease, as I said, is 

one of the great emerging challenges for wildlife conservation. Of 

course, it always has been an issue. For instance, avian botulism 

has always been an issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

had to deal with. But now we are seeing these exotic diseases. 

Again, the root of many of them is trade and our really kind of 

weak authorities to regulate the movement of animals in international trade. And so, Senator Lautenberg’s bill is certainly a 

great step in the right direction to encourage and support a better 

coordination in terms of a response to disease emergencies. 

I think we also need to think about how we can prevent these 

exotic diseases from getting into our wildlife populations in the 

first place. And that is an area that we would like to work with 

the Committee to consider how we might envision more effective 

mechanisms of preventing these disease outbreaks before they 

occur. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I point out that conservation programs, they are very, very efficient programs in getting dollars out to deal with conservation. The 

duck stamp, I think it is 98 cents of every dollar goes directly out 

to acquisition of acreage which is under protection, like 5 million 

acres have been protected under the Duck Stamp Program. 

So, I think it is important for us to try to modernize those programs and make them even more effective. And I appreciate SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25052.TXT SONYA
59 

ator Begich’s comments about it. Does your written statement deal 

with the waiver suggestion that he has made? 

Mr. ASHE. It does. We are strongly supportive of Senator Begich’s 

bill. Of course, the last time the price of the stamp was adjusted 

was 1991. So we have lost purchasing power. The price of the 

stamp today, our estimate is that it would have to be $24 to have 

the same purchasing power as in 1991. 

So increasing the price of stamps, which is supported by all of 

the major waterfowling organizations and hunting organizations 

like Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl and others, but then the 

exemption process that the Senator envisions will allow us to deal 

with some of the basic injustice and equity issues like he mentioned with Alaska natives, where we have Alaska natives that are 

engaging in a subsistence hunt, not a sport hunt, and they, as the 

Senator said, they conserve millions upon millions of acres of wetlands. 

And so, we believe that there is an appropriate balance that can 

be made in instance like that where an exemption would not affect 

the revenue substantially or our ability to more broadly enforce the 

purchase and carry requirements for the duck stamp. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

I can also mention the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

since it has funded, I have been told, over 400 Maryland projects 

since 2000, is a very important program for us to reauthorize. 

I also have questions in regard to Dr. Anderson and the chimpanzees, but my time in the first round has expired, and I guess 

that some of my colleagues will be questioning on subjects that I 

may have questioned anyway, so let me turn it over to Senator 

Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Ashe, I really do appreciate your coming out and talking 

to our constituents and also your recognition of what happened in 

Woodward, Oklahoma. It was just really tragic. I knew one of the 

persons who died in that tornado. So I will pass that on, your concern and your condolences at the same time. 

As you know, this issue is really important to the people of Oklahoma along with the people of the other four States making a very 

significant push to ensure the long-term viability of this species. 

That said, I know that the proposed listing deadline is coming up 

in September, and the settlement agreements allow the Service to 

grant a 6-month extension so biologists can continue examining 

this species. 

I do not want to ask you for a commitment. I just ask if you 

would be as flexible as possible to working with my office and other 

stakeholders to allow time for these efforts to demonstrate what 

they are able to do. 

Mr. ASHE. We will work with you, Senator. The law does provide 

us with some flexibility to take into account new information. And 

the State of Oklahoma, as you know, has been a leader. I met last 

week again with Secretary Gary Shearer, and the State is really 

producing a great plan for conservation of the lesser prairie-chicken 

and is leading the other four States within the range of the species. 

So we look forward to working with the State of Oklahoma and the 

60 

other range States and we will provide as much flexibility as we 

possibly can. 

Senator INHOFE. That is great. And I appreciate that. That is all 

I could ask. 

Could you just make some comments about the reauthorization 

of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and more specifically, why it is important to have a voluntary program like that 

that offers the—that incentivizes the State and private funding? 

Your comments about the NAWCA. 

Mr. ASHE. Sure. First, I want to begin with thanking you for 

your leadership in introducing that legislation. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act has been an absolute—has become 

an absolute foundation of our ability to conserve the waterfowl resource in the United States. It provides a bridge between Canada 

and the U.S. and Mexico, coordinates response amongst all of the 

agencies within the three governments. So, in the United States, 

it is Interior, it is Agriculture, the Department of Defense. We have 

partners like The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Trust for 

Public Lands. All of our State agencies are partners in that process. 

So the North American Waterfowl Conservation Act has really 

become a singular success leveraging public dollars, 2 and 3 and 

4 to 1. At the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission meeting 

last month they presented a slate of projects that were matched 

with three private dollars for every Federal dollar. So, just a tremendous success story, and the bill needs to be reauthorized so 

that we can continue that record. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I appreciate that very much. 

Dr. Anderson, we had a hearing, it was not too long ago, I remember Senator Lautenberg and I were very interested in that. It 

was about some of the extreme animal rights groups coming in and 

trying to stop all experiments. I remember my son calling me, he 

is a medical doctor, saying well, Dad, do they not understand the 

choice may be animals or people? So, I know that this is something 

that we have to deal with. 

In that case, however, there are specific things that we are able 

to achieve and demonstrate having been done. Do you want to 

make any comments about some of the really, not any specific extremist groups, but this idea that they should do away with all 

that type of experimental activity put together? 

Dr. ANDERSON. Well, I would like to point out that the chimpanzee model being close to humans has been invaluable in the 

past. It has provided us with the oral Sabin vaccine. I just remembered the number. In 1952 there were 52,000 cases of polio. It is 

eradicated in the United States now. And there are similar dramatic improvements because of vaccines for hepatitis A and B. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, I am old enough to remember. Do you 

really think that would not have happened if we had not had the 

opportunity to use chimpanzees? Was that a major player in this 

success? 

Dr. ANDERSON. These were major. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Yes. 

Dr. ANDERSON. But that said, the Institute of Medicine, we have 

accepted their recommendations that there be criteria, really a 

61 

high bar for using chimpanzees in the future. Part of this is because we have developed other models. There is a humanized 

mouse now that can be infected with hepatitis C. It is not perfect. 

We are not quite there in replacing all uses of chimpanzees. 

But the IOM pointed out that there were appropriate uses currently, I think most importantly, if we were to consider not having 

the model available, is, they pointed out, that there will be new 

and emerging, unexpected infectious diseases for which this model 

will be appropriate. And in the last few decades we have had examples of viral and bacterial infections where the chimpanzee has 

been the best model. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, on the chimpanzee, you would not support 

a total, outright ban on all experiments on the chimpanzee? 

Dr. ANDERSON. That is correct. NIH has accepted those recommendations from the IOM that this continue as an available 

model, but that there be high criteria for when we use it. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure, sure. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ashe, thank you both for your important testimony here. 

Over the past several years, Congress has appropriated $5 million in funding to fight the white-nose syndrome. We are now fighting for more resources to conduct our campaign. What progress so 

far has Fish and Wildlife made toward addressing the disease? Are 

we making any progress? 

Mr. ASHE. I think we are making tremendous progress, Senator. 

Of course, funding has been essential to that progress. I think we 

are understanding more about the disease. I mean, you mentioned 

19 States. We have an extensive monitoring framework now that 

is done cooperatively with our State and other Federal partners. 

We have put in place protocols for cave—for consideration of cave 

closures, and cave resource management. We are and have worked 

on rapid response plans. So I think we have, we have made tremendous strides in our understanding of the disease. 

Of course, what eludes us still is how to prevent further spread 

of the disease and really even fully understanding the vectors 

through which the disease is moving across and between the 

States. And so, we need more support. We need more research. We 

need improved partnership in the future between Federal, State, 

and private parties if we are going to attack the problem. But it 

is extremely complex. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, we have marshaled a lot of resources, not just the funds but organizationally. And we know that 

in Europe there is a different version of the white-nose syndrome. 

I do not know what we are learning from them, but I assume that 

we are swapping information freely? 

Mr. ASHE. We are working with Europe. Of course, the fungus, 

the same fungus essentially in Europe does not cause the mortality 

in bats that we see in the United States. And so, there is always 

hope that bats here, that we will see an adaptation. There has been 

some indication that there may be some adaptation occurring, but 

it is way too early to tell whether that will be widespread. 

62 

But what we need is to better understand how the fungus is 

moving, how it is affecting bats at the population scale, what kind 

of management can we undertake to mitigate the effects on bat 

populations. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All of the questions that you just posed are 

very good, and we look to you for the answers. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The white-nose syndrome killed upwards 

of 5 million bats and continues to spread across the country. Now, 

earlier this year, the disease was confirmed west of the Mississippi, 

raising the risk for some of our largest agricultural States. What 

impact might the decimation of the bat population have on agriculture? 

Mr. ASHE. We speak a lot these days in the conservation world 

of ecosystem services, essentially the free service that healthy and 

vibrant ecosystems provide. We know they provide flood control. 

They provide air quality and water quality benefits. The bats, they 

provide a huge benefit to the agricultural industry in terms of 

elimination of pests, insect pests. And so some of the estimates are 

$20 billion to $25 billion in ecosystem services that are provided by 

bat populations to the agricultural industry. 

So, the decline, a potential decline or devastation in bat populations is of tremendous consequence to the American people, not 

just in the economic effect but then, in order to replace that service, we have to use pesticides. So there would the corresponding increase in our reliance upon pesticides with the corresponding potential and wildlife effects. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And obviously price increases would like 

follow, as the crops are produced in less quality. 

Dr. Anderson, I have introduced legislation to reform our country’s broken chemical safety law. We talk about TSCA, in particular. Included in my Safe Chemicals Act is a provision to reduce 

animal-based testing and promote research into advanced toxicity 

testing techniques. How far along are we—we have talked about 

this fairly extensively already—in developing tests that provide scientifically valid data without using animals at all? 

Dr. ANDERSON. We are not quite there yet. The thing that is on 

the horizon now is the use of small, isolated units of biology, or a 

few cells that mimic something about the body that we can interrogate with toxins or with pharmaceuticals. We have several examples of that at NIH that we have recently developed. One is a big 

program with DARPA and FDA in regulatory science, or how do we 

collect the data to review drugs appropriately and safely move 

them along and hopefully faster. We have a way to go, but are 

working very hard in this area. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have additional 

questions I will submit for the record. 

Senator CARDIN. That is perfectly acceptable. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

Thank you both for your testimony. Director Ashe, in particular 

I appreciate your testimony on the population impact on our natural resources. I am glad that is something that you are concerned 

about, and also your concerns for diversity. 

63 

We have, Dr. Ashe, a very important decision, as you know, the 

upcoming listing decision of the dunes sagebrush lizard, an extremely important issue in southeastern New Mexico. New Mexico 

ranchers, oil and gas producers, the State Land Office, and BLM 

have entered into conservation agreements covering 90 percent of 

the lizards’ habitat in New Mexico. 

Last week, Senator Bingaman and I sent you and Regional Director Tuggle a letter commending the work on these agreements. 

We encourage the Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize similar 

agreements in Texas. What do these conservation agreements 

mean for ranchers or oil and gas producers who have signed them? 

Mr. ASHE. I think that what we see emerging in New Mexico and 

hopefully expanding into western Texas is really a model of how we 

can approach endangered species conservation in the future. And 

those candidate conservation agreements and candidate conservation agreements with assurances, in particular, what they represent to those landowners is essentially insurance that if a listing 

does occur, that what they are doing, those best management practices that they are implementing, will be enough. That is all they 

will be held to. 

So, in the best case, they can help us avoid a listing because by 

implementing those best management practices they are abating 

the threat to the species. And so, we are hopeful that we may be 

able to avoid the necessity to list if we get similar commitments in 

Texas. But even if we have to list, they have that assurance that 

those practices that they have committed to are all that they will 

be held to in the event of a listing. 

Senator TOM UDALL. And from a scientific perspective, how valuable are these agreements to protect the species? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, they attack the cause. The threat to the species 

is the loss and fragmentation of its habitat. And so, the foundation 

of those agreements is avoidance of the shinnery oak habitat that 

is key for the dunes sagebrush lizard, avoidance, minimization of 

damage and then mitigation of any damage that does occur. So, it 

is essential to dealing with the threat to the species. 

Senator TOM UDALL. And from a legal perspective, how significant are these agreements under the Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, as I said, they provide the key if we are doing 

to avoid the necessity for a listing because we have to show that 

the threat to the species has been abated. And so, from a legal 

standpoint they would provide the underpinning that is necessary 

if we are going to reach a not warranted conclusion. 

Senator TOM UDALL. As you are aware, Director Ashe, the Center for Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management in Carlsbad is a respected and independent third party non-profit organization responsible for holding the lizard permit as part of these conservation agreements. Can you explain the role of the Center for 

Excellence in Carlsbad and how valuable they have been in this 

process? 

Mr. ASHE. We have to—when we form a candidate conservation 

agreement, we have to have somebody to hold a permit, and in this 

case we have had a third party step up in New Mexico to be the 

holder of that permit. Then they will be the party that we go to 

to ensure terms are being adhered to and that we can show that 

64 

the conservation that is supposed to occur is actually occurring. We 

have seen, thus far, an excellent track record in New Mexico, so 

reason for optimism. 

Senator TOM UDALL. And their job is to go out on the ground and 

make sure that the conservation is actually occurring? 

Mr. ASHE. Occurring, correct. 

Senator TOM UDALL. The third party permit holder. Have we 

ever seen conservation agreements on the scale that New Mexico 

has done for the lizard? And if they are successful, could they be 

a model to protect future species? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not aware of any application where we have seen 

candidate conservation agreements at this scale. We have now 2 

million to 2.5 million acres of land in eastern New Mexico covered 

under candidate agreements that will help us conserve both the lizard and the lesser prairie-chicken. And this really is, I think, an 

emerging model for endangered species for candidate conservation 

where we get ahead of a listing decision, we put conservation on 

the ground, we are working with private landowners. 

And I would have to give a bit of shout out to the Bureau of 

Land Management in this case in eastern New Mexico. The Bureau 

of Land Management has been an exceptional partner in this endeavor. And you are also considering here today the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation 

has been a grantee in this case and has been a key partner in making this success story happen. 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Cardin, I just have one additional question for Dr. Anderson, and then I would submit the rest of my questions for the 

record. 

Dr. Anderson, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, there is a primate facility housing approximately 200 chimpanzees formerly used in research. This group of chimpanzees has been described extensively 

by scientists and in the media as sick, aged, infected, diseased, 

maimed, and scarred. Many scientists have suggested this group, 

in particular, is completely inappropriate for invasive testing. 

Members of Congress, members of the New Mexico legislature, 

and the city of Alamogordo have expressed concerns to the National Institutes of Health over further invasive testing on this 

group of chimps. As you know, the vast majority of these chimpanzees have not been used in invasive studies since 2001. 

It is my understanding that all the Alamogordo chimpanzees 

were exposed to hepatitis C and HIV during their years in research, and most of the population is affected with multiple, chronic conditions. Does preexisting exposure to hepatitis C and HIV 

limit the usefulness of chimpanzees in future research? And are 

there areas of research where this specific Alamogordo population 

with their ongoing conditions could still be used in light of the IOM 

study? 

Dr. ANDERSON. Well, first, let me reassure you that there is no 

research at the Alamogordo facility, and we have charged the working group with making recommendations on the size and the placement of future populations, the size of a group of animals that 

would be needed for research, and the Alamogordo population will 

fall within their considerations. 

65 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

And Chairman Cardin, thank you for your courtesy in letting me 

go over a little bit there. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me now recognize Senator Carper and 

thank him for his leadership on the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, S. 1266. Before Senator Carper begins, let me point 

out that we have only heard very positive things about this legislation. 

Senator CARPER. Could that possibly be my bill? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, who said them? Who said those positive 

things? 

Was that you, Mr. Ashe? 

Mr. ASHE. I think I did. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Well thank you. Thanks very much. 

Thank you both very much for joining us. I am sorry I missed 

your testimony. My colleagues and I, we usually have several different hearings going on at once, and I have been trying to combat 

waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid downstairs for the last 

hour or two. Now, we are going to come up and try to do good 

things with clean water in a bunch of places, including the estuary 

that we call the Delaware River Estuary. 

It is a big one. And we have noted, with some pleasure, the river 

that divides our two States, the water quality is getting better. We 

continue to work on it because everything we do we know we could 

do better. 

Let me just ask, if I can, I have a statement I would like to enter 

for the record, Mr. Chairman, please. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your entire statement will be 

made a part of the record. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Ashe, based on your expertise as Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, could you just expand for us on the importance for 

us that you mentioned in your testimony of protecting the Delaware Basin Watershed? What are some of the risks, ecological 

risks, economic risks, and other risks that could come to bear if we 

do not invest in protecting the Delaware River? 

I think when you look at how much money we invest, the Federal 

dollars that we invest in protecting the Delaware River Estuary, I 

think it is pretty modest by Federal standards, by like $1 million. 

Can you compare that with some others? Maybe you can give us 

an idea of what we are spending in some areas of the country if 

that is a modest investment. I think it is. I would be interested in 

knowing what the cost-benefit ratio is but it has got to be pretty 

good because the investment is so modest. 

Could you just, if you will, go back to the importance that you 

mentioned in your testimony of protecting the Delaware River 

Basin and also just share with us some of the risks? Thank you. 

Mr. ASHE. The Delaware River and the Delaware Bay Estuary 

are—provide a tremendous natural resource for the country. And 

when you think about the two sides, of course, even in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service we have the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge on 

the New Jersey side, we have Prime Hook and Bombay Hook on 

the Delaware side, we have a tremendous interest in resources like 

66 

the red knot, a migratory species that goes from South America to 

the Arctic to nest. Delaware Bay is a key resting and foraging place 

for the red knot. 

Senator CARPER. We like to say it is the place they like to stop 

for lunch. 

Mr. ASHE. Exactly. 

Senator CARPER. Sometimes breakfast, too. 

Mr. ASHE. So it is just a key strategic resource from the standpoint of fisheries and wildlife management along the Eastern Seaboard. And you mentioned the cost-benefit ratio. I think what you 

are trying to do is preventative care, put the investment into the 

resource before we have a crisis. We can see places like the Everglades, where we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars, and the 

San Francisco Bay Delta, again billions of taxpayer dollars to restore ecological systems that have collapsed as a result of misguided management in the past. Se, we applaud your effort to really do preventative management and lead that effort. 

What we would like to do is work with you to see if we can put 

this into the context of some of the larger efforts that we are looking at along the north Atlantic, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and some of the larger landscape issues that we are 

working on and are represented in the legislation before the Committee today. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask a question about how do we 

measure progress. One of my favorite questions of people when 

they are presenting with us ideas to spend Federal dollars is what 

do you want to accomplish, and how would you go about measuring 

progress. Could you just sort of work off of that question with respect to an estuary like the Delaware River Basin Watershed? 

Mr. ASHE. Measuring progress in our field is, of course, a great 

challenge. One of the things that we are working on in the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service is can we use, can we find biological 

metrics that tell us something about ecosystem health on a larger 

scale? And so, we would like to look at areas like the middle Atlantic, the Delaware River Estuary, and say, can we establish biological markers that tell us something about the larger ecosystem function? 

So, we might look at things like the red knot. What is, is that 

population a good indicator of aspects of ecological health within 

the Delaware River Basin? Things that we can readily measure but 

that also tell us something about larger ecological function. 

Senator CARPER. OK. If I could, last week Senator Lautenberg 

and I were sitting here and we were having a hearing on mercury, 

the emission of mercury and what it does when it gets into the 

water and fish, birds and waterfowl, and what is done with pregnant women, childbearing women and the children they bear in too 

many cases. 

And right there, sitting in your seat, was a witness from Michigan, the northern part of Michigan, and she is an outdoorswoman 

of some renown, and she is lovingly referred to in northern Michigan as the Sturgeon General. 

[Laughter.] 

67 

Senator CARPER. The Sturgeon General. So, when she testified, 

Senator Lautenberg, I called her General during the course of her 

testimony. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. She was actually quite a good witness. 

But when you look to sturgeon population in the Delaware River, 

I think is coming back a little bit. I just kind of—is this one of the 

markers that we look at to see if we are making some progress? 

I think we are. 

The last thing I would say is we have gone through, as Senator 

Lautenberg knows, a lot of discussion between Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and others, environmental community reports 

up and down the river, on whether or not we can safely dredge the 

Delaware River Bay to a depth of 45 feet in order to make sure 

that our ports remain vibrant and relevant. And after a lot of research and thinking and talking and all, we finally decided that 

yes, we can do that. 

There is a big question, one of the questions we wrestle with 

here is, is it possible to have economic growth and job creation and 

still protect the environment? And we think in this case that we 

can, and we are going to go forward in a very guarded, measured 

way to make sure that our ports continue to be vibrant, active, and 

relevant but at the same time we do not despoil the water, reverse 

the quality that we have made in cleaning up the Delaware River. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it is great that you had this hearing. We 

really appreciate your giving us a chance to talk a little bit about 

the legislation some of us have introduced. So, thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

I would like to thank Chairman Cardin for scheduling this legislative hearing 

today to consider a number of important items, including S. 1266, the Delaware 

River Basin Conservation Act. The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act is cosponsored by members of this Committee, including Senators Lautenberg and Gillibrand, and Senators Coons, Casey, Menendez, and Schumer. There is also a House 

version of the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, which was introduced last 

June as well, and is co-sponsored by several Republican and Democrat Members of 

Congress. 

Despite being a major economic, environmental, and recreational asset, the Delaware River Basin watershed region does not have a Federal program charged with 

leading conservation and restoration efforts in the region. The Delaware River Basin 

is home to more than 8 million people, and more than 15 million people depend on 

it as a source of drinking water, including the populations of the first and fifth largest cities in our country, New York and Philadelphia. It is estimated that the Delaware River Basin contributes more than $10 billion annually to the economy, supporting critical economic activity in the port, shipping, agriculture, fishing, tourism, 

food and beverage, and other industries. Given the tremendous value of the Delaware River Basin, it makes a lot of sense to me that we would take the necessary 

steps to safeguard this important resource so that it can continue to provide this 

great value to our economy, environment, and our communities for generations to 

come. 

S. 1266 would establish the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program within 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. This program would be charged with creating a single, basin-wide strategy to guide conservation and restoration efforts in the Delaware River watershed region. The program would support on-the-ground conservation and restoration projects in the Delaware River region. These projects would create real jobs—jobs that not only add economic value but also improve the quality 

of our environment, resulting in a double return on our investment. 

68 

S. 1266 was passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in December of last year. Prior to that, my office worked closely with several stakeholders 

that operate in the Delaware River watershed region, and with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, to make improvements to the bill, which were successfully included 

in the bill that was passed out of this Committee last December. I greatly appreciate today’s legislative hearing as an opportunity to hear further feedback on S. 

1266 and will take the comments offered by our witnesses today to heart as we continue to move this important piece of legislation forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Carper, we thank you for your strong 

national leadership on great water bodies, including the Delaware 

River Basin. It is the way that I think we can really get a handle 

on preserving our biodiversity and our environment, and we also 

pointed out, our economy. It is very important. We appreciate your 

leadership. 

Dr. Anderson, before I do that, Mr. Ashe, I want to just compliment you on the response with Senator Udall as it relates to the 

Endangered Species Act. We are in total agreement that these candidates for conservation agreements are the way to proceed for the 

two reasons that you mentioned. First, they avoid a listing when 

we have management plans that are reversing the trends that have 

already taken place. And second, in the event that there is a listing, it also provides safe harbors for those who have made the 

proper investments. So, I thank you for that. 

And thank you for the leadership in New Mexico, Senator Udall. 

I think what you are doing is the right thing as it relates to the 

lizard, and we hope that we will be able to proceed in western 

Texas so that this will be an issue that will be handled in the spirit 

of why we have the Endangered Species Act. So we wish you well 

on that. 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Anderson, I want to turn to the chimpanzees for one moment. I very much appreciate your testimony 

and the acceptance of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations. 

But you point out that it is going to take a little bit of time for you 

all to figure out exactly how to handle this as it relates to your current population of chimpanzees. 

I think the Cantwell bill envisions—well, it would not envision, 

it mandates that the experimentation end. It also points out that 

many of the chimpanzees would be sent to sanctuaries and envisions a savings of several tens of millions of dollars for taxpayers. 

My question to you is, or request, is that I would ask the National Institutes of Health to give us some direction. If Congress is 

to pass legislation, how you would want that legislation drafted? 

I do not want to make any assumptions. But the legislation, as 

currently drafted, if it were enacted into law, would prevent the 

further experimentation on chimpanzees. I understand from your 

testimony that is not the position of the National Institutes of 

Health at this particular moment. 

So I would ask that you focus on what would be the proper congressional response to help the implementation of the Institute of 

Medicine’s recommendations which may be, or may not be, what 

the Congress wants to do. But I think it is a good starting point 

and probably does represent the best consensus that we might be 

able to get in Congress. 

69 

Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator. We will do that. We will do 

that in writing. 

Senator CARDIN. That would be, I think, helpful for us in our 

work. And also as it would relate to what your intentions are to 

do with the chimpanzees that are no longer going to be candidates 

for use and how you would recommend we handle that transition. 

Dr. ANDERSON. I would like to point out that we have asked for 

recommendations from the working group specifically on these 

issues. So, I would not want to preempt their conclusions. But they 

are asked to address those issues. 

Senator CARDIN. That would be helpful if you get first their recommendations to you and then second your response. So far as I 

understand it, you are accepting the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations. 

Dr. ANDERSON. Completely. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. And if that continues, we need to know that because they give you additional information. My expectation is that 

you will follow their recommendations, and then we will need a 

game plan as to how you intend to implement that and how the 

Congress could be helpful so that these policies become institutionalized within the Government, not just from one Administration, but have a little bit more staying power. 

Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator, we will. 

Senator CARDIN. And then the last point that was raised as to 

how it relates to animal experimentation beyond just chimpanzees. 

It would be interesting to keep us informed on that so that we can 

try to be a positive partner with the National Institutes of Health. 

Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you. We will. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Again, let me thank both of our witnesses for their testimony. 

We will now turn to the second panel. 

Let me welcome Dr. Doug Inkley, Senior Wildlife Biologist for 

the National Wildlife Federation. Dr. Inkley is a certified wildlife 

biologist with expertise in ecology and wildlife management and is 

the National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Scientist. 

Let me also welcome Dr. Martin Wasserman, former Secretary of 

the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, former 

Administrator of the Oregon Public Health Department. Dr. 

Wasserman is a pediatrician, a lawyer, and has served as the Executive Director of the Maryland State Medical Society, a Maryland 

constituent and a friend. So it is good to have Dr. Wasserman here. 

We have worked together on many issues from public health to 

policies affecting broader issues in our State. It is a pleasure to 

have you before our Committee. 

And Dr. Greg Schildwachter. Dr. Schildwachter is a professional 

conservationist with 25 years of experience in policy, science, and 

management of land, water, fish, and wildlife. He holds a degree 

in Wildlife Biology from the Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program at the University of Montana, as well as degrees from 

the University of Tennessee and the University of Georgia. 

It is a pleasure to have all three of you with us. We will start 

with Dr. Inkley. 

70 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. INKLEY, PH.D., 

SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. INKLEY. Good morning, Senator Cardin. As a 30-year resident of the State of Maryland, I have to tell you that I was especially pleased to receive your invitation to testify today. 

Senator CARDIN. I do not think I had that on my introduction. 

Mr. INKLEY. No, I kept it a secret. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me add that to my introduction. It is 

a pleasure to have another Marylander on the panel. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. INKLEY. Thank you. 

The National Wildlife Federation’s 4 million members and supporters include outdoor enthusiasts of all types, hunters and anglers like myself, backyard gardeners, birdwatchers, and many 

more. So, on their behalf today, and our 48 affiliated States, including the Baltimore Aquarium, one of our affiliates, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify for the purpose of protecting wildlife 

for our children’s future. So thank you again. 

It is worth noting that four of the bills under discussion today 

pertain to three long standing laws supported largely by hunters 

and anglers. It is a testament to their commitment that they support providing the funding for the so-called Duck Stamp Act, the 

Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Act, which you and I know as 

the Pittman-Robertson, or PR, Act, and matching funds for implementation of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 

As a hunter, I am especially proud that my fellow sportsmen and 

women are putting their money where their mouth is, over the history of those programs, some $10 billion just for those three programs alone to conserve some 35 million acres. 

In the interest of brevity, I ask that my entire written testimony 

be submitted for the record. 

Senator CARDIN. All of your statements, all three of the witnesses, your full statements will be included in the record. 

Mr. INKLEY. Thank you. I will briefly highlight five of the bills. 

The first two bills pertain to the Duck Stamp Act. The National 

Wildlife Federation has supported this Act ever since our founding 

in 1936. J.N. Ding Darling, a giant in conservation, helped establish the Duck Stamp Act in 1934 and sketched the first ever duck 

stamp. It is no small coincidence that Ding Darling was also a 

founder of the National Wildlife Federation and the artist for our 

first annual production of conservation stamps. So we feel a particular affinity for that law and are very supportive of it. 

The Duck Stamp Act requires all waterfowl hunters to purchase 

a duck stamp and the revenue furthers the conservation of wetlands and contributed to the addition of more than 6 million acres 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Certainly, a great success. 

So the two bills being discussed today, the Permanent Electronic 

Duck Stamp Act of 2012 and the Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act, are both intended to strengthen the 

ability to continue the effectiveness of this program. Without going 

into the details of those programs, I will simply state that we certainly strongly support both of those and look forward to their 

being passed and enacted into law. 

71 

The third bill to discuss today, and I noticed that Senator Carper 

was here earlier, is the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act, S. 

1266. This Act provides a framework for protecting and restoring 

the Delaware River Basin. It has more than 200 finfish and shellfish species, and the watershed provides clean drinking water to 7 

million people in the city of New York. These benefits, unfortunately, are threatened by changes in land use and the region’s long 

legacy of pollution. 

The Act would help to one, restore or protect fish and wildlife 

species and habitats, and two, improve or protect water quality. So, 

we support the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act and applaud the Committee and you, Senator Carper, for favorably reporting it in December 2011. Thank you. 

The fourth bill is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act which I will refer to as NFWF, which most people do. It facilitates private investments in fish and wildlife conservation in partnership with Federal conservation agencies such 

as the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is especially important in these 

economic times, and impressive, that NFWF leverages every Federal dollar with at least 3 private dollars to invest in conservation. 

Two great examples of success are efforts to restore the longleaf 

pine community in the Chesapeake. Both are described in greater 

detail in my testimony, but I would also note that the National 

Wildlife Federation and our affiliated organizations are both involved in those conservation efforts. S. 1492 will reauthorize NFWF 

at its existing authorization level and allow NFWF to continue its 

remarkable legacy of conservation successes. We urge its passage. 

The fifth and last bill that I will make my remarks on, briefly, 

is the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act. This 

really is a world class model for successful public-private cooperation, achieving on-the-ground wildlife conservation. 

Since its inception nearly a quarter century ago, NAWCA has facilitated the conservation of more than 26 million acres across the 

50 States of the United States. Because it has such a strong track 

record in incentivizing significant investment in habitat conservation, we certainly support this program as well. 

In conclusion, we appreciate the Committee’s efforts to address 

these important wildlife issues that have been the subject of today’s hearing and look forward to working with you to enact them. 

And again, thank you very much for having me. As a Maryland 

resident, we finally meet. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inkley follows:] 

72 


25052.044

Testimony of Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D. 

Senior Scientist, National Wildlife Federation 

United States Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Legislative Hearing 

Apri124, 2012 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Sessions, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today. National Wildlife Federation is a non-partisan, non-profit 

organization. Our mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future. 

National Wildlife Federation is supported by 48 state and territorial affiliates and more than 4 

million members and supporters. Our members include hunters, anglers, backyard gardeners, 

birdwatchers and many other outdoor enthusiasts from throughout the nation. 

Wildlife conservation has been the focus of our efforts from inception. Time and again, threats to 

wildlife have unified diverse people from across our nation to take action in the interest of 

conserving the nation's rich wildlife heritage. As a result, many important wildlife conservation 

laws have been passed, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, and the Federal Aid in Fisheries 

Restoration Act, to name just a few. The remarkable successes of these and other wildlife laws 

have saved many species from extinction, restored many game tish and wildlife species, and 

even led to the recovery of the bald eagle, the nation's symbol. We appreciate the opportunity to 

testifY today on several proposed bills regarding wildlife conservation, and the efforts of the 

Congressional sponsors of these bills, to further advance conservation of our nation's fish and 

wildlife for the benefit of all citizens. 

The Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 Section (S.207l) and The Migratory 

Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act (8.2156) 

The National Wildlife Federation has supported the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act, or "Duck Stamp Act," since our founding in 1936. In fact, J.N. "Ding" Darling not 

only helped establish the Duck Stamp Act in 1934 and was the artist for the first-ever federal 

duck stamp, he also was a founder of the National Wildlife Federation and the artist for our first 

annual production of"conservation stamps." 

The Duck Stamp Act is strongly supported by hunters and other conservationists, and requires all 

waterfowl hunters to purchase a duck stamp. The revenue is used to further conservation of 

waterfowl and other wildlife and has contributed to the addition of almost six million acres to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

In 2006, the Electronic Duck Stamp Act (S.l496) was passed to authorize a 3-year trial of 

electronic or so-called "E-stamps" with the intent of facilitating purchase by waterfowl hunters 

among others. The August 2011 "Federal Duck Stamp Program- Electronic Duck Stamp Pilot 
73 


25052.045

Program Report" prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reveals that electronic sales 

were tested in eight states and administrative procedures refined over the 3-year trial period, 

resulting in an operationally-effective program. Furthermore, there was no apparent decrease in 

sales, and hence revenue for conservation purposes. 

In light of the success of the 2006 Electronic Stamp Act pilot program, the National Wildlife 

Federation now urges enactment of "The Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012" 

(S.2071). This bill would facilitate electronic sales of the duck stamp while retaining the long 

tradition of the annual duck stamp contest and collection of duck stamps by hunters and other 

supporters. We also urge that Congress encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to explore 

and implement ways in which voluntary purchase of duck stamps by other members of the public 

(beyond the required purchase by waterfowl hunters) can be increased to raise additional 

revenue for conservation. Electronic sales of duck stamps will make them much more accessible 

for purchase. A better conservation investment would be hard to buy given that ninety-eight 

cents out of every dollar from duck stamp sales goes directly to wetlands protection in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Although the duck stamp program has been extremely successful, changing times have reduced 

its effectiveness. The price of a duck stamp was $1 in 1934, and was increased seven times by 

Congress, to its current price of $15, set in 1991. Thus, the duck stamp price has not been raised 

in 21 years, compared to an historic average of an increase every 8 years. During this 21 years, 

duck stamps have lost 40% of their value based on the consumer price index, while the average 

price of wetlands for purchase through this program has more than tripled from $306 per acre to 

$1091 per acre. Due to the absence of significant increases in the price of duck stamps, coupled 

with consumer price index growih and the increasing cost of protecting wetlands, the duck stamp 

program's effectiveness will continue to decline. To maintain its buying power and effectiveness 

in conserving wetlands, we support appropriate increases in the price of duck stamps. The 

Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act (S.2156) provides a mechanism by 

which the price of the duck stamp can be periodically assessed and raised to continue its 

effectiveness. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (8.1494) 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) has been a remarkable conservation success 

ever since it was first established by Congress in 1984 for the purpose of facilitating private 

investments in fish and wildlife conservation in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. NFWF currently has partnerships with 14 federal agencies and has received funding 

contributions from thousands of corporations, foundations and other private entities. In these 

times of tight fiscal constraints, it is noteworthy that NFWF leverages every federal dollar with at 

least 3 dollars from private sources to fund conservation. In fact, to date, NFWF has leveraged 

$576 million in federal funds into $2 billion for conservation for non-regulatory, voluntary, onthe-ground fish and wildlife conservation projects that benefit private working lands and local 

economies in all 50 states. 

2 
74 


25052.046

NFWF's purpose is to achieve conservation success on the ground. It does not and cannot 

provide grant funds for litigation, advocacy, or lobbying. Its on-the-ground conservation 

successes are far too many to describe in detail here, but cover a broad range of habitats, fish and 

wildlife across the country. 

Longleaf pine restoration is one example of an on-going program at NFWF that brings together 

federal agencies and the private sector to address a conservation challenge. NFWF recently 

expanded this program through two new federal partners that will support accelerated restoration 

in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Originally covering 90 million acres, this ecosystem is today only 

three percent of its original size, and is the only home for some threatened and endangered 

species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, the gopher tortoise and the indigo snake. Since 

2004, NFWF and the Southern Company have invested over $8.7 million into projects which 

will restore more than 82,000 acres oflongleaf pine forest. 

Another outstanding on-going project is the collaboration of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 

and NFWF which recently announced over $10.9 million in grants for 55 environmental projects 

in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed's six states and the District of Columbia. The projects will 

preserve 3,729 acres of land, restore 32 miles of riparian areas and stream banks and implement 

the best storm water management practices on 2,878 acres. 

The bill will reauthorize NFWF at its existing authorization level and, among other things, will 

strengthen its ability to work with federal agencies more effectively, reduce bureaucratic 

burdens, and ma'l:imize conservation outcomes. NWF supports the bi-partisan "National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act" (S.l494) to build further on NFWF's remarkable 

legacy of conservation success. 

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act (8.1249) 

The very first lobbying accomplishment of the National Wildlife Federation, ably facilitated by 

Ding Darling, was securing Congressional passage in 1937 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration Act (Restoration Act). This landmark legislation directs that excise taxes on sporting 

arms and ammunition be dedicated to restoring wildlife, development of access facilities to 

public lands, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public 

target ranges. 

Since its inception, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act has generated over $2 billion, 

which has been augmented by $500 million in matching money from the states implementing the 

programs. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act is strongly supported by hunters and 

shooters because they know that the special excise taxes on guns and ammunition is dedicated to 

Restoration Act purposes. More than 62% of the revenue is used to buy, develop, maintain, and 

operate wildlife management areas. some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the 

program began. The Act's many outstanding conservation successes include restoration of 

pronghorn, elk, wild turkeys, deer and many other wildlife species. 

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act (S.l249) would further states' 

abilities to use Restoration Act funds "to facilitate the construction and expansion of public 

3 
75 


25052.047

target ranges, including ranges on Federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management." We recognize the need to ensure that people of all ages have 

proper training and facilities to ensure safety in hunting. While supporting this concept, we 

encourage consideration of several factors. 

The toxicity of lead to wildlife, including lead used in anununition and fishing tackle, is well 

known. In fact, the National Wildlife Federation lead the charge to ban the use of lead and other 

toxic substances in shot used for waterfowl hunting because of widespread ingestion of spent 

lead shot by ducks, geese and other wildlife, thereby causing their death by lead poisoning. It is 

also well known that shooting ranges can accumulate very large quantities of lead. We 

encourage Congress to consider ways in which any newly constructed shooting ranges can be 

managed to encourage voluntary conversion by the public at the shooting range and in their 

hunting activities, to non-toxic forms of anununition. 

We are also concerned that reduction in the non-federal matching proportion from 25% to 10% 

reduces the ability to maximize total dollars for Restoration Act purposes, and also comes at the 

expense of the Restoration Act dollars dedicated specifically to conservation purposes. 

However, as the bill is written, these impacts will be minimal. 

Wildlife Disease Emergency Act (8.357) 

Wildlife disease is a growing problem that threatens the well-being of native wildlife. West Nile 

Virus in birds, Chronic Wasting Disease in Cervids, Chytrid Fungus infection of amphibians, and 

White-Nose Syndrome in bats are examples of the challenges and widespread impacts of wildlife 

diseases. Many factors contribute to the spread and impacts of diseases in wildlife, including 

widespread international trade in wildlife. Although not the subject of this hearing, invasive 

species, which can carry disease and can even be a disease, is a huge problem which threatens 

wildlife and ecosystems across the country. For example, feral pigs can spread brucellosis and 

the invasive Asian tiger mosquito is kno\1111 to transmit more than 30 different viruses. We urge 

Congress to strengthen laws and regulations to contain and stop the continued nation-wide 

epidemic of invasive plants, animals and pathogens entering the United States virtually every 

day, and which continue to cause widespread and costly damage to wildlife, habitats, agriculture, 

people, and infrastructure. 

White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats, a deadly disease caused by a fungus (Geomyces 

Jestructans), was first observed in 2006 and is estimated to have killed 5.7 million to 6.7 million 

bats in eastern North America since then.' In addition to its potential spread and impact on bat 

populations across North America, the decline of this important insectivore may facilitate the 

spread of diseases transmitted by insects. 

Another recent serious wildlife disease is chytridiomycosis in amphibians, caused by the chytrid 

fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Thought to have initially been spread by trade of the 

African clawed frog, it is has now infected many amphibian species throughout the world, 

included at least four species listed under the Endangered Species Act in the United States-the 

Wyoming toad, mountain yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, and the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

4 
76 


25052.048

The Wildlife Disease Emergency Act (S.357) will facilitate more quickly addressing emerging 

wildlife diseases by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to declare a wildlife disease 

emergency and coordinate rapid response to the emergency, including providing grants to state 

wildlife agencies and Indian tribes to address the problem. We support the intent of S.357 to 

provide needed resources via a Wildlife Disease Emergency Fund through the Department of the 

Interior to quickly address wildlife disease issues in the interest of wildlife conservation. We 

appreciate that the bill would establish the Wildlife Disease Committee with membership from 

Federal and state agencies, tribal entities, and "individuals who represent public and private 

organizations." We suggest further definition of the Wildlife Disease Committee to ensure 

balanced representation, specifically including representation by one or more national 501 ( c )3 

wildlife conservation organizations, and the National Wildlife Health Center. 

We note that the bill restricts the definition of wildlife to native species. As we addressed above, 

invasive non-native species can be a serious threat to native wildlife. We recommend that this 

bill provide a means to also address disease in non-native species because of the potential for 

non-native species to harbor and transmit disease to native wildlife. 

Finally, is unclear to us the extent to which this bill would rely on existing legal authority and 

federal programs already in place to address wildlife disease issues. Nonetheless, ensuring 

adequate resources to address wildlife disease issues is important, and we welcome the 

opportunity to work with this committee to further define this bill, including its relationship to 

existing authorities to address wildlife disease issues .. 

Delaware River Basin Conservation Act (S. 1266) 

The National Wildlife Federation supports the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act as it 

provides a framework for making substantial progress in protecting and restoring the Delaware 

River Basin. The lour-state Basin watershed encompasses the Delaware River-which is the 

longest undan1med river east of the Mississippi-and the ecologically- and economicallysignificant Delaware Estuary. Protecting ecosystems is critical to protecting wildlife. 

More than 200 migrant and resident tlnfish and shellfish species use the Delaware Estuary for 

feeding, spawning, or nursery grounds. These species include sharks, skates, striped bass. shad. 

sturgeon, American eel, blueback herring, Atlantic menhaden, alewife, bluefish, weakfish, and 

flounder. Oysters and blue crabs are important recreational and commercial shellfish resources in 

the Estuary; annual landings are currently valued at $14 million". The Delaware Estuary is also 

home to the largest population of horseshoe crabsin the world and is an important stop for 

shorebirds and waterfowl along the Atlantic Flyway'". Natural habitats in this watershed include 

tidal salt marshes, tidal freshwater marshes, intertidal mudflats, oyster reefs, beaches, inland 

wetlands, and upland meadows and forests. Historically, the Delaware Estuary's extensive tidal 

wetlands provided critical habitat tor many of the region's threatened and endangered species 

and are still fundamental for their survival. 
77 


25052.049

The Delaware River, stretching from the Catskill Mountains in New York to the metropolitan 

hubs of Trenton and Philadelphia, is home to important species such as American shad, bald 

eagle, river otter, bog turtle, several endangered and threatened freshwater mussels, and brook 

and brown trout. The river's coldwater streams and tributaries offer some of the best recreational 

fishing opportunities in the eastern United States. Other habitats include freshwater wetlands and 

riparian forests and grasslands. Because of the high quality of the habitat in this region, much of 

the mainstem Delaware River has been included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

This area also provides untreated drinking water to seven million people in New York City. 

Changes in land use, the regions legacy of pollution, and declines in living resources are among 

the top environmental concerns in the Delaware Basin, resulting in habitat loss and negatively 

impacted fish and wildlife. Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

suggests that within a recent 5-year period, the watershed lost between 25 and 35 acres of land to 

development each day. Forest lands-which provide critical habitat and regulate water qualityexperienced the greatest rate of conversion, equating to one football field every two hours. 1

v Such 

changes in land use are associated with increased stormwater runoff, resulting in discharges of 

higher concentrations of nutrients, toxics, and heavy metals into the watershed and ultimately to 

the Delaware Estuary. 

The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act (S.l266) would address these concerns and greatly 

benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. The bill would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

partnership with other federal agencies, to establish a non-regulatory Delaware River Basin 

Restoration Program to increase coordination and collaboration of conservation efforts currently 

underway in the entire Basin. The legislation would also establish a competitive grants 

program-along with much-needed technical assistance-to add to the limited federal resources 

available to the watershed for (I) the restoration or protection of fish and wildlife species and 

habitats, and the (2) improvement or protection of water quality. 

NWF believes that this S.l266 will provide much needed resources for this important ecosystem. 

We support the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act and applaud the committee for 

favorably reporting it in December 2011. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act (S. 2282) 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) serves as a model for successful 

public-private cooperation for on-the-ground wildlife conservation. The National Wildlife 

Federation supports the extension of this valuable habitat program. 

Since its inception nearly a quarter-century ago, NA WCA has facilitated the protection and 

restoration of more than 26 million acres of important wetlands and other habitats in all 50 states. 

Wetlands sustain tremendous biodiversity, and a variety of wetland-dependant species directly 

benefit from this investment in conservation, including ducks and geese, shorebirds, frogs and 

salamanders, beavers and otters, myriad invertebrates and many species of fish. Additional 

community benefits include expanded outdoor recreation opportunities (including hunting, 

fishing, wildlife watching and photography) and improved water quality. 

6 
78 


25052.050

Because of the competitive nature of the grant program, NAWCA leverages each dollar in public 

funds with more than three in private dollars-despite only requiring a one-to-one match. This 

impressive financial commitment signifies strong support for conservation and restoration from 

local partners, landowners, and private organizations; more than 4,500 partners have contributed 

to NA WCA projects over the years. 

For example, the Kansas Wildlife Federation, an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, 

partnered with a dozen other organizations and agencies in 20 II to complete the 243-acre Slate 

Creek wetland restoration project in Sumner County, Kansas. The $75,000 small NA WCA grant 

was matched with more than $300,000 in private funding contributions, equating to a privatepublic ratio of four-to-one. This project will provide well-managed and robust habitat for 

northern pintails, mallards, redheads, canvasbacks, little blue heron, American bittern and marsh 

wren. 

Because NA WCA has a proven track-record of incentivizing significant investment in highquality habitat protection and restoration efforts across North America, NWF supports bipartisan 

Congressional efforts to reauthorize this program. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we appreciate the committee's effort to address the important wildlife issues 

discussed in today's hearing, and look forward to working with you to further develop the 

proposed bills. Addressing these wildlife issues is important to help protect and conserve 

wildlife for our children's future. 

Thank you. 

'http://batcon.org/pdfs/USFWS_WNS_Mortality_2012_NR_FINAL.pdf 

'' Kauflinan. Gerald. 20 ll. Economic Value ofthe Delaware Estuarv VVatershed. University of 

Delaware, Newark DE. 

"'Dove, L.E., and R.M. Nyman (ed). 1995. Living Resources of/he Delaware Esluwy. Delaware 

Estuary Program Report Number 95-07. Pat1nership for the Delaware Estuary, Wilmington, DE 

"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center. 2008. Assessing !he 

Delaware River Basin (.J:"'·ing Land Cover li?formation. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast!action/ccapde-river 

7 
79 


25052.051

Questions for lnkley 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

1. Can you please describe the importance of investing in the conservation programs that would 

be authorized or reauthorized by the legislation considered at this hearing? What wildlife and 

economic benefits can be expected? 

The Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 Section {S.2071}, the Migratory Bird Habitat 

Investment and Enhancement Act (S.2156}, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Reauthorization Act (S.1494}, the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act {S. 

2282}, and the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act (S.1249} all pertain to 

extremely successful long-standing wildlife conservation programs previously established by the 

U.S. Congress. The current bills would allow the continuation and improvement of these critical 

wildlife conservation programs. The abundance of wildlife and wildlife habitat our country 

enjoys today is due in no small part to these programs, and must be continued as the pressures 

on wildlife continue to increase. Furthermore, abundant wildlife is a strong economic driver. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

" ... 87.5 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, or watched wildlife in 2006. They spent 

over $122 billion pursuing their recreational activities, contributing to millions of jobs in 

industries and businesses that support wildlife-related recreation. Funds generated by 

licenses and taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for many of the conservation 

efforts in this country and provide many hours of fishing, hunting, and wildlifeassociated recreation." 

The Wildlife Disease Emergency Act (5.357} will help to quickly address emerging diseases in 

wildlife before they become widespread, increasingly the likelihood of effective control and at 

lower long-term costs. We suggest further specification of membership of the Wildlife Disease 

Committee to ensure balanced representation, specifically including representation by one or 

more national 501 {c)3 wildlife conservation organizations, and the National Wildlife Health 

Center. We also recommend that this bill provide a means to also address disease in non-native 

species because of the potential for non-native species to harbor and transmit disease to native 

wildlife. 

The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act (S. 1266} would authorize the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service to establish o Program to maximize and coordinate on-going and future conservation 

and restoration activities in the entire Delaware River Basin. Expanded and more harmonized 

on-the-ground conservation efforts will reduce flood damage and improve fish and wildlife 

habitat, water quality and economic well-being for communities throughout the watershed. The 

Basin's natural resources are an important economic driver in the region, generating more than 

600,000 jobs in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware (Kauffman, G. 2011. 
80 


25052.052

Socioeconomic Value of the Delaware River Basin. University of Delaware Water Resources 

Agency.) Investing in the betterment of the Basin's ecosystems will ultimately ensure job growth 

and continued economic vitality. 

Senator Tom Carper 

Can you please expand on the level of federal investment in the Delaware River Basin watershed 

as compared with the level of federal investment in other nationally-significant watersheds? 

Over time, what are some of the risks ecologically, economically and otherwise that could come 

to be if the current level of federal investment in the Delaware River watershed remains 

unchanged? 

When compared to other large aquatic ecosystems, the Delaware River Basin in its entirety has 

received minimal federal investment for conserving and restoring its natural resources. 

Traditionally, federal dollars have been focused primarily on the Delaware Estuary portion of the 

watershed through the National Estuary Program. This program is certainly critical for the 

health of the lower Basin, but is not applicable to more than half of the watershed. For decades, 

this bifurcation of the system has limited the delivery of coordinated-and more effectiveconservation on the ground. The Delaware River Basin Conservation Act {S. 1266) would 

establish a Basin-wide Program ta maximize coordination, collaboration and efficiency in 

conservation efforts by States, local governments and non-profit organizations. This program 

will also infuse the area with funding through a competitive grant program which requires 

matching private dollars-a much-needed catalyst for continued and expanded conservation 

work. 

Although millions of people rely on the watershed as an engine that generates $22 billion in 

annual economic activity, relative federal investment in the health of the watershed has lagged 

behind. Specifically, wildlife-dependant recreation-including bird-watching, hunting and 

fishing-generates more than $1.5 billion and is a critical component of the economy in the 

region. A continued lack of coordination and dwindling resources puts this sector and its 45,000 

jobs at risk (Kauffman, G. 2011. Socioeconomic Value of the Delaware River Basin. University of 

Delaware Water Resources Agency.) 

Senator Benjamin Cardin 

Duck stamp bills (The Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act (S.2156) and 

Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act (S. 2017)) 

1. Does the National Wildlife support enactment of these bills? 

The National Wildlife Federation supports both The Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and 

Enhancement Act (S.2156) and Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act (5. 2017), and urges 

Congress to pass these bills. In an age of advancing electronic technologies, the Permanent 

Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012" {5.2071} would facilitate electronic sales of the duck stamp 

while retaining the long tradition of the annual duck stamp can test and collection of duck 
81 


25052.053

stamps by hunters and other supporters. The Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and 

Enhancement Act (5.2156) provides a much-needed mechanism by which the price of the duck 

stamp can be periodically assessed and raised to continue its effectiveness as property values 

and the consumer price index increase. 

2. Does the National Wildlife Federation recommend any changes to these bills? 

No, we urge passage of The Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act (5.2156) 

and The Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act (5. 2017) as currently drafted. 

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 

3. Your testimony mentions the occurrence of negative impacts on wildlife due to lead toxicity 

from target shooting ranges. Can these negative impacts be mitigated? Please elaborate. 

The safest and most cost-effective way to mitigate any potential negative impacts to wildlife due 

to heavy lead deposition at shooting ranges is to prevent lead deposition from spent ammunition 

from occurring in the first place, by the use of non-toxic alternatives to lead, such as steel shot 

and copper bullets. We recommend Congress include provisions in this legislation to improve onsite (at the shooting ranges) education about the dangers to wildlife of lead in ammunition and 

encourage conversion by shooters to non-toxic ammunition on shooting ranges and in their 

outdoor hunting activities. 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

1. In your testimony, you express strong support for S. 1249 (Target Practice and Marksmanship 

Training Support Act). I was interested to read in your testimony that you disagree with the 

bill's language that would reduce the non-federal matching proportion from 25% to 10% for 

purposes of providing public target practice facilities. Are you concerned that, as proposed, the 

cost-share provisions will actually result in less overall spending on target practice facilities on 

federal lands than if the non-federal cost-share was higher? 

Yes, we are concerned that the total amount invested in shooting ranges will be lower as a result 

of reducing the non-federal match from 25% to 10%. If $10 million federal dollars are available 

(for example), a 90:10 federal:state match would facilitate a total of only $11.1 million invested 

in shooting ranges, whereas o 75:25 federal:state match would facilitate a total (federal and 

state) investment of $13.3 million in shooting ranges under this bill, yielding a greater return an 

each federal dollar invested. Furthermore, to avoid the reduction of money invested directly in 

conservation, we recommend that the funding for this program come from the hunter education 

portion, not the wildlife restoration portion, of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program. 

2. Dr. lnkley, you are a strong supporter of S. 1494, which would reauthorize the National Fish & 

Wildlife Foundation program. What are some of the most significant conservation 

achievements obtained through this program in recent years? 
82 


25052.054

The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) has been enormously successful in achieving on 

the ground conservation through partnerships. Following are but a few examples of their many 

successes. Since 2004, NFWF and the Southern Company have invested over $8.7 million into 

projects which will restore more than 82,000 acres of longleaf pine forest. Another outstanding 

on-going project is the collaboration of the EPII Chesapeake Bay Program and NFWF, which will 

preserve 3, 729 acres of land, restore 32 miles of ripanan areas and stream banks and implement 

the best storm water management practices an 2,878 acres. Operation Migration has been 

helping to restore the endangered whooping crane. The Sea Turtle Conservancy, NFWF and the 

National Wildlife Federation were among other collaborators helping to safely relocate more 

than 25,000 sea turtle eggs at risk from the Gulf oil spill into cleaner areas on Florida's Atlantic 

Coast. NFWF has been a leader laying the groundwork for removal of the Great Works Dam on 

which commenced on June ll'h, 2012 after years of effort, and will help restore migrating 

Atlantic salmon to the Penobscot River. 
83 

Senator CARDIN. It is a pleasure to have you before the Committee. 

Dr. Wasserman. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN WASSERMAN, M.D., J.D., FORMER SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, OREGON 

PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

Thanks for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act. I am Dr. Martin Wasserman, and I 

have lived in Maryland for 45 years. And I received both my medical and law degrees here. I have treated children on the Navajo 

Reservation in New Mexico as well as in West Baltimore at University Hospital. 

Particularly relevant to today’s discussion, though, I have also 

been the Medical Director of Immunization Practices and Scientific 

Affairs for the Vaccine Division of GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals. As both a pediatrician and public health physician, I 

have always placed patients first. 

But when certain animal research or experimentation is no 

longer necessary, I have also considered my Hippocratic Oath 

which constantly reminds me to ‘‘do no harm.’’ To that end, I believe we have an obligation to utilize the most effective scientific 

methodologies when performing research in order to improve the 

public’s health. 

The legislation before you today has many components. One, it 

recognizes the social and behavioral similarities of chimpanzees 

and humans. But even though we share 95 to 98 percent of each 

other’s genetic material, the expression of these genes can be dramatically different in our two species. 

Two, it acknowledges chimpanzee contribution to past medical 

research, like polio, as stated, in 1950. But because of recent advances in scientific methodology, it recognizes that continuing to 

use them is unnecessary. Three, it rewards these animals’ service 

by phasing out invasive experimentation as we gain new knowledge and methodologies and provides lifetime care in a Federal 

sanctuary. 

Four, it codifies and provides the force of law, the force of law— 

the force of law—to the current NIH voluntary breeding moratorium and ends breeding of chimpanzees for the purpose of invasive 

research. And fifth, it will save the Government $300 million over 

the next 10 years. 

Four months ago the Institute of Medicine released a report on 

the necessity of chimpanzee research, initiated at the request of 

Senators Harkin, Udall, and Bingaman. As Dr. Anderson stated, 

Dr. Collins and NIH have taken the IOM report seriously, and they 

are to be applauded for their efforts. 

But theirs is the response of the current NIH leadership. And as 

we well know, administrations change, leaders change, and policies 

change. Passing this bill will exclusively focus on chimpanzees. It 

will ensure that invasive experimentation in chimpanzees will be 

phased out in the future and will encourage researchers to adopt 

alternative, more timely, and more fruitful research approaches. 

84 

In the IOM report, the authors did not find a single area of 

human health research for which chimpanzees are necessary. Even 

during their discussions of hepatitis C disease, the authors concluded that chimpanzees are not necessary for either anti-viral 

drug discovery or development or the development and testing of 

a therapeutic vaccine, and also that it is both possible and ethical 

to bring a preventive vaccine to human testing without using chimpanzees. 

Although hepatitis C remains a serious worldwide public health 

problem, further chimpanzee research will not be helpful in our 

battle against this disease. A variety of alternative research approaches for hepatitis C are available, including the VaxDesign 

MIMIC system. This human-based, in vitro system is appropriate 

for every stage of drug and vaccine development. Some businesses 

are developing new research methodologies already, and I am 

proud that my former company, GlaxoSmithKline, is no longer 

using chimpanzees in its research. 

Let me clear up a misunderstanding with regard to the Food and 

Drug Administration and chimpanzee research. The FDA does not 

require the use of chimpanzees for either drug or vaccine testing. 

In fact, during the past year the FDA approved two new drugs for 

hepatitis C, Bociprevir and Telaprevir, neither of which used chimpanzees in either the development or testing phase. 

In the beginning of my comments I mentioned the Hippocratic 

Oath, to ‘‘do no harm.’’ Consider the following. The United States 

is the only Nation in the world known to use captive chimpanzees 

for large scale invasive research. These animals respond to stress 

and trauma as we do. Published studies reveal that they suffer 

symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and when used in research they become clinically depressed and demonstrate multiorgan diseases. 

Since there is little we will gain by continuing to use them in research, there is no need to continue to keep them in costly laboratories where complex social and psychological needs cannot be met. 

In conclusion, concerns have been expressed that passing this bill 

would preclude the use of chimpanzees in the case of a national 

emergency. During the IOM hearings, experts in biodefense stated 

that chimpanzees would make poor models for future emerging diseases because of their slow response times, in terms of months 

rather than days. 

The bill’s sponsors have agreed to include an amendment inserting an emergency clause in case of a dire public health crisis. Provided it remains transparent, the clause should sufficiently address 

any public health concern about the future need for chimpanzees 

in research. 

I respectfully request that you pass the Great Ape Protection and 

Cost Savings Act. It will end a cycle of wasteful and unnecessary 

research, save money, and protect chimpanzees who have already 

given so much of their lives to research in the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wasserman follows:] 

85 


25052.055

Statement of: 

Martin Wasserman, M.D, J.D. 

Before the United States Senate 

Committee on the Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

April24, 2012 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Sessions, thank you for inviting me to speak today 

before the subcommittee in support of the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act. My name 

is Dr. Martin Wassennan. I have lived in Maryland for 45 years. It is where I received both of 

my graduate degrees: in medicine from Johns Hopkins University, and in law from the 

University of Maryland. I have served as the chief health officer for Maryland's two largest 

jurisdictions as well as for Arlington County, Virginia. I have also served as State Health 

Secretary for both Maryland and Oregon and have been the Executive Director ofMedChi, the 

Maryland State Medical Society, advocating for more than 25,000 physicians. I also served as 

Medical Director of Immunization Practices and Scientific Affairs in the Vaccine Division of 

GlaxoSmithK!ine Phannaceuticals. 

As a public health doctor and as a pediatrician, I have always placed patients first when 

balancing human needs against the needs of animal test subjects, but I have also considered my 

Hippocratic Oath, which constantly reminds me to "do no harm." And that is why I am here 

today to testify in support of the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act. 

This important piece oflcgislation is a bill of recognition, appreciation, and sensitivity. It 

recognizes the genetic, social, and behavioral similarities of chimpanzees and humans, who are 

95 to 98 percent genetically similar. It also acknowledges that the expression of these genes is 
86 


25052.056

dramatically different in chimpanzees and humans. It appreciates the past value of their 

contribution to medical research that has benefited humans hut also recognizes the advances that 

haw occurred in science since I was in medical school~--advanccs that have rendered the usc of 

chimpanzees unnecessary. It sensitively rewards these animals' service with lifetime care in a 

federal sanctuary. And it will save the government $300 million over the next 10 years. 

In addition to phasing out invasive experimentation on chimpanzees and releasing 

federally~owned chimpanzees to sanctuaries, this bill will codify the current National Institutes 

of Health's (NIH) voluntary breeding moratorium preventing any future violations like tbosc that 

occurred between 2000-2011 when 137 chimpanzees were born to federally-owned chimpanzees 

at the New Iberia Research Center in Louisiana, and end the breeding of chimpanzees for the 

purpose of invasive research. 

The timing oftoday's hearing is perfect. Just four months ago, the Institute of Medicine 

(10M) released its report Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the 

Necessity, compiled at the request of Senators Harkin, Udall, and Bingaman. NIH has taken the 

TOM report seriously, and they are to be applauded for their efforts. But theirs is the response of 

current NTH leadership, and···· ·as we all kno\v--adn1inistrations change, leaders change, and 

policies change. Passage of this bill is essential to ensure that the unnecessary usc of 

chimpanzees in invasive experimentation will not occur in the fi.tturc. 

In the I nstitutc of Medicine report, the authors did not tind a single area of human health 

research for which chimpanzees are necessary. Although there has been some discussion 

regarding hepatitis C, the authors of the report concluded the following: 1) "Chimpanzees arc not 

necessary for hepatitis C antiviral drug discovery and development;'' 2) "Chimpanzees arc not 

necessary for the development and testing of a therapeutic hepatitis C vaccine;" and 3) it is 

"possible and ethical" to bring a hepatitis C preventive vaccine to human testing without using 

chimpanzees. In fact I'm proud that my former company, GlaxoSmithKline, publicly stated in 
87 


25052.057

2008 that it would no longer use chimpanzees in their research. While I recognize that more than 

130 million people worldwide live with chronic hepatitis C, and that this disease is a serious 

public health issue, it is indisputably clear that chimpanzee research is not a necessary tool in our 

battle against hepatitis C. 

As a graduate of Johns Hopkins University I commend the schools of medicine and 

public health for their longitudinal studies of human hepatitis C patients. This long-term study of 

hepatitis C-infected intravenous dmg users provides human-specific infonnation regarding many 

aspects of hepatitis C acquisition, natural history, therapeutic responses, and vaccine 

opportunities. This, and similar studies, combined with the numerous human-based culture 

systems provides a more appropriate and reliable research methodology than redundant protocols 

using chimpanzees. The Modular IMmune In vitro Constmct (MIMIC) System, for example, 

replicates the human immune system and is appropriate for every stage of dmg and vaccine 

development. The MIMIC system, supported and funded by the U.S. Department of Defense 

specifically to develop biodefensc vaccines, is an example of where science is now and could be 

used in the development of vaccines for human immunodeficiency vims (HIV), hepatitis C and 

other life-threatening diseases. 

Let me also clear up a misunderstanding with regard to the Food and Dmg 

Administration (FDA) and chimpanzee research. The FDA does not require the use of 

chimpanzees for either drug or vaccine testing. In 2011, the fDA approved two new therapeutics 

for hepatitis C-~thc first in 25 years- from Merck and Ve1tex Pharmaceuticals and there arc 

two additional dmgs from Pharmasset and Bristol-Myers Squibb in the pipeline. None of these 

four medications used chimpanzees for either development or testing. The IOM report described 

a variety of alternative research approaches to the continued usc of chimpanzees, including cellbased testing and recombinant technologies, which are widely used for the development of 

monoclonal antibodies. 
88 


25052.058

Significant advances have been made in tbe development of a malaria vaccine without 

the usc of chimpanzees. A vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKlinc-which as I stated earlier 

does not usc chimpanzees-halved the risk for malaria intection in a final-stage trial of more 

than 15,000 African children. Ann-Marie Cmz, Ph.D., with the PATH Malaria Vaccine 

Initiative, told the IOM committee that chimpanzees were not essential to malaria vaccine 

research because humans can be used and represent a better model. 

In the 1980s the U.S. expanded its breeding program because chimpanzees were believed 

to be critical for HIV research. Although, more than 85 HIV vaccines were developed and 

exhibited benefits in chimpanzees and other non-human primates, all failed in approximately 200 

human trials. One vaccine that proved to be safe and effective in chimpanzees actually appeared 

to increase the chances of infection in humans. As someone who has worked in public health for 

30 years devoted to finding solutions for patients infected with HJV and other diseases, I find it 

disheartening that millions of dollars were allocated toward HIV and other research using 

chimpanzees without significant benefits to humans when those dollars could have been better 

spent pursuing alternative methodologies. 

At the outset, I mentioned the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Consider the following: 

The United States is the only nation in the world that is kno\v11 to still usc captive chimpanzees 

for large-scale invasive research. Chimpanzees respond to stress and trauma as we do. Published 

studies reveal that they suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and that chimpanzees 

used in research become clinically depressed. Since there is little we will gain by continuing to 

usc them in research there is no need to continue to keep them in laboratories. 

Concerns have been expressed that the passage of this bill would forever preclude the use 

of chimpanzees in research, even in the case of a national emergency. To address this concern, 

the Institute of Medicine received testimony from experts in biodefense representing the National 

Institutes of Health and the Department of Homeland Security, who stated that chimpanzees 
89 


25052.059

would make poor models for future emerging diseases. Nonetheless, I understand the bill's 

sponsors have agreed to include an amendment that would insert an "emergency clause" in case 

of a future dire public health crisis. From the public health perspective, 1 believe this new clause 

would address any concerns about the future need for chimpanzees in research. 

In closing, I respectfully request that you pass the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings 

Act in order to focus on new alternative research methodologies, end a cycle of wasteful and 

unnecessary research, and protect chimpanzees who have already given so much of their lives. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 
90 


25052.060

ATLA 37, Su lement 1, 19-27, 2009 

An Immunologic Model for Rapid Vaccine Assessment -

A Clinical Trial in a Test Tube 

Russell G. Higbee, Anthony M. Byers, Vipra Dhir, Donald Drake, Heather G. Fahlenkamp, Jyoti 

Gangur, Anatoly Kachurin, Olga Kachurina, Del Leistritz, Yifan Ma, Riyaz Mehta, Eric Mishkin, 

Janice Moser, Luis Mosquera, Mike Nguyen, Robert Parkhill, Santosh Pawar, Louis Poisson, 

Guzman Sanchez-Schmitz, Brian Schanen, lnderpal Singh, Haifeng Song, Tenekua Tapia, 

William Warren and Vaughan Wittman 

VaxDesign Corporation, Orlando, FL, USA 

Summary -While the duration and size of human clinical trials may be difficult to reduce, there are 

several parameters in pre~dinical vaccine development that may be possible to further optimise. By 

increasing the accuracy of the models used for pre-clinical vaccine testing, it should be possible to 

increase the probability that any particular vaccine candidate will be successful in human trials. ln addi~ 

tion, an improved model will allow the collection of increasingly more-informative data in pre-clinical 

tests, thus aiding the rational design and formulation of candidates entered into clinical evaluation. An 

acceleration and increase in sophistication of pre-clinical vaccine development will thus require the 

advent of more physiologically-accurate models of the human immune system, coupled with substantial advances in the mechanistic understanding of vaccine efficacy, achieved by using this modeL We 

believe the best viable option available is to use human cells and/or tissues in a functional in vitro model 

of human physiology. Not only will this more accurately mode! human diseases, it will also eliminate 

any ethical, moral and scientific issues involved with use of live humans and animals. An in vitro model, 

termed "MIMIC" (Modular !Mmune tn vitro <;;onstruct), was designed and developed to reflect the 

human immune system in a well-based format. The MIMIC® System is a laboratory-based methodology 

that replicates the human immune system response. It is highly automated, and can be used to simulate a clinical trial for a diverse population, without putting human subjects at risk. The MIMIC System 

uses the circulating immune cells of individual donors to recapitulate each individual human immune 

response by maintaining the autonomy of the donor. Thus, an in vitro test system has been created that 

is functionally equivalent to the donor's own immune system and is designed to respond in a similar 

manner to the in vivo response. 

Key words: clinical trial, drug testing1 functional assays, high-throughput, immune response, infectious 

disease, in vitro, vaccine. 

Address for correspondence: R. Higbee, VaxDesign Corporation, 12612 Challenger Parkway, Suite 365, 

Orlando, FL 32826-2784, USA. 

E-mail: rhigbee@vaxdesign.com 

19 

MIMIC® System Technology Overview the immunogenic potential of non-homologous pro· 

teins and many vaccine candidates. 

The MIMIC System is based on the multidimensional interrogation of leucocytes. It can simulate a 

clinical trial, including the effects of immunotherapy on human population subgroups, where 

responses can be clustered into groups that cap· 

ture genetic diversity and other important population characteristics, such as HLA haplotypes, age, 

autoimmune status, and gender. We hope that this 

dataset can guide the design of rapid and incisive 

adaptive clinical trials, as well as overcome limit· 

ing and misleading animal studies in predicting 

The MIMIC System is comprised of four different steps: 1) leucocyte collection and preservation, 

2) the Peripheral Tissue Equivalent (PTE), 3) the 

Lymphoid Tissue Equivalent (LTE), and 4) func· 

tional assays for assessing the in vitro immune 

response (Figure 1). 

Step one begins with the collection of donor leucocytes by aphreresis at a local blood bank. The processing of the leucocytes typically begins within an 

hour after collection, and the entire process to cryopreservation takes less than 4 hours. From a single 

aphreresis donation, approximately 10 billion leucoThis paper was originally presented at the Speed and Safety in Drug Discovery discussion meeting, hosted by Safer 

Medicines Trus~ and held on 26 November 2008 at the Royal Society, London (www.drugtestingconference,com). 
91 


25052.061

20 R.G. Hi bee et al. 

Figure 1: The four modules of the MIMIC System 

a) Blood cells b) Innate immunity: PTE module 

c) Adaptive immunity: LTE module d) Effectiveness: functional assay or disease model 

The four component modules of the MIMIC System: a) The collection of leucocytes from donors and their 

preservation; b) The second module, the Peripheral Tissue Equivalent (PTE) module, simulates innate immune 

responses. It comprises a monolayer of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) cultured above a 3· 

dimensional extra-cellular matrix upon which peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are applied; c) The third 

module, the Lymphoid Tissue Equivalent (LTE) module, simulates the adaptive immune response that would occur 

in the lymph node. Dendritic cells, follicular dendritic cells, T-cells and B~cells are applied in the correct sequential 

order to mimic the immune response expected in vivo; d) Functional assays, which indicate whether the immune 

response generated in the preceding modules is effective against the chosen stimulant or pathogen. 

cytes are obtained and processed for cryostorage by 

standard methods, whereby the donor's cells may be 

used at a later date. This approach allows multiple 

experimental iterations, such as different com~ 

pounds, doses or combinations, including enough of 

each to obtain statistically meaningful data. Because 

of the nature of the studies and the ability to cryopreserve cells, all the relevant controls, such as no 

treatment, drug alone and pathogen alone, can be 

run on the same \(surrogate human" at the same 

time. This is in striking contrast to what can be done 

with non-human primates (NHP) or in human clinical trials. An additional advantage over both NHP 

studies and human clinical trials is that the experiments can be repeated on the same "individual", as a 

portion of the primary cells can be frozen and stored 

for future use. 

The second step is to simulate a peripheral tissue. 

For this, we developed innate immune responses in 

the Peripheral Tissue Equivalent (PTE) module. The 
92 


25052.062

An immunologic model for rapid vaccine assessment 

prn~ module allows for a broad assessment of responses. from toxicity to immunoadjuvants, 

to 

also links to adaptive arm of 

system, allowing self-differentiation of 

extravasating into potent antigen-precells (DCs). 

simulate adaptive immune 

Tissue Equivalent (LTE) 

an artificial lymph 

cells from the 

21 

with the immune system's T-cells and B-

:Specttlc:a ll:v. the LTE is designed to reflect the 

in a lymph node, e.g., 

mcen<cclu"'"' antigen-B-cell interactions, 

T-ee!! and B-cell interactions. Th 1 or Th2 polaris amodule. 

The fourth step is to assess the immunocytes and 

biomolecules from the previous modules in a functional assay, such as microneutralisation 

haemagglutination inhibition, adherence 

CTL responses, or disease Having all 

these modules opexating in a 

vidcs a high-throughput, 

where multiple drug/vaccine candidates can be 

tested on multiple donors at the same 

the actual individual to a danFigure 2: The three populations of cells which arise in the Peripheral Tissue Equivalent (PTE) 

module 

Sub-population 1 

Immature CD14+ DC 

precursors 

Sub-population 2 

Immature CD14- DCs 

Macrophage-like 

cells 

Sub-population 3 

Mature DCs 
93 


25052.063

22 

The PTE Module 

The PTE morlule has been wdl characterised, and 

is a unique method of generating autologous den~ 

dritic cells by using 3·Jimensional tlssue engi~ 

neered construct (l<l). Simply put, the PTE 

hurh·throtlertmtt module that sponta· 

generates dendritic 

cells the principal antigen processing celLs 

(APCs) of the immune The PTE is comprised of a human endothelial monolayet· grown to 

confluence over a 3-dimensional extracellular 

matrix (Figure l), onto which purified peripheral 

RG-. Hi bee et al 

bloorl mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are placed. The 

immature of cells 

pounds of choice. 

Figure 3: A comparison of the cytokine response to immunomodu!ators in the MIMIC System 

and the industry-standard PBMC assay 

106 a) Poly I:C 1()6 b) CpG 2006 

::0 

s 

"' .s 

" 0 •t ·B 0 0 ., 

2 "' 2 

" "" Q 0 

" " ~ :;;; 

3 ~ 2 

PTE PBMC PTE PBMC 

J06 c) Gardiquimod 

" Q 

s -~ "' 3 s d § ·£ .B ~ " -o 

B "" [ "' w 0 

c c 

~ ;:;; 

u ~ 

PT!C PBMC PTE 

-~JL-la;llloo {[1{3; UAi;III~I£.8;111~ 
94 


25052.064

An immunologic model for rapid vaccine assessment 

The monocyte extravasation and the DC development kinetics match in uiuo physiology. An 

important aspect of the PTE is that the migratory 

DCs remain largely immature in the absence of an 

external stimulus. We have found that these 

immature DCs can acquire and process antigen 

when properly stimulated by adjuvants, maturing 

into potent DCs capable of initiating antigen-specific immune responses in LTE co-cultures. These 

DCs have shown the capacity to induce antigenspecific lympho-proliferation, cell-mediated cytotoxicity and T-helpcr cytokine production. 

We have found that PTE-derived DCs are very 

similar to in vivo DCs. The P'rE has shown that 

naturally extravasated monocytes constitutively 

and autonomously differentiate into either 

migratory DCs, or resident macrophages, in 

absence of stimulation, and this normally takes 

between 1-3 days; similar kinetics have been 

reported in vivo for both humans and animals 

(4-8). The transendothelial migration of blood 

monocytes promotes differentiation into potent 

antigen-presenting DCs in humans and animals 

(9-11), as observed in the PTE; extravasation of 

leucocytes is increased via endothelium activation in both the PTE and in vivo (12). Crossing 

the endothelium in the abluminal-to-luminal 

direction (reverse transmigration) in the PTE 

resembles the in vivo entrance of DCs into the 

lymphatics (13). 

23 

Similarly, in vivo, skin DCs will be one of the 

first cell types to engage a pathogen or foreign 

material, such as a vaccine or a topically applied 

chemical. The DCs produced by the PTE have been 

extensively characterised, and were found to be 

very similar in the expression of numerous surface 

markers to those of human dermal explants (14). 

Additionally, three subpopulations of DCs are also 

characteristic of PTE-generated DCs: immature 

DC precursors (CD14+), immature DCs (CD14-), 

and mature DCs (CD14-, HLA-DR+, CD86+, 

CDS3+), along with a fourth population of cells that 

differentiate to a more macrophage-like phenotype 

and do not reverse transmigrate back across the 

endothelial monolayer (Figure 2). 

The PTE has been found to largely recapitulate 

innate immune responses, when tested with vaccines, adjuvants, biologics, immunopotentiators, 

immunosuppressants and various pathogens. The 

PBMC assay is the accepted industry-wide standard for studying immune reactions (15). The 

MIMIC System has been found to produce a more 

physiologically relevant response than the PBMC 

assay (Figure 3) for various adjuvants and immunomodulators. 

To evaluate the immunopotency of Toll-like 

receptor (TLR) agonists in the in vitro lymphatic 

PTE module, we measured TLR-induced cytokine 

production. Overall, TLR agonists induced higher 

levels of cytokines in the PTE module than in 

Figure 4: The cytokine response to vaccines: A comparison of the MIMIC'" System PTE 

module and the industry-standard method 

140 140 b) 

] 120 

E 100 

a 120 

s 

]: 100 

" 

:E 80 .~ 80 tl 

i 60 " --o 

8 60 

"' $ "' ~ 40 :.;;; 

0 

'C- 20 

~ 40 

~ 20 

0 HBV 

= IL-6;11!1= IL-8; •= MCP-1. 

a) PTE-derived DCs; b) monocyte-derived DCs. 

Dendritic cells (DCs) created in the MIMIC System PTE module and monocyte-derived dendritic cells were exposed to 

three vaccines and the production of three inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8 and MCP-1) was measured. PTE 

peripheral tissue equivalent; HBV = hepatitis B virus vaccine; IL = interleukin; MCP = monocyte chemotactic protein; 

DTaP =diphtheria, tetanus toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine; Fluzone® =a killed, trivalent in{luenza vaccine, 
95 


25052.065

24 

conventional PBMC cultures (Figure 3). For example, polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (Poly I:C) and 

unmethylated synthetic cytosine-phosphateguanosine oligodeoxy nucleotides (CpG 2006), both 

induced the proinflammatory cytokines IL-l alp in 

the PTE module, but neither of these cytokines 

were observed in PBMC cultures. Poly I:C also 

triggered the production of TNFa only in the PTE 

culture (Figures 3a and 3b). Moreover, Poly I:C 

and CpG 2006 treatments elicited approximately 

100-1000 fold greater levels ofiL-6 and IL-8 in the 

PTE module than in PBMC cultures. Although 

Gardiquimod and LPS dramatically induced IL-l 

alp, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and TNFa, both in the PTE 

module and in the PBMC cultures, the PTE module produced approximately 3-6 fold more IL-l alp 

and IL-10, and 10-50 fold more IL-6 and IL·S, than 

PBMC cultures (Figures 3c and 3d). Hence, the 

PTE module was found to be more sensitive than 

conventional PBMC cultures in response to TLR 

stimulation (Ma et al. Assessing the immunopotency of Toll-like receptor agonists in an in vitro tissue engineered immunological model. Manuscript 

in preparation). 

When stimulated by vaccines, the PTE module 

mimics the in vivo state by producing cytokines 

R.G. Hi bee et al. 

known to be involved with inflammatory processes. 

Figure 4 shows the general innate reactogenicity of 

the commercially available vaccines, DTaP (Sanofi 

Pasteur, Inc.), Fluzone® (Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.) and 

Recombivax® (Merck & Co., Inc.), assessed by 

detection of a panel of prointlammatory cytokines 

in the PTE module. As can be seen, the reactogenicity is highest for DTaP probably as a result of 

a combination of bacterial components from diphtheria and acellular pertussis, and the presence of 

alum adjuvant. Fluzone shows moderate reactogenicity, that may be linked to a residue of egg 

albumin and the inherent stimulatory capacity of 

influenza virus proteins; and finally, the purified 

HBsAg sub-unit vaccine of Recombivax has less 

potency. Interestingly, several inoculations of the 

Recombivax vaccine are normally required in vivo, 

to elicit protective immunity. 

The LTE Module 

The Lymphoid Tissue Equivalent (LTE) module 

has been designed to largely recapitulate human 

adaptive immune responses in the lymphoid tissues of the body. Although there are many cellular 

Figure 5: A comparison of the specific immune response to tetanus vaccine, in vivo, and in 

vitro in the MIMIC System 

800 b) 

t5 700 

"' "' 600 

~ :::; 

~ 500 e .lj 

~ ·o 400 ~ 

< 2 300 :l Eo< 

ril Q 200 

~ 100 

day 7 day 12 

Thirteen volunteers were vaccinated with a commercial tetanus vaccine. Blood samples from each individual were 

taken before and after vaccination. 

a) The levels of tetanus-specific antibodies in the individuals' sera were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent 

assay (ELISA), pre and post-vaccination. 

b) Peripheral blood mononuclear cells, purified from both the pre and post-vaccination blood samples of the 

individual donors, were simultaneously evaluated in the MIMIC System. The number of tetanus-specific antibody 

secreting cells, after 7 and 12 days of in vitro culture, were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot 

(ELISpot) assay. •= pre vaccination;l~:/~0;\?= post vaccination. 
96 


25052.066

An immunologic model for rapid vaccine assessment 

types within any given lymph node, the MIMIC 

system incorporates two·, three· and four·way 

interactions of the key immune cells (DCs, follicular dendritic cells, B-cells and T-cells). The application of these cells to the LTE is in sequential 

order, to mimic these immunologically·relevant 

responses, similar to what is known to occur in 

vivo (16). VaxDesign follows fundamental design 

observations, whereby the right cells (CD4+ Tcells, B-cells, DCs, and follicular DCs) are placed 

together at the right time and in the right order, in 

an automatable, scalable, reproducible system to 

get the appropriate response (Moser, J.M., 

Sassano, E.R., Leistritz, D.C., Eatrides, ,J.M., 

Gaucher, D., Filali-Mouhim, A., Phogat, S., Koff, 

W., Sekaly, R-P., Haddad, E.K & Drake, D.R. 

[2009]. Dendritic cell-based assay for the in vitro 

priming of naive human CD4+ T cells. Manuscript 

submitted). 

As one example to validate the potential of this 

approach, we monitored the in uitro·generated 

tetanus toxoid (TT)-specific antibody levels in a 

cohort of donors before and after receiving 

tetanus vaccination. Purified CD4 T-cell and B25 

cell populations were combined with autologous 

tetanus vaccine· pulsed dendritic cells, to generate 

specific antibody. Enumeration of the TT-specific 

IgG antibody-secreting cells by enzyme-linked 

immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assays displayed a 

significant increase in the magnitude of this population after vaccination. The relative magnitudes of the in vitro-generated TT-specific 

antibody response before and after vaccination, 

largely recapitulated the TT-specific IgG serum 

titre profiles measured in the same individuals, 

as shown in Figure 5 (17). 

These findings provide evidence that the MIMIC 

System can be a rapid and representative in vitro 

method for measuring vaccine immunogenicity via 

induction of the memory B-cell response. In-house 

studies have clearly demonstrated that the use of 

purified lymphocyte populations and autologous 

DCs is more sensitive than bulk PBMC assays at 

generating both T-cell and B-cell immune 

responses (unpublished data). 

Similar results have been obtained with other 

commercial vaccines, such as those for recall anti· 

gens (e.g. hepatitis B virus and influenza viruses), 

Figure 6: Antibodies produced by the MIMIC System show effective neutralisation activity 

" ·E 1:16 

~ 

1:8 

1:4 

2 4 6 10 11 12 13 14 

donors 

Individual human donors' leucocytes were placed in the MIMIC System and stimulated with a commercialliveattentuated influenza vaccine. To test whether the antibodies produced by the B-cells in the MIMIC System are 

effective in neutralising the influenza virus they were tested, at serial dilution, in a standardised haemagglutination 

assay (HA). In this assay influenza virus particles cause agglutination of red blood cells (RBCs). Antibodies specific 

to influenza surface proteins will bind to the viral particles and will inhibit the haemagglutination. The greater the 

dilution of antibody-containing material, that still causes inhibition of agglutination, the greater the concentration of 

specific antibody. HAl= haemagglutination inhibition assay. 
97 


25052.067

26 

and primary response antigens, such as yellow 

fever virus. 

Functional Assays 

Functional assays are at the heart of the MIMIC 

System and determine whether the responses 

observed in previous modules of the MIMIC System 

are going to be effective against the original challenge material. For example, are the antibodies produced by B-cells effective at neutralising the original 

virus, as observed in the case for influenza (Figure 

6), or do T-ee!! antigen-specific responses lead to an 

increase in cytokine production, cytolytic activity or 

overall proliferation? Cytotoxic T~cell assays examM 

ined CD107a and interferon-gamma (IFN-y), both 

markers for cell killing. 

Since the MIMIC System can be re-stimulated in 

vitro many times, this is similar to the prime~boost 

scenarios used in vivo. This unique strategy allows 

for the possible application and testing of different 

primary and secondary stimulating antigen combinations to be delivered, all in vitro. CDS+ T-ee!! 

responses have been observed in the MIMIC 

System, for both recall antigens (live-attenuated 

influenza vaccine) and for naive antigens (liveattenuated yellow fever vaccine). 

R.G. Hi bee et al. 

Disease modelling can also be performed with the 

MIMIC System. 'Tuberculosis (TB) is classified as 

one of the most devastating granulomatous diseases 

world-wide (18). The MIMIC System has been able 

to successfully recapitulate granuloma formation in 

vitro, and to drive Mycobacterium tuberculosis to 

latency. Histological analysis of the PTE module 

seeded with M. tuberculosis and PBMCs revealed 

spontaneous granuloma formation. Haematoxylin 

and eosin staining of sectioned PTE modules seeded 

with M tuberculosis and PBMCs, clearly showed initial stages of granuloma formation in culture (Figure 

7). In this disease module, new antibiotics can be 

tested to determine whether they are effective on 

latent TB and could lead to new therapeutic regimens. (Pawar et al. An in vitro model of human 

tuberculosis granuloma and Mycobacterium tuber~ 

culosis latency. Manuscript in preparation). 

Automation 

The MIMIC system has been streamlined and 

automated from beginning to end, by using a 

unique, reliable and robotic system to construct 

and test each component of this in vitro cell-based 

technology. Automation allows for precise fluid 

handling, consistency between wells and tests, 

Figure 7: A cross-section of a MIMIC System PTE module seeded with Mycobacterium 

tuberculosis 

A MIMIC PTE module was seeded with M. tuberculosis and PBMCs. Examination of cross-sections, stained with 

haematoxylin and eosin, clearly showed the initial stages of granuloma formation, !vfacrophages, T-cells and B-cells, 

NK cells and fibroblasts are among the cells that aggregate to form the granuloma, with lymphocytes surrounding 

the infected macrophages. The MIMIC System has been able to recapitulate in vivo granuloma formation. This 

represents a novel disease model in which new antibiotics can be tested for efficacy against latent tuberculosis. 

PBMCs =peripheral blood mononuclear cells. 
98 


25052.068

An immunologic model for rapid vaccine assessment 

from one donor's cells to another, and provides a 

rapid platform to accomplish a very high-throughput system in the most cost-efficient manner currently available. 

Conclusions 

The MIMIC System is a high-throughput, automated, in vitro modular technology, which is capable of examining individual human donor immune 

cell responses to many different compounds, such 

as vaccines, adjuvants, proteins, chemicals and 

drugs. Innate immune responses primarily are 

observed in the PTE module, with the capacity to 

mimic multiple mucosal surface types, as well as 

different antigen delivery sites. LTE responses 

recapitulate in vivo adaptive immune response 

with the right cells, at the appropriate time, and 

under appropriate conditions, to permit the production of effective antibody production and/or Tcell responses to vaccines, biologics, biologicals, or 

pathogens. Functional assays test these antibodies 

or T-cells for performance against the stimulating 

antigen. Many of these involve cytokine production, increased titres in vitro, viral neutralisation, 

or cytotoxic T-ee!! assays. The MIMIC System 

allows testing for a variety of demographic groupings, such as for HLA typing, gender or age biases, 

and geographic regional differences. 

Acknowledgement 

This project was funded through the DARPA RVA 

Program (contract number NBCHC060058). 

References 

1. Randolph, G.J., Beaulieu, S., Lebecque, S., Steinman, R.M. & Muller, W.A. (1998). Differentiation of 

monocytes into dendritic cells in a model of 

transendothelial trafficking. Science, New York 

282, 480-483. 

2. Randolph, G.J., Sanchez-Schmitz, G., Liebman, 

R.M. & Schake!, K. (2002). The CDJ6+ (FcgRIII+) 

subset of human monocytes preferentially becomes 

migratory dendritic cells in a model tissue setting. 

Journal of Experimental Medicine 196,517-527. 

3. Shortman, K. & Liu, Y-J. (2002). Mouse and human 

dendritic cell subtypes. Nature Reviews. Immun· 

ology 2, 151-161. 

4. Zelivyanskaya, M.L., Nelson, J.A., Poluektova, L., 

Uberti, M., Mellon, M., Gendelman, H.E. & Boska, 

M.D. {2003). Tracking superparamagnetic iron 

oxide labeled monocytes in brain by high-field 

27 

magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience Research 73, 284-295. 

5. Pugh, C.W., MacPherson, G.G. & Steer, H.W. (1983). 

Characterization of nonlymphoid cells derived from 

rat peripheral lymph. Journal of Experimental 

Medicine 157, 1758-1779. 

6. Smith, J.B., Mcintosh, G.H. & Morris, B. (1970). 

The traffic of cells through tissues: a study of 

peripheral lymph in sheep. Journal of Anatomy 

107, 87-100. 

7. Fossum, S., Rolstad, B. & Ford, W.L. (1984). 

Thymus independence, kinetics and phagocytic 

ability of interdigitating cells. Immunobiology 168, 

403-413. 

8. Holt, P.G., Raining, S., Nelson, D.J. & Sedgwick, 

J.D. (1994). Origin and steady-state turnover of 

class II MHC-bearing dendritic cells in the epithelium of the conducting airways. Journal of Immunology 153, 256-261. 

9. Larregina, A.T., Morelli, A E., Spencer, L.A., Logar, 

A.J., Watkins, S.C., Thomson, A.W. & Falo, L.D. Jr. 

(2001). Dermal-resident CD14+ cells differentiate 

into Langerhans cells. Nature Immunology 2, 1151-

1158. 

10. Randolph, G.J., lnaba, K., Robbiani, D.F., Steinman, R.M. & Muller, W.A. (1999). Differentiation of 

phagocytic monocytes into lymph node dendritic 

cells in vivo, Immunity 11, 753-761. 

11. Ginhoux. F., Tacke, F., Angeli, V., Bogunovic, M., 

Loubeau, M., Dai, X.M., Stanley, E.R., Randolph, 

G.J. & Merad, M. (2006). Langerhans cells arise 

from monocytes in vivo. Nature Immunology 7, 

265-273. 

12. HelintO, M., Renkonen, R., Tervo, T., Vesaluoma, 

M., Saaren-Sepp&la, H., Haahtela, T. & Kirveskari, 

J. (2004). Direct in vivo monitoring of acute allergic 

reactions in human conjunctiva. Journal of Imm· 

unology 172, 3235-3242. 

13. Robbiani, D.F., Finch, R.A., Jager, D., Muller, W.A., 

Sartorelli, A.C. & Randolph, G.J. (2000). The 

leukotriene C4 transporter MRPl regulates CCL19 

(MIP-3b, ELC)-dependent mobilization of dendritic 

cells to lymph nodes. Ceil103, 757-768. 

14. Morelli, A.E., Rubin, J.P., Erdos, G., 'fkacheva, 

O.A., Mathers, A.R., Zahorchak, A.F., Thomson, 

A.W., Falo, L.D., Jr & Larregina, A.T. (2005). CD4+ 

T cell responses elicited by different subsets of 

human skin migratory dendritic cells. Journal of 

Immunology 175, 7905-7915. 15. Assenmacher, M., Lohning, M. & Radbruch, A. 

(2001). Detection and isolation of cytokine secreting 

cells using the cytometric cytokine secretion assay. 

Current Protocols in Immunology Unit 6.27, 1-10. 

16. Young, A.J. (1999). The physiology of lymphocyte 

migration through the single lymph node in vivo. 

Seminars in Immunology 11, 73-83. 

17. Byers, AM., Tapia, T.M., Sassano, E.R. & Wittman, 

V. (2009), In vitro antibody response to tetanus in 

the MIMICTM system is a representative measure of 

vaccine imrnunogenicity. Biologicals 137, 148-151. 

18. Toossi, Z. & Ellner, J.J. (2001). Pathogenesis of 

tuberculosis. In Tuberculosis (ed. L.N. Friedman), 

pp. 19-47. New York, NY, USA: CRC Press. 
99 


25052.069

October 4, 2011 

Bruce Altevogt, Ph.D. 

Study Director 

Institute of Medicine Committee on the Use of 

Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research 

500 Fifth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Sent by e-mail (baltevogt@nas.edu) 

Dear Dr. Altevogt: 

I am writing to report recent developments in the field of therapeutics for hepatitis C, that 

will be of interest to the Committee. In recent months, two new hepatitis C drugs have 

been approved for market by the Food and Drug Administration, and two others have 

shown particular promise in clinical trials. All four drugs have reached these stages 

without testing in chimpanzees. These drugs are Merck's Victrelis (bocepravir), Vertex's 

Incivek (telaprevir), Pharmasset's uracil nucleotide analog PSI-7977, and Bristol-Myers 

Squibb's NS5A inhibitor BMS-790052. 

Victrelis and lncivek were approved by the FDA in May 2011 for combined use with 

peginterferon alfa and ribavirin. A search of FDA and PubMed records reveals that the 

development and testing ofbocepravir was completed without the use of chimpanzees. In 

response to our inquiry, Vertex Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President 

Peter Mueller, Ph.D. stated that "chimpanzees were not used in the development of 

Telaprevir." Dr. Mueller's letter is attached. 

Pharmasset's PSI-7977 and Bristol-Myers Squibb's BMS-790052 have completed 

successful phase II clinical trials demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of hepatitis C, 

and both drugs are advancing to later phase trials. 

An inquiry to Pharmasset obtained a reply from Chief Scientific Officer Michael J. Otto, 

Ph.D., who stated: "In response to your e-mail and faxed letter, chimpanzees were not 

used in the development of PSI-7977. We do not use chimpanzees in our research or 

development and see no reason to change our approach." Dr. Otto's e-mail is attached. 

A diligent literature search reveals that BMS-790052 has not been tested on chimpanzees. 

Inquiries to Bristol-Myers Squibb have not been answered. 
100 


25052.070

Thus, both recently approved hepatitis C drugs and both new hepatitis C drugs showing 

particular promise in mid-stage clinical trials have been developed and tested without the 

use of chimpanzees. This is additional authoritative evidence that chimpanzees arc not 

necessary to bring new effective hepatitis C drugs to the public. 

We hope this information is useful for the Committee, and I would be pleased to answer 

questions or provide additional information at the Committee's request. Thank you for 

your ongoing careful consideration of the use of chimpanzees for biomedical and 

behavioral research. 

Sincerely, 

~m~ John J. Pippin, MD, F ACC 

Director of Medical Affairs 

Phone and fax: (972) 407-9396 

E-mail: jpippin@pcrm.org or jjpippin@sbcglobal.net 
101 


25052.071

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

(Held April 24, 2012) 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Answers by Martin Wasserman, M.D., J.D. 

June 19, 2012 

From Sen. Boxer: 

Q: Is it possible to drastically reduce the use of chimpanzees in medical 

research while allowing a few limited exceptions for medically necessary 

research consistent with the recent Institute of Medicine (10M) 

recommendations? 

The authors of the Institute of Medicine (10M) report did not find a single area 

for which chimpanzee research is medically necessary. 

The use of chimpanzees has decreased dramatically over the past several decades. 

Prior to the release of the IOM report last December only I 0 to 20 percent of the 

total chimpanzee research population was being used in research protocols at any 

given time. 

This is primarily due to three factors: 

o An increase in effective alternative models that offer more reliable costefficient results; 

o The exorbitant cost of using chimpanzees for research; 

o The recognition, by researchers and others, that the usc of chimpanzees is 

unethical. 

Regarding the necessity of chimpanzees for biomedical research the IOM 

committee concluded that" ... most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical 

research is unnecessary,'' based on the criteria established by the committee. 

There were two areas of research that the committee honed in on: 

o ''Development of future monoclonal antibody therapies will not require 

the chimpanzee, due to currently available technologies. However, there 

may be a limited number of monoclonal antibodies already in the 

developmental pipeline that may require the continued use of 

chimpanzees." 1 

The three-year phase-out of chimpanzee experiments written into the 

Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (S. 81 0) will provide for the 

completion of those studies. 

1 !OM report page 67. 
102 


25052.072

2 lbid. 

o In regard to a hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine: 

i. "The committee was evenly split and unable to reach consensus on 

the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of a 

prophylactic HCV vaccine. Specifically, the committee could not 

reach agreement on whether a preclinical challenge study using the 

chimpanzee model was necessary and if or how much the 

chimpanzee model would accelerate or improve prophylactic 

vaccine development.'' 2 

ii. The report further stated that, "'It is important to note that there was 

consensus among the committee that human trials of candidate 

vaccines could be designed and performed ethically without data 

from chimpanzee rcsearch." 3 Therefore, chimpanzees are 

unnecessary in HCV vaccine development. 

o In regard to a new or emerging disease or disorder an amendment could be 

added to S. 810 that would provide for the use of chimpanzees in the 

unlikely circumstance that they are found scientifically necessary. 

Regarding the necessity of the chimpanzee for comparative genomics and 

behavioral research the committee did not find that chimpanzees are necessary 

only that chimpanzees may be necessary. Fortunately, behavior and genomics 

research can be accomplished using noninvasive research techniques and stored 

biological samples, all of which is permitted under the proposed Great Ape 

Protection and Cost Savings Act. Further, chimpanzees do not need to be 

maintained in laboratories in order to conduct this type of research. 

Additionally. the committee stated that all chimpanzees used in biomedical, 

genomic, and behavioral research ''must be maintained in either ethologically 

appropriate physical and social environments or in natural habitats." No existing 

laboratory facilities have ethologically appropriate housing and none of them 

meet the complex social and emotional needs of chimpanzees. North American 

Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA) member sanctuaries such as Chimp Haven 

provide ethologically appropriate physical and social environments as required by 

the 10M report and can meet the complex needs of chimpanzees at a lower cost to 

NIH and taxpayers. 

In conclusion, it is not necessary to maintain chimpanzees for any current medical 

research and further not possible to maintain them in accordance to the 

ethologically appropriate housing requirements outlined in the !OM report. It 

would be absurd to build housing to maintain any number of chimpanzees in 

3 !OM report page 55. 
103 


25052.073

research laboratories, both from a scientific need perspective and a fiscally 

accountable one. I suggest implementing a full phase out and ban; in the 

extremely unlikely circumstances of a future need arising with scientific evidence 

that chimpanzee data could bring about a breakthrough for a new disease, 

bringing some chimpanzees back into research through the inclusion of a focused 

and specific contingency clause. But again, this is a highly unlikely circumstance. 

Q: What benefits can we expect from reducing the use of chimpanzees in 

medical research? 

By passing S. 810 and phasing out expensive and unnecessary chimpanzee 

experiments, tens of millions in federal dollars can either be saved each year or 

used to conduct more efficacious research that benefits human health. I 

recommend that NIH fund research using superior, advanced human relevant 

technologies that offer accurate results and improve human health. 

We have already seen the benefits of using non-chimpanzee research methods. 

For example, prior to the 10M report, chimpanzees were touted as the only model 

for hepatitis C research, yet the committee did not find one area of hepatitis C 

research for which chimpanzees are essential. Alternative models arc available 

and are being used in all areas of hepatitis C research. In 2011, the Food and Drug 

Administration approved two new therapeutics for HCV-the first in decades. 

Both were developed and tested without the use of chimpanzees, and additional 

HCV therapies that used alternative models are in the pipeline. 

Currently, millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on the warehousing of 

chimpanzees who are not being used in research protocols. One-third of the 

federally-owned chimpanzee population, housed at the Alamogordo Primate 

Facility, has not been used in research for more than I 0 years. Yet the housing 

and maintenance of those chimpanzees has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, with 

the maintenance of each animal costing $66 per day. 

While the 10M report did not make any assessment of the financial costs of using 

chimpanzees, it concluded that the "development of non-chimpanzee models 

requires continued support by the National Institutes ofHealth."4 

In conclusion, federal dollars saved by phasing out chimpanzee research and 

retiring federally-owned chimpanzees could be used towards the development of 

superior technologies and research of value. 

4 !OM report page 67. 
104 


25052.074

From Sen. Cardin 

Thank you for your testimony. You have testified that ending much great 

apes research is necessary and appropriate, but that there is room to modify 

S. 810 as currently written to bring it more in line with the Institute of 

Medicine report, which concludes that a blanket ban on testing would be 

inappropriate. 

Q: Are the Institute of Medicine criteria appropriate for evaluating 

chimpanzee research? 

The Institute of Medicine report did not conclude that a ban on chimpanzee 

experimentation would be inappropriate. In fact, atter stating that chimpanzees 

have been previously used to obtain scientific information the report stated that 

'"the past is not necessarily prelude.'' 5 In addition, the committee recognized that 

"the limited number of available animals and the potential need to perform 

experiments under conditions ofbiocontainment could potentially constrain the 

value of the chimpanzee during a public health emergency.'' 6 

Nonetheless, the report did not fully close the door to the possibility of needing 

chimpanzees in the future. However I would support an amendment to this S. 810 

that would allow for the use of chimpanzees in the event of an unexpected 

outbreak of a new and life-threatening disease- if there is scientific evidence that 

no alternatives to the chimpanzee exist that demonstrates that the use of 

chimpanzees is scientifically warranted, and that the process is as transparent as 

possible. 

However, the !OM criteria fell short of what must be considered when evaluating 

the use of chimpanzees in research. The committee was charged with evaluating 

the scientific necessity of using chimpanzees, while "neither the cost of using 

chimpanzees in research nor the ethical implications of that use were specifically 

in the committee's charge." 7 I would submit that the financial costs of using 

chimpanzees, particularly in light of the current national economy, and the ethical 

implications ofthcir use cannot be overlooked. 

Additionally, the committee stated that all chimpanzees used in biomedical, 

genomic, and behavioral research "must be maintained in either ethologically 

appropriate physical and social environments or in natural habitats." Further, the 

committee stated that ''All [genomics and behavioral] experiments are performed 

on acquiescent animals .. .'' It is critical that '"ethologically appropriate" and 

5 IO!Vl report page 65. 6 Ibid. 

IOM report page 14. 
105 


25052.075

·'acquiescent" be defined clearly if the IOM 's criteria arc to be implemented 

correctly. 

Existing laboratory facilities are not ethologically appropriate and cannot meet the 

complex social and emotional needs of chimpanzees. Housing chimpanzees 

individually or in small social groups in concrete runs or primadomes is 

inappropriate. North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA) member 

sanctuaries such as Chimp Haven provide ethologically appropriate physical and 

social environments as required by the !OM report and can meet the complex 

needs of chimpanzees at a lower cost to NIH and taxpayers. 

To suggest that genomic and behavioral experiments could be performed on 

"acquiescent" chimpanzees introduces a notion of implied informed consent that 

is unrealistic and implausible in this context and for this species. 

Further, the third criterion set forth by the committee ("[florgoing the use of 

chimpanzees for the research in question will significantly slow or prevent 

important advancements to prevent, control, and/or treat life-threatening or 

debilitating conditions'') is problematic. The only way to attempt to meet this 

criterion would be to conduct the actual research first, and even then, a 

determination of whether this criterion is met, is subjective at best. This is the 

very reason why the committee was split and unable to reach a consensus on the 

necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of a prophylactic HCV vaccinebecause the application of these criteria is anything but a black and white issue. 

We will never know if not using chimpanzees in past biomedical research would 

have harmed biomedical research, or instead, would have led us down alternative 

paths with more effective results. There is no evidence that any restrictions in 

research have ever harmed biomedical progress. However, when scientists are 

pressed to justify why they want or need to do what they propose, the result is 

commonly much better science. 

In conclusion, the !OM criteria alone are not appropriate for evaluating current or 

future chimpanzee research. The terms ethologically appropriate and acquiescent 

must be clearly and accurately defined while the financial burden on tax payers 

and ethical implications must he scrutinized if the use of chimpanzees is going to 

be considered in the event of an unexpected outbreak of a new and litethreatening disease. Additionally, application of the third criterion can he difficult 

and will not necessarily provide det1nitive answers, as evidenced by the 

committee in its evaluation of the necessity of the use of chimpanzees for the 

development of a prophylactic hepatitis c vaccine. 

Q: Did the Institute of Medicine accurately capture the potential limitations 

of a blanket ban on chimpanzee research? Please elaborate. 
106 


25052.076

The Institute of Medicine report stated: "The committee cannot predict or forecast 

the future need of the chimpanzee animal model and encourages use of the criteria 

established in this report when assessing the potential necessity of chimpanzees 

tor future research uses.''8 The contingency clause proposed as an amendment to 

S. 81 0 addresses this issue by clearly allowing for the use of chimpanzees in the 

face of a human health emergency as long as it is scientifically proven that such 

use of chimpanzees would yield a breakthrough and the circumstances meet the 

!OM report criteria. 

8 !OM report page 66. 
107 


25052.077

From Sen. Sessions: 

Q: Do you agree that the Institute of Medicine has stated that the federal 

government should not close the door on chimpanzee research at this time? 

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (S. 81 0) is a three-year phase out 

of the use of chimpanzees in invasive research, therefore allowing the 

continuation and finalization of any invasive studies currently underway. 

Additionally, the bill does allow for certain research, such as noninvasive studies. 

It is important to point out that the Institute ofMedicine (!01'<1) could not identify 

any current area of biomedical research for which chimpanzee use is necessary. 

The 10M committee did suggest making chimpanzees available for a future 

biomedical use that is not known at this time, but that "(t]he present trajectory 

indicates a decreasing scientific need for chimpanzee studies due to the 

emergence of non-chimpanzee models and technologies."' 9 

The !OM concluded that chimpanzees arcn 't necessary for the study of a wide 

range of diseases, including HIV. RSV, malaria, antivirals and therapeutic 

vaccines to treat hepatitis C. There were two areas of research flagged by the 

committee: monoclonal antibodies and efficacy testing of a prophylactic 

(preventative) hepatitis C vaccine. In regard to monoclonal antibodies, the 

committee made it clear that chimpanzees will not be needed for future 

monoclonal antibodies research, but that some currently in the development 

pipeline may require the use of the chimpanzee until the studies are completed. 

Discussions with the committee clarified that the timeline for this is no longer 

than three years and, importantly, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act 

is a three-year phase out. Further, the committee was evenly split as to whether 

chimpanzees are necessary for efficacy testing of a prophylactic Hepatitis C 

vaccine-so did not draw a definitive conclusion as to necessity in either of these 

areas of research. There are a number of alternatives currently in use for this area 

of research, and additional alternatives are also under development that will likely 

be completed in the near future. 

In regard to future use, representatives from the Department of Defense and the 

National Institutes of Health have stated that the chimpanzee model would not be 

appropriate for time sensitive research necessary in an emergency human health 

crisis. It often takes a significant period of time for diseases or conditions to 

develop in the chimpanzee model, largely due to their immunological differences 

from humans. 

Dedicating resources into keeping chimpanzees in laboratories, who are not likely 

to be needed in future research, takes away resources from areas of research that 

need support now. Limited resources would be better invested in the development 

9 !OM report page 5. 
108 


25052.078

of alternative research methods which could provide a wider range of uses and 

benefits. For example, VaxDesign's MIMIC (Modular Immune In Vitro 

Construct) could be used to test a wide range of vaccines using human immune 

cells. When a chimpanzee is infected with a disease, the chimpanzee could live 

with that disease for up to 60 years (even if it appears that the chimpanzee has 

cleared the virus, it may be present in cells without detection) and it will not be 

known how that disease may impact infection with any other diseases or the study 

of pharmaceuticals. In other words, an infected chimpanzee can live for 60 years 

with very limited utility, whereas a system such as MIMIC. allows for research of 

a wide range of diseases on human cells over that same period of time. thus 

saving time, money and ultimately lives by getting therapeutics to the market 

much quicker. 

While I don't believe that chimpanzees are necessary in invasive research, I 

would support an amendment to this legislation that would allow for the use of 

chimpanzees in the event of an unexpected outbreak of a new and life-threatening 

disease- ifthere is scientific evidence that no alternatives to the chimpanzee exist 

-that demonstrates that the use of chimpanzees is scientifically warranted, and 

that the process is as transparent as possible. 

Q: Would S. 810 essentially ban medical research on chimpanzees? 

The legislation would phase out the invasive use of chimpanzees in research over 

three years however researchers could still conduct noninvasive research on 

chimpanzees that could help to advance medical knowledge, such as noninvasive 

behavioral and genetic research. Importantly. chimpanzees do not need to be kept 

in laboratories in labs for these types of research. Emerging disease research 

conducted on wild populations (such as collection of fecal and hair samples) is a 

more effective way of identifying emerging diseases and learning of the origins of 

existing diseases. For example, information about HlV can be determined by 

collecting fecal samples of wild chimpanzees. 

Q: The federal government needs to examine all possible options lor 

reducing expenditures. If S.810 were enacted into law, and if the 

chimpanzees currently in federally-funded research facilities were 

transferred to sanctuaries, would new sanctuary facilities need to be built in 

order to house and care for the chimpanzees NIH currently supports? How 

much would those efforts cost, and who would cover those costs'? 

A white paper on the economics of this bill is attached, which lays out all of the 

taxpayer savings related to the passage of this hill. This legislation can save the 

federal government approximately $25 million annually. The bulk of the savings 

would come from ending invasive and unnecessary research. However, there are 

also significant savings related to the retirement of federally-owned chimpanzees 

in sanctuaries, despite the fact that the federal sanctuary system is legally required 

to follow higher standards of care than the laboratories. 
109 


25052.079

The 10M report stated that chimpanzees should be housed in ethologically 

appropriate environments. There is not one chimpanzee laboratory to date that has 

ethologically appropriate housing. So, in order to be IOM compliant, massive 

investments would need to be made in laboratory construction, which would be 

unworkable due to space limitations and absurd to pursue for a population of no 

use in research. These investments are in addition to the already higher cost of 

maintenance in laboratories compared to sanctuaries. 

Conversely, the attached white paper details how expected construction costs at 

sanctuary would eventually be off~ct due to the lower cost of care at sanctuaries, 

versus maintaining them in laboratories. 

It is important to note that Chimp Haven--the national chimpanzee sanctuary 

which currently holds the government contract to care for federally-owned 

chimpanzees who are retired from research--has created plans to take in another 

300 chimpanzees and is willing to work towards plans to take in as many as 900; 

almost the entire laboratory population. Therefore, it would not be necessary for 

new sanctuaries to be built but rather existing tacilities could be expanded. 

Another potential option is to retire the chimpanzees at the Alamogordo Primate 

Facility (Alamogordo, NM) "in place'' and have a non-profit sanctuary take over 

management of the property. However, with this option, it will be critical for a 

nonprofit to manage the site due to the fact that a nonprofit does not function to 

earn a profit, as the current contractor at the site does. Further, nonprofits also 

have much lower indirect costs in comparison to the current laboratories, which is 

as high as 70 percent at some facilities. Moreover, the mission of a sanctuary is 

focused entirely on the well-being of the chimpanzees. The Alamogordo Primate 

Facility would likely require some renovations but, if it is a viable option, could 

even further increase the savings of the bill over the current projections provided 

in the white paper. 
110 


25052.080

Federal government budget savings from defunding invasive research on chimpanzees 

and retiring government-owned laboratory chimpanzees to sanctuary 

This report was commissioned by The Humane Society of the United States and prepared by 

Carl V Phillips, PhD. Dr. Phillips is an economist and epidemiologist specializing in assessment 

of complex bodies of data. He was professor of public health and medicine, most recently at the 

University of Alberta and previously at the University of Texas, teaching courses for 15 years on 

quantitative analysis of public policy decision making. He currently runs a private Consultancy, 

focusing on regulation of the use of animals, as well as alternative strategies for reducing the 

health effects from smoking, and other areas of public health policy. 

7 June 2012 

Abstract 

Research on chimpanzees is heavily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A 

proposed bill, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (S. 810 I H.R 1513), would 

prohibit all invasive research on chimpanzees and retire federally-owned chimpanzees to 

sanctuaries. While calls for such legislation are substantially motivated by ethical concerns and 

questions about the usefulness of the research, the bill also offers substantial cost savings for 

the federal government A conservative estimate puts the total annual savings at almost $20 

million, and it could be as large as $25 million. Ending the use of chimpanzees in federallyfunded invasive research would save $15-20 million annually, even allowing for some 

alternative research to take its place. Retiring chimpanzees who are now housed in laboratories 

to sanctuaries would also be cost saving in itself. Additional savings could be found in ending 

subsidies for privately-owned chimpanzees and reduced future lab expenditures. 
111 


25052.081

Background and Overview 

Health science research using chimpanzees as models for human health effects is ethically 

controversial. Despite those concerns, the U.S. government currently funds invasive (physically 

or psychologically damaging) research on a few chimpanzees, as well as the maintenance of 

hundreds more in government-funded laboratory facilities, even though they are not being used 

in any active research and haven't been for over a decade. This situation would present a 

dilemma if current situation represented a cost-effective method for health research or for 

housing the captive chimpanzees. 

However, research on chimpanzees turns out to be very expensive compared to other methods 

of pursuing the same research questions, while housing them in labs is considerably more 

expensive than moving them to more suitable facilities. Recent analysis, most notably a report 

from a panel convened by the Institute of Medicine (I OM) 

(iom.edu/Activities/Research/Chimpanzees.aspx), argues that due to advancing competing 

technologies, most invasive chimpanzee research is already obsolete as a method of 

understanding human health, and the rest will be soon. 

In light of those observations, the U.S. Congress is currently considering a bill, the Great Ape 

Protection and Cost Savings Act (S. 8101 H.R. 1513), that would: 

• prohibit invasive research on chimpanzees and end federal funding for such research 

• retire to sanctuaries all federally-owned chimpanzees who are currently housed in 

research labs 

• prohibit the breeding of additional chimpanzees for research 

In addition, since the bill would end NIH's support of invasive research on chimpanzees and 

laboratory housing for government-owned chimps, most assessments predict that it would also 

indirectly: 

• end the current NIH funding for the housing and care of privately owned chimpanzees 

The present analysis estimates the federal government budget savings that would result from 

this legislation. For purposes of the budget analysis, the ethical concerns can be set aside and it 

can be seen as similar to any analysis of cost savings frorn phasing out obsolete and inefficient 
112 


25052.082

materials and procedures. As with many such situations, it is useful to keep in mind the political 

economy concepts of principal-agent theory and agency capture. Government employees, 

contractors, and grant recipients conducting research would ideally act as perfect agents, doing 

what is optimal for their principals, the American people. But principal-agent theory points out 

that agents generally have somewhat different incentives than their principals. As is often the 

case, the agents have become specialists in doing particular things in particular way, and stick 

with that even when this is no longer in their principal's best interest. Moreover, decisionmaking processes are often "captured" by those who have the greatest financial interest, often 

to the detriment of the people as a whole. 

In the present case, continued use of chimpanzees in invasive research and housing in labs can 

be seen a serving the interests of the agents more than the principals. But since the decision 

makers (about research grants and such) are among those who benefit from the status quo, 

there is not likely to be a natural transition to alternative research methods without action like 

the proposed legislation. Without such an intervention, the current practices of research and 

housing are likely to be self-perpetuating despite the available budgetary savings and other 

arguments in favor of change. 

The case that the proposed defunding would unquestionably result in budgetary savings is quite 

easy to make. Eliminating federal funding for invasive chimpanzee research and prohibiting the 

breeding of additional chimpanzees for research would self-evidently result in cost savings, as 

would the ending the current NIH funding for the housing and care of privately owned 

chimpanzees, assuming it occurs as predicted. Moving the chimpanzees from labs to 

sanctuaries would also generate large savings because, as shown in the analysis below, 

sanctuary housing is much less expensive than the costs estimated for labs. 

While precise quantification of the savings is not possible for reasons discussed below, the 

savings for the proposed policy can be conservatively estimated at about $20 million per year, 

and could be as high as $25 million. Individual components of that estimate appear in Table 1 

and the analysis for each follows. 

Federal government spending on chimpanzee research and housing 
113 


25052.083

Federal expenditures on research chimpanzees include: 

• Housing and care for over 450 chimpanzees in four laboratories which are 

privately owned and operated, but receive significant federal funds. 

o (Alamogordo Primate Facility, New Mexico (172 chimpanzees based on the last 

official report) 

o New Iberia Research Center, Louisiana (117) 

o MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas (154) 

o Southwest National Primate Research Center, Texas (25) 

• Subsidies which support over 200 privately-owned research chimpanzees at these labs 

• Invasive research, funded by grants on a project-by-project basis. 

• Non-invasive research, funded by grants on a project-by-project basis. 

• A breeding program and possible future capital expenditures on the research lab facilities. 

• Housing for 115 (at current count) government-owned chimpanzees at Chimp Haven, a 

sanctuary for retired research chimpanzees as well as chimpanzees formerly used in 

entertainment or the pet trade, a private entity that holds a contract with the government to care 

for retired, government-owned chimpanzees and receives more than 75% of its funding from the 

government through a private/public partnership. 

Quantifying the exact savings from the legislation is challenging because payments in support of 

these activities are spread across numerous research grants and other budget items, and many 

of those funding items combine spending on housing and research, or include some activities 

that would be prohibited along with non-invasive research that could continue. There is no 

official tally of the total cost, nor even a listing of all of the sources of spending on research 

chimpanzees. Official estimates exist for housing costs, but as noted below, they are clearly 

incorrect. 

Given the ambiguities in the available data, there is little hope of providing estimates of the 

savings that are better than ±1 0%, and ±20% is probably a more realistic goal. No one who 

understands the uncertainty surrounding the question would claim that much more precision is 

possible. However, that level of uncertainty is still sufficiently precise to demonstrate that there 

would be substantial savings. 
114 


25052.084

Cost of federally-funded invasive research 

Grant funding information from NIH is available to the public via the RePORTER data portal 

(accessible via projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cf). All government funding for the laboratory 

housing and all federally-funded health and behavioral research on captive chimpanzees falls 

under NIH (assuming there are no programs that are not publicly reported). The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had a chimpanzee research program, but returned their 

animals to New Iberia Research Center ownership in 2009, where they are supported by NIH 

through endowments and leasing fees. It is possible that the military and other government 

agencies engage in some form of chimpanzee research, though the Department of Defense 

denied having such a program at a recent IOM meeting. If such research does exist, however, 

that is difficult to assess and it might be subject to entirely different considerations, and so is not 

considered in this analysis. 

A search (using keywords for variants of "chimpanzee", followed by manually reviewing the 

content each record to assess which category it falls into) of the RePORTER data for grants 

paid in FY2011 finds the following: 

There were approximately 30 projects with total funding of about $12 million for invasive 

research that would have been prohibited under the new proposal. 

A similar number of additional projects, funded for approximately $13 million, included 

invasive chimpanzee research as one of several components. 

If all of these had been eliminated, the savings in 2011 would have been $25 million. A more 

conservative estimate allows for the non-chimpanzee (probably less expensive) parts of the 

research in the second category to have been done, for a reduction in the range of $20 million. 

The uncertainty of these estimates represents the difficulty in determining, from the published 

information, how much some projects depend on invasive chimpanzee research, and in some 

cases whether they involve it at all (either because they are borderline for the definition in the 

proposed bill or because they do not clearly report what they will do to the animals). Some of 

the abstracts are so vague that it is impossible for the reader to be certain whether 

chimpanzees or other apes were even being used, though their genus name appears in the 

keywords. In other cases, the authors do not clearly state what is being done to living animals, 

as opposed to genetic material or cell lines. This could be the inadvertent result of jargon and 

attempts to be terse, but the obfuscation seems to exceed what is typical even for technical 
115 


25052.085

medical research, and so it is difficult to not perceive it as intentionaL Research proposals 

involving human subjects generally state quite clearly what is being done to how many people. 

But in the case of the chimpanzee research proposals, experiments that look at viral infections 

are often described in terms of genetics and tissue, and it is unclear whether live chimpanzees 

are involved; work that is described in terms of animal behavior is often really focused on 

exploring what can be done with scanning equipment and thus involves sedation and restraint of 

the animals. 

Most of the grants fund periods of approximately one year; however, to the extent that they fund 

longer periods, the future carryover from them will be approximately balanced by carryover into 

2011 from previous years' allocations. Thus, the figures serve as an estimate for one year's 

expenditure or one year's commitment. 

It is likely that the expenditure on chimpanzee research would trend downward, even in the 

absence of significant restrictions, for the same reasons that this legislation is being considered. 

However, it seems unlikely that there would be large reductions anytime soon. Most of this 

research is being carried out by a small number of researchers and institutions that either run 

the labs or have close ties to them, the actors referred to above in the context of principle-agent 

and capture theory. Thus, the 2011 expenditure offers a good estimate for projected annual 

spending, in real dollars, for the medium-term. 

Presumably a portion of the research that would be prohibited would be replaced by other 

research methods, reducing the savings. However, that portion appears to be quite small. Very 

little, if any, of the chimpanzee research seems to be motivated by trying to answer a specific 

critical question, which would be the circumstances that would require an alternative method to 

be substituted. Moreover, to the extent that the general questions being explored are important, 

the useful research using (probably cheaper) alternative methods would have already been 

funded as part of that important pursuit. Put another way, we are aware of no evidence that 

there are any potential research projects that have not been funded based on the assessment, 

"this would be worth doing if we did not have chimpanzee research, but since we are doing the 

chimpanzee research, this does not need to be funded." Nevertheless, a conservative estimate 

requires allowing for some replacement of the research that would cease, though well under 

1 0% of the total. 
116 


25052.086

In addition it appears that some of the cost of housing and care of the chimpanzees is hidden in 

these research grants. To avoid double counting, this should be removed from the cost of 

research. However, because it is hidden, the appropriate reduction can only be estimated 

based on the apparent underestimate of the cost of care at some facilities (see the analysis in 

the following section). On this basis, and allowing for a contribution from the behavioral 

research that would not be banned, it appears that up to 10% of the research grant funds are 

used to cover housing and care. 

Based on this analysis, we can conservatively estimate that the elimination of this invasive 

research (excluding housing and care costs) would result in a savings of more than $15 million 

annually, and the figure could conceivably be as high as $20 million. 

Estimated current costs of housing 

The costs of housing are summarized in Table 2, and the supporting analysis appears in this 

section and the following section. 

The FY2011 NIH allocations for the housing and care of chimpanzees living in labs, as reported 

in RePORTER, was $17 million. It would be a misleading overestimate to call this the average 

annual cost, however, because FY2011 expenditures happened to include a greater than 

average amount of funding for future years. However, NIH's own published estimates 

(grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/cost_for_caring_housing_of_chimpanzees.htm) are equally 

misleading, with a bias toward underestimate. It is possible to use the available data to provide 

a realistic estimate that falls in between. 

The NIH's estimates for the cost of housing and care vary across labs by a factor of 3 (on a perchimpanzee per-day basis, hereafter denoted "per chimpxday"). Even within a single facility, 

the Southwest National Primate Research Center, the costs reported for two different groups of 

chimpanzees (covered by different funding streams) vary by a factor of 2.5. It is not plausible 

that these differences reflect genuine variations in costs, yet the NIH simply averaged the 

numbers together without attempting to explain the discrepancy. 
117 


25052.087

A closer examination shows that something close to the high end of NIH's reports range is the 

best estimate. At the high end is $67 per chimpxday at the Alamogordo Primate Facility, with its 

172 chimpanzees, more government-owned chimpanzees than live in any other facility. This 

facility is unique in that none of the chimpanzees there are currently used in research; they are 

designated as "research reserve". At other facilities, research grant funding-- the invasive 

research quantified above, as well as another $5-10 million annually for non-invasive research--

apparently covers some of the cost. The $67 figure is too high, however; NIH bases it on the 

2011 allocation of $4.2 million/year, but that is from a contract with a front-loaded payment; the 

average for the contract, which includes extensions through 2014, is only $3.9 million/year. This 

lowers the total to $62.50 per chimpxday, assuming no change in the population. 

The fact that it averages to exactly this round number strongly suggests that this per-day 

number was the basis for the contract amount. Since this was a contract for just the housing 

and care of chimpanzees, this seems to be the revealed NIH estimate of the true cost when 

there are no hidden subsidies. (There are likely some additional performance incentives 

promised to the contractor since there were in the previous contract. But, the figures were 

redacted from the public version of the previous contract and it is not known what appears in the 

current one. If there are substantial incentives, they make the estimate used in this report even 

more conservative.) 

This figure is comparable to the higher of the two numbers for Southwest National Primate 

Research Center at $56 per chimpxday; it is substantially larger than the figure for MD 

Anderson, $46, but not completely out of line. The other two figures presented ($29 at New 

Iberia Research Center and $22 for a population of chimpanzees at Southwest that are 

described as owned by the lab but supported by NIH) are simply not plausible estimates of the 

full costs of care. The former may represent substandard care, since New Iberia Research 

Center settled with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for Animal Welfare Act violations 

in 2010 and is currently under investigation by USDA for additional alleged violations. The latter 

presumably represents a partial subsidy rather than full costs. All the figures that are lower than 

the Alamogordo Primate Facility grant probably result from some support for housing and care 

in research grants, as well as intentional or unintentional cross-subsidization from other lab 

activities or other hidden budget items. The primate labs house other species that are much 

less expensive than chimpanzees, and the low numbers might be explained by cross-subsidies 

or even averaging some costs across the entire population of different species. 
118 


25052.088

Conservatively rounding the $62.50 per chimpxday down to an average of $60 based on the 

possibility that the lower figures at other facilities genuinely reflect somewhat lower costs, and 

counting the most recently reported population, the ongoing cost of care for chimpanzees in 

labs is $13 million/year. 

Comparative cost of alternative housing 

Chimp Haven currently serves as the home for research chimpanzees retired from federal 

research, currently housing 115 of them (in addition to another 14 that were privately owned and 

are privately supported). It receives most of its funding from a federal contract that covers 75% 

of operating costs and 90% of construction related to the government owned chimpanzees, with 

private donations providing the balance of those costs. Other chimpanzee sanctuaries exist, 

and at least one appears to have slightly lower operating costs, but because Chimp Haven 

already has federal funding, and budget numbers are available, this analysis is based only on 

that facility; if other facilities offer additional options, that could further increase the cost savings. 

Chimp Haven's most recent annual report (for 2010) shows receipt of government funds that 

average to $42 per chimpxday, based on a count of 122 government-owned chimpanzees 

retired from research (chimphaven.org/news/annual-report-archive/), though because 16 

animals were added at some point during that year, a more conservative estimate is $44 for an 

average population of 116. The aforementioned NIH published estimates put the figure at $47, 

but that is inexplicably based on only three selected months of the 2011 budget. Even the $44 

figure may be an overestimate, since it is larger than Chimp Haven's current reported costs (see 

below) and is more than 75% of the total spent on chimpanzee care, and so may reflect some 

one-off expenditures (e.g., they report building a new veterinary clinic that year). 

Chimp Haven is required to provide a higher standard of care in comparison to the laboratories 

in terms of both health and social environments (as per 42 CFR, Part 9: Standards of Care for 

Chimpanzees Held in the Federally Supported Chimpanzee Sanctuary System). Even after 

adding the private donations, this costs somewhat less than the estimated cost of lab housing, 

and once the private donations are considered, the budgetary savings is substantial. This 

combination of higher quality and lower cost should not be surprising since Chimp Haven is 
119 


25052.089

purpose-built for providing care, while the labs are built to facilitate the use of animals in 

research and managed and staffed accordingly, 

Based on these numbers and the calculated costs of lab housing, keeping the governmentsupported chimpanzees at Chimp Haven rather than in a government-supported lab saved 

about $0.7 million in 2010. 

It is not the past costs that determine the cost savings, however, but what the costs are after 

increasing the population, and the projections show that the savings increase substantially. 

Chimp Haven reports that it currently houses retired government chimpanzees for about $39 per 

chimpxday in government payments ($52 total), with an average cost for the 15 privately retired 

chimpanzees that is a third lower due to the additional management staff required by the NIH 

contract (these and the following input figures based on growth projections recently calculated 

by Chimp Haven and provided by request to The HSUS.). The reason for this difference 

between these figures and the 2010 report are not clear; it might be increasing efficiency or the 

misleading inclusion of one-off costs in the 2010 analysis. In any case, this lower average cost 

for the current population, by itself, represents an increase in federal cost savings compared to 

lab housing of about one-third. 

The Chimp Haven report also shows that the facility is and has been operating substantially 

below its physical capacity. There would be major economies of scale for adding the next 50 

chimpanzees and substantial economies of scale for up to double the current population. 

Average costs per chimpanzee are projected to drop by about 20% as the population doubles 

and current overcapacity is used, increasing to 25% as expansion continues and other 

economies of scale are realized. 

Specifically, the marginal cost of the next 100 chimpanzees added will be only about half the 

current average. Thus, moving another 100 federally-funded chimps is predicted to increase 

the federal budget savings compared to lab housing by about $1.3 million annually (this does 

not include the savings already realized from the current Chimp Haven population). 

Chimp Haven has a plan for its physical space that would increase capacity to 425 

chimpanzees, with the possibility of housing about 25% more with a change in configuration. 
120 


25052.090

This would require $23 million in capital expenditures (the federal government would pay 90% of 

that, based on the current contract), about one third of which would be for the expanded 

quarantine facility that would be needed for the transfer of large numbers from lab settings. 

Over that range, there are some additional economies of scale (beyond the 20% reduction 

already mentioned). Considering the projected capital and operating costs compared to the 

estimated cost of lab housing, this puts the break-even point at housing an additional 200 

chimpanzees at Chimp Haven -- beyond the aforementioned doubling that comes with 

substantial economies of scale -· at about 9 years. (This is based on real dollars and current 

labor costs, and with no discounting of out-years for comparison to capital costs which is 

appropriate due to the federal government's current zero-interest-rate cost of borrowing.) 

Given the life expectancy of chimpanzees, over 20 more years on average for the current lab 

population, this represents further budgetary savings, though the exact quantification depends 

on the exact life expectancies of the chimpanzees and the discount rate used for the savings in 

out-years, since it involves operating cost savings offsetting a capital expenditure. 

To the extent that the currently-planned expansion is inadequate to cover a complete transfer of 

the lab population, Chimp Haven or another facility would need to expand further; the only basis 

for estimating that cost is to extrapolate the current Chimp Haven expansion plan. Based on 

that, there would continue to be a modest net savings as the transfer scales up. 

It is possible that the private donations that cover 25% of operating costs might not scale up to 

cover the entire research chimpanzee population, though Chimp Haven's projections are based 

on the assumption that they will. However, even if there were no donations, the sanctuary 

housing would represent a budgetary savings compared to labs, and the additional capital cost 

would more than break even over the chimpanzees' lifetimes. To the extent that donations fall 

short, the net budgetary savings would need to be adjusted downward. 

An option that has been suggested is conversion of the Alamogordo Primate Facility to a 

retirement sanctuary for the 172 chimpanzees currently housed there. This would increase the 

salvage value and might lower the average costs of the retirement. Since this is currently 

speculative and has not been formally assessed, all that can be said about it is that if it turned 

out to be a suitable and less costly option, it would further increase the federal savings on 

housing costs. 
121 


25052.091

Other avoided costs: capital expenditures on laboratories and breeding program 

The expenditure to build existing lab facilities for housing chimpanzees is sunk, though there 

would presumably be some salvage value for the equipment and alternative uses of building 

space. However, there have been suggestions of multi-million dollar expenditures for further 

construction. While we are aware of no approval of any such funding and it is unclear whether 

there are any official proposals at this time, it seems impossible to maintain the lab housing for 

the rest of the chimpanzees' lives without substantial capital spending, particularly in light of 

concerns about the quality of care. Thus, the capital expense of expanding Chimp Haven or 

sorne suitable alternative is at least partially offset by reduced capital spending at the labs. 

Neither NIH nor the labs seem to report projected equipment replacement needs or other data 

that could be used to estimate the capital expenditures that would be required to keep the 

chimpanzees in the labs well into the 2030s. While optimal accounting calls for building such 

needs into annual budgets via depreciation charges, the more typical practice in contexts like 

this is to ignore facility degradation and inadequacies until a large one-off expenditure is needed 

to solve a crisis. Thus, we have no basis for estimating the avoided capital expenditures. 

Estimating the salvage value might be possible, but has not been attempted. Given the figures 

that have appeared in recent, albeit unofficial, discussions of spending, it seems likely that the 

average annual cost would be in the mid-six-figure range over 20 years, less than the cost of 

building at Chimp Haven, but substantial. 

Though there is a moratorium on breeding new government-controlled chimpanzees, New Iberia 

has an ongoing contract with NIH for about $1 million/year to breed new chimpanzees for use 

by NIH researchers. Chimpanzee researchers have pointed out that the lab chimpanzee 

population is aging and estimated that a breeding program to keep it stable would cost $9.5 

million per year (dpcpsi.nih.gov/orip/documents/ChimP05-22-2007.pdf). While there is little 

chance that this would occur, even if it were not prohibited, if current research is allowed to 

continue then there will be pressure to replace at least some of the population. Private 

contracts and ownership could be used, but if there were still a federal research program, this 

would likely be supported by federal subsidies in one way or another. 
122 


25052.092

Subsidies for housing and care of privately-owned chimpanzees 

There are approximately 200 privately-owned chimpanzees housed at the Yerkes and 

Southwest facilities, and the federal government pays some of their costs. The amount of these 

subsidies are buried in the huge budgets of these facilities (which house animals other than 

chimpanzees), and we have not been able to uncover a definitive documentation or even 

estimate. Because the subsidy need not cover the entire cost, it could conceivably be any 

portion of the approximately $60 per chimpxday total cost. 

Some rough estimates of the costs of these subsidies have been extracted from statements to 

the press (there is no official reporting), but it seems that the best we can realistically do is offer 

a conservative hypothetical: If future subsidies were merely half of the total cost, $30 per 

chimpxday, the annual federal cost would be about $2 million annually. Under the proposed bill, 

the private owners are not required to retire the animals and the federal government would not 

be required to end subsidies. But with lab housing of the government chimpanzees and 

invasive research ended, the ending of subsidies seems likely. Since the costs at sanctuaries 

are lower than those in labs, presumably the private owners would be interested in retiring the 

animals to such housing (either Chimp Haven, or developing or supporting an alternative facility 

if maximum capacity at Chimp Haven is reached, or the private sector believes they have a 

more efficient alternative). 

Discussion and Conclusions 

While ethical considerations are at the forefront of the discussion of the Great Ape Protection 

and Cost Savings Act. the impact in terms of cost savings would be substantial in itself. 

This savings come with limited costs. In terms of expenditures, the cost of alternative housing 

and substituted research are already built into the net savings calculation. Obviously findings 

from the prohibited research would no longer be generated. But the ongoing invasive research 

appears to be almost all vague exploration that is already being conducted using other methods, 

rather than attempts to answer specific questions of immediate value. It has been suggested 

that some deadly emergent disease might change the ethical calculus and call for 

experimentation on chimpanzees. But should such an unfortunate event occur, the retired 
123 


25052.093

chimps could be drafted back into research (there are no specific provisions for that, but 

obviously it would be done in an emergency). Thus, this contingency does not represent any 

real opportunity cost of ending existing research or changing the housing situation. It could be 

argued that there is not currently enough capacity in sanctuaries to house the lab chimps, and 

expansion might not keep up with demand created by the proposed phase out- the provision 

for retirement in the legislation takes effect no later than three years after enactment. But this is 

no reason to not retire the chimpanzees as rapidly as possible; indeed, because of the current 

extra capacity at Chimp Haven, the savings will be greatest for the first rounds of retirements. 

To the extent there is concern about job creation, Chimp Haven appears to employ slightly more 

people for housing and care of the animals than do the research labs (though the latter figure is 

difficult to estimate), despite the lower cost. Funding that is shifted away from research projects 

using chimpanzees could be shifted towards other areas of health research, used for other 

federal government projects, returned to the private sector, or used to reduce the deficit. 

Because chimpanzee research is so expensive, it seems almost certain that repurposing these 

funds elsewhere in the economy will result in an increase in jobs, but analyzing that is beyond 

the present scope. 

Summing the potential savings from the proposed legislation, and interpreting the data 

conservatively, shows cost savings of almost $20 million annually. This is based on over $15 

million in research grants (conservatively predicting that non-chimpanzee aspects of the 

research would go forward and there would be some substitute research, and allowing that 

some of the research grant funding was really subsidizing housing), over $1 million in housing 

savings from the immediate economies of scale for doubling the Chimp Haven population, and 

$2 million in subsidies for housing privately owned animals. 

Relaxing the conservative assumptions puts savings from research grants alone closer to $20 

million. Adding to that the net long-run savings in housing costs from expanding Chimp Haven, 

allowing for greater savings from discontinuing private subsidies, and allowing for some savings 

related to lab capital expenditures and breeding could increase the annual savings estimate 

from the conservative $20 million to $25 million or more. 
124 


25052.094

Cat~j!;ol'y ob~vlng~ > ' ' , . Grants for invasive research1 

San~tua,YHi:iusl\:>g rather tliao Lab H!lusing' fi..St 100 ttansferr~d 

Ending l'Ur<ent ~re¢~iryg "~ chimp;mzees 

Ending housing and care subsidies for 

privately owned chimpanzees 5 

Avoiditigfutu~e ~!>·~~~fb"eed)hg ~n!l.ll'!> 

c;~pital improvem1!!nts . . 

additional transfers 

Conservative end of range based on assumption th,1t projects Including components that did not 

not be reduced substant1a!ly, and that a substantial port1on of the grants covers housing and care costs. 

This figure is reported at greater precision than the others because (a) it is based detailed accounting 

estimates by Chimp Haven and (b) it is useful to emphasize that a careful calculation of this figure shows 

it to be positive. (Every other entry in this table is self-evidently positive, even if imprecise, while this one 

theoretically could be negative, so it is worth emphasizing that it has been carefully calculated.) The level 

is not meant to imply that the total savings can be estimated with such precision. 

The possibilities range from mmimal 

upgrades of facilities to resummg an aggressive breeding program, and so the avoided costs could be anywhere within the seven-hgure range, 
125 


25052.095

TABLE 2: Comparative Cost of Housing and Summary of savings 

Population Source Federal cost Qer Number of chimps Estimated annual 

chimpxday (based on mQst federal cost per 100 

recent reQorts}§ chimps 

Federally-owned Conservative $60 478 $2.2 million 

laboratory chimps estimated average 

Federally-subsidized Assumption of $30 210 $1.1 million 

laboratory chimps approximately 50% 

subsidy 

Chimp Haven, 2010 Chimp Haven annual $4410 116 $1.6 million 

report 

Chimp Haven, next Chimp Haven growth $32 $1.2 million 

100chimps projections 

Summary of annual federal budget cost savings related to chimpanzee housing 

Chimp Haven 2010 (population=117) vs. all-lab housing I $0.7 million 

Next 100 chimps transferred to Chimp Haven I $1.3 million 

Most or all of remaining lab population transferred I additional savings 11 

1 NIH's official 2011 estimates on the cost to care for chimpanzees in laboratories and sanctuaries 

{grants.mh.gov/grants/po!icy/air/cost_for_caring_housing_of_chimpanzees.htm) allow for no useful estimate of the actual cost. The maximum 

is a bit of an overestimate (see note 2) but the tow€r numbers dearly fail to a.:count for other sources of funding 8 These numbers change constantly due to deaths and other factors, but are approximately current. 

estimate based on cost to care for chimpanzees based on what NIH !s currently paying for federally-owned chimpanzees, 

is supplemented by private donations; the federal contract pays for 75% of variable costs and 90% of construction costs. This figure is 

somewhat conservative because it does not use the max1murn population, but rather est1mates the average, and because it may mdude some 

one-off capital costs. NIH incorrectly reported the 2011 cost to have been $47 based on an unrepresentative period, though Chimp Haven 

reports it has actually dropped a bit compared to 2010. 

lllt is dear there will be a savings, but it is complicated by trading off needed capita! expansion versus lower vanable cost, as well as unknown 

savings in Jab capita! costs that would result 
126 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Dr. Wasserman. 

Dr. Schildwachter. 

STATEMENT OF GREG SCHILDWACHTER, PH.D., 

WATERSHED RESULTS LLC 

Mr. SCHILDWACHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for your excellent pronunciation. I appreciate that as much as I appreciate Senator Inhofe’s welcome though it was remarkable more 

for enthusiasm than for accuracy in pronunciation. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHILDWACHTER. And I thank you for taking up the measures before you today. They are nearly all about active conservation, which gets less publicity usually than environmental conflicts, 

perhaps because it is less noticeable in the out of the way places 

where it takes place and less attractive with the actual physical 

labor involved in habitat restoration. But it is more important than 

what divides us. 

We cannot live without wildlife or the places where they live. 

And active conservation is how we ensure that we have them. It 

is a starting point for where we can all agree. It is a standard for 

resolving our disagreements over regulatory protections. And it has 

been the historical commitment for sportsmen for more than a century in American history. And though I speak today for myself, I 

know for sure that many sportsmen’s organizations will share in 

the views that I share with you today, especially in thanking you 

for the bipartisan agreement on the agenda today. 

Active conservation comes down to someone who must do the 

work, and often that is the landowner. In fact, it must be a landowner if we are to succeed. We also need Federal support to share 

this responsibility. The costs must be shared because the values 

are also shared, and the benefits that are created from habitat conservation. 

The programs you consider today show that responsibilities are 

being shared in a way resembling infrastructure policy. That is appropriate because habitat is the infrastructure for wildlife, and the 

principle at work is that those who enjoy the benefits most directly 

pay most directly to support them. The general benefits fall on everyone, and therefore a share of Federal funds is right and proper. 

The sportsmen’s ethic has always been to create and cultivate that 

which we seek to enjoy and to pay our way. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an example, and 

I support Senate 1494 to reauthorize it. NFWF is a true—not rhetorical—investment in that $1 of Federal expense returns multiple 

dollars back from the private sector. It returns an actual return. 

NFWF has proven successful in its nearly 30∂ year history, nearly 

30-year history, and the bill refines the authority according to that 

experience. For example, the provision authorizing how funds can 

be exchanged between NFWF and the agencies will make it more 

efficient. 

NFWF is a valuable mixed model of public and private conservation to leverage the strengths of the governmental role and the 

abilities of the private sector. Likewise, NAWCA, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, is a cost share arrangement between private and State partners that raise money for wetland conVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25052.TXT SONYA
127 

servation, and I support S. 2282 and recommend its reauthorization. NAWCA is one of the six major wetland programs we have 

and part of the reason we are on track to regaining prevalent wetlands in this country. 

The Duck Stamp Program for which we have both Senate 2071 

and Senate 2156 is similar, and I support these bills as well. With 

these measures, more people will be able to purchase the duck 

stamp more easily, and the inflation adjustment likely to follow 

will restore some of the buying power of these conservation dollars. 

I support Senate 1249 for similar reasons. Shooting ranges are 

a different form of infrastructure for conservation, but these are 

places where training and competition in the skills of marksmanship become either a hobby or the avocation of fair chase hunting. 

Arms and ammunition pay an excise tax into the fund that would 

support these ranges and which, in turn, would create more revenue for the fund and recruit more participants in the sports that 

support wildlife and habitat conservation. 

I have fewer observations on the other measures, Mr. Chairman, 

but I have provided these in my written statement. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear. I look forward 

to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schildwachter follows:] 

128 


25052.096

Greg Schildwachter 

Watershed Results ,,, 4632 2"' St South 

Arlington, VA 22204 

(202) 657-4330 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITIEE ON 

WATER AND WILDLIFE 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING on 

S. 810, Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 • S. 1249, Target Practice and 

Marksmanship Training Support Act • S. 2071, Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 • 

S. 357, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act of 2011 • S. 1494, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Reauthorization Act of 2011 • S. 1266, Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2011 • S. 2156, 

Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act 

Greg Schildwachter, PhD 

Watershed Results LLC 

March 13, 2012 

Thank you for taking up these important measures. My comments begin with the bills closest 

to my expertise as a professional conservationist, which includes my background as a biologist 

and staff director for this subcommittee, and my current practice as a consultant and advocate 

for sportsmen, other conservationists, and businesses and philanthropies with conservation 

interests. I am sure many of them hold views like those I express below but I am speaking only 

for myself today. 

The bills concerning the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (S. 1494), the Duck Stamp (S. 

2071 and S. 2156), and the Pittman-Robertson Act (S. 1249) all relate the core ethic of hunters, 

fishermen, and other stewards of nature. Our ethic is to create and cultivate that which we 

seek to enjoy: fish and wildlife and their habitats. These are essential pleasures to us in season 

and out as well as to the millions of others who know them as the scenery of great places for 

outdoor fun. These bills call upon the proven commitment of sportsmen to sustaining these 

treasures, which is good cause for support and a good general principle for understanding fish 

and wildlife issues. 

The ethic beneath these bills is rooted deeper than a century in American history and is sturdy 

support for confidence going forward. When Theodore Roosevelt founded the first national 

wildlife conservation group in America- the Boone and Crockett Club (1887) -local hunting 

and fishing clubs had already been active for 50 years advocating for basic wildlife laws we obey 

to this day. Since TR later set conservation as a national issue during his presidency, sportsmen 

have put their passion for wildlife toward resolving the larger paradoxes of wildlife policy, such 

as how to secure the public trust for wildlife while supporting it with the efficiency of private 

enterprise. We have done it well, as NFWF, the Duck Stamp, and Pittman-Robertson have 

shown, and today we consider refinements that will improve these policies further. 
129 


25052.097

Schildwachter Testimony on Water and Wildlife bills 

13 March 2012 

page 2 

Several of these policies are user-pay arrangements that keep costs and benefits closely tied to 

those who participate, but there are important general benefits also. These policies and 

programs use public spending for real economic rewards that self-perpetuate by turning 

increased participation into added opportunities to participate. I ask your help carrying this 

success forward. 

S. 1494, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2011 

I recommend passage. NFWF has proven successful in its nearly-30-year history and the bill 

refines its authority according to what we have learned through experience. 

For example, the provisions authorizing how NFWF and public agencies may exchange funds are 

designed to make those transactions more efficient. NFWF already covers all overhead costs 

for the work done with direct appropriations. We should ensure that routine transactions do 

not needlessly add to those costs. 

The authorization of appropriations is the central piece. As you consider it, please note that 

NFWF is a true- not rhetorical- investment. It returns actual dollars for a public dollar 

committed. This is especially relevant to your proper scrutiny of the Federal budget now 

underway. Nothing can be spared from this scrutiny or some meaningful reduction that helps 

control unsustainable deficits. For the same reason, efficient spending that helps move the 

economy should be recognized as such and allowed to continue working. NFWF has 

consistently doubled or tripled its appropriation with private dollars. It is also part of the strong 

multiplier effect by which conservation promotes economic activity. For example, the outdoor 

recreation economy that depends on fish and wildlife and habitat, generates $730 billion in 

total economic activity. Of this, $289 billion annually is direct retail sales. These activities also 

raise $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue. 

NFWF is a valuable mixed-model between public and private conservation that is able to 

leverage the strengths of the governmental role in conservation with the strengths of the 

private sector's abilities. For example, in government, salmon conservation is a joint 

responsibility of several departments and bureaus, and NFWF is able to focus concerted efforts 

on goals through a unified program. Also, for government, response to the Gulf oil spill must 

necessarily be deliberate and painstaking, and NFWF is able to move fast and logically to begin 

the most obvious response work immediately, as it did last year. 

NFWF is good business for conservation and this bill deserves your vote. 

Watershed Results m -4632 2nd St South- Arlington, VA 22204 
130 


25052.098

Schildwachter Testimony on Water and Wildlife bills 

13 March 2012 

page 3 

S. 2071, Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012; S. 2156, Migratory Bird 

Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act 

I recommend passage of both of these bills. The Duck Stamp is the historic symbol and means 

of securing waterfowl habitat. But it has also been a bit frozen in time as it still only dabbles on 

the Internet and has not been adjusted for inflation since we all still used floppy disks. 

It has proven largely successful and will be more so with the changes proposed here. This 

program operates with very low overhead costs and the Office of Management and Budget 

review in 2008 found the program largely effective and efficient. With the improvements of 

these two bills, more people will be able to purchase the Duck Stamp more easily and the 

inflation adjustment likely to follow from S. 2156 will restore some of the buying power of 

these conservation dollars. 

Two more reasons to support upgrading the Duck Stamp program: it is one of the user-pay 

arrangements in sportsmen conservation and it is far more effective in achieving wetland 

conservation goals than regulatory schemes. It is "user-pay" on its face because you must buy 

one to go duck hunting, and at a deeper level because what you pay enables habitat 

conservation that makes it possible to go duck hunting. On the regulatory point, I refer to the 

detour of the last few years in which a debate over wetland regulation, which mitigates about 

20,000 acres per year, has turned attention away from active conservation programs that 

conserve nearly 1 million acres per year supported in part by the Duck Stamp program. A vote 

for these bills is a move back toward what we can accomplish by action that we can never do 

through regulation alone. 

S. 1249, Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 

I recommend passage. Shooting ranges are, like wetlands, a form of infrastructure for 

conservation and this bill would enable the use of existing sportsmen-conservationist dollars to 

pay for them, which, in turn, will create more revenue for this fund and recruit more 

participants to the sports that support wildlife and habitat conservation. 

The bill is timely to address two pressing problems: (a) declining opportunity to participate in 

shooting sports and (b) obstacles to recreational shooting on public lands. Sportsmen have in 

the last 12 years accomplished several reviews of the status of hunting and other shooting 

sports that identify the issues on which the future of conservation hangs. One recurring leading 

issue from these studies is, simply put: we need more people to go outside and play. The need 

is acute for involving young people and also former participants in shooting sports, hunting, and 

other outdoor recreation. Shooting sports, and therefore shooting practice ranges, are a key to 

success. 

Watershed Results LLc- 4632 2nd St South- Arlington, VA 22204 
131 


25052.099

Schildwachter Testimony on Water and Wildlife bills 

13 March 2012 

page4 

The availability of recreational shooting opportunity is a precursor to recruiting participants to 

this and other forms of outdoor recreation, including hunting. Starting in 2000 when several 

sportsmen conservation groups formed the American Wildlife Conservation Partnership, and 

continuing through the work of the Sporting Conservation Council (a Federal Advisory 

Committee) and the publication of the 10-year Action Plan pursuant to Executive Order 13443 

and its adoption by the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, sportsmen have 

been repeatedly clear that we need more such opportunities. 

The bill properly calls upon the Pittman-Robertson fund for support of shooting ranges. This 

fund collects the revenue of the Federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition; 

therefore, it is another example of the user-pay principle in conservation policy and is selfperpetuating: as we encourage more participation in recreational shooting and in hunting, we 

expand the customer base that pays the excise tax. 

There is an issue that this bill fails to address that should be noted without delaying the 

progress of this bill. Shooting ranges on the lands of the Bureau of Land Management are 

governed by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, which complicates arrangements 

noticeably in comparison to the Forest Service, which has more discretion. In fact, partly 

because of these complications, the BLM is, in effect, phasing out shooting ranges in parts of 

the country where sites are most available. I hope this issue attracts some interest from 

members of the committee and I offer to help find a way to address it. 

S. 1266, Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2011 

I understand this bill has already been reported. I think large-scale conservation efforts such as 

this one make a lot of sense, especially in watersheds that serve so many people, because this 

approach is more likely to spur active projects to improve resources than to rely on regulatory 

approaches alone. 

The greatest challenges to a large-scale conservation effort are reaching agreement on a list of 

priority actions, sticking to that list as closely as resources and opportunities allow, and 

reserving some of the scarce time and money in the effort for measuring results. 

I recommend focused efforts on these challenges by all involved regardless of whether this bill 

becomes law. 

S. 357, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act of 2011 

1 would like to work with the sponsors of this bill to find a way to support more and better 

attention to wildlife diseases including white-nose syndrome. My first professional work in 

wildlife science concerned wildlife diseases. I applaud the motivation for this bill. Knowing how 

Watershed Results ,,c- 4632 2"d St South· Arlington, VA 22204 
132 


25052.100

Schildwachter Testimony on Water and Wildlife bills 

13 March 2012 

pageS 

important wildlife health is to me, I know it must be to the sponsors of this bill, but I cannot 

support the current bill. 

I agree with ramping up attention to wildlife disease, and many state agencies, universities, 

conservation groups share this general view. Some challenges are new and some longstanding 

zoonotic disease issues such as brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis are suffering from their own 

success as great progress in their control has diminished interest in completing the work for the 

relatively small populations of people and wildlife still affected. 

Several excellent institutions should be involved in any effort to bring new and renewed 

attention to wildlife disease. The University of Georgia has specialized in wildlife disease for 

more than 50 years and responds to, monitors, and studies wildlife diseases throughout its 

region and elsewhere in the country and the world. Other institutions in the Midwest and West 

do similar work. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has long overseen disease issues 

through its standing committee on the topic, has helped develop state capacities to manage 

disease, and has already established the cooperative relationships called for in the bill. The 

Boone and Crockett Club, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, and 

Trout Unlimited have all responded to diseases affecting their iconic species and other wildlife. 

With so many efforts already underway, I am not sure that the approach described in this bill is 

best, but I am certain there is a way that Federal law and programs can assist current efforts 

and I applaud Sen. Lautenberg and his cosponsors for their attention to this. I hope I can be 

helpful working with staff going forward. 

S. 810, Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 

I have no position or advice on this bill. Respect for animals is a necessary demonstration of 

how important they are to us. Research is an invaluable aid to humanity and wildlife. I am 

aware of and support animal use and care requirements in my own field and believe the 

veterinary sciences have adopted detailed requirements in theirs. The specifics are beyond my 

expertise, so I am reserving judgment on the bill. 

Watersh!'d R!'sults t.t.c- 4632 2"d St South- Arlington, VA 22204 
133 


25052.101

Greg Schildwachter 

Watershed Results ,,, 

Supplemental Testimony on 

4632 2"" St South 

Arlington, VA 22204 

(202) 657-4330 

S. 2282, North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act of 2012 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBliC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER AND WILDLIFE 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING on 

S. 810, Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 • S. 1249, Target Practice and 

Marksmanship Training Support Act • S. 2071, Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 • 

S. 357, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act of 2011 • S. 1494, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Reauthorization Act of 2011 • S. 1266, Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2011 • S. 2156, 

Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act • S. 2282, North American Wetlands 

Conservation Extension Act of 2012 

Greg Schildwachter, PhD 

Watershed Results LLC 

April 24, 2012 

S. 2282, North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act of 2012 

I recommend passage. The NAWCA program conserves wetlands mainly beyond the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and therefore complements the Duck Stamp program. It is one of the 6 

major wetland conservation programs we have and, like the Duck Stamp program and the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, it raises private dollars from those who most directly 

benefit from its results- and yet those results also benefit many others directly and all of us 

ultimately. 

The clean extension provided by S. 2282 is exactly the right thing to do both programmatically 

and fiscally. 

Programmatic controls on the effectiveness of this program are continuing to evolve through 

2nd -party reviews that identified shortcomings in documenting the many results of the program. 

In response to this, the Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a tracking and accountability 

system that continues to improve. I am very confident in its accomplishments and quite 

comfortable with programs that first produce results on the ground and later develop an 

apparatus of paperwork to steer and refine efforts. 
134 


25052.102

Schildwachter Testimony on Water and Wildlife bills 

24 April 2012 

page 2 

Fiscally, programs such as this one that are supported by private dollars from those who benefit 

most directly, and that provide a form of infrastructure that also benefits others, and that 

furthermore support jobs, services, and sales, should be prized as we find ways to balance the 

Federal budget. Many sportsmen and other conservationists support needed fiscal reform. We 

take the strategic approach- and the attendant risks- of supporting reforms in entitlement 

programs as well as cuts in our own programs. The nation must address the programs with the 

greatest effect on Federal spending, and the nation is wise to acknowledge spending that helps 

support and turn the economy. NAWCA is one of the latter. like many other conservation 

grants, NAWCA grants produce wildlife habitat where hunters, fishermen, hikers, paddlers, 

birdwatchers, and many others spend money to visit white staying in hotels, hiring guides, 

buying equipment, and otherwise creating economic activity. It is also leveraging more than 

dollars: it also prompts additional habitat work on the ground that partners add on to projects 

at their own expense after the initial publicly-supported project is complete. 

Watershed Results ,,, -4632 2nd St South- Arlington, VA 22204 
135 


25052.103

Greg Schildwachter 

Watershed Results ,,c 4632 2"' St South 

Arlington, VA 22204 

(202) 657-4330 

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD- SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING on 

S. 810, Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 • S. 1249, Target Practice and 

Marksmanship Training Support Act • S. 2071, Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2012 • 

S. 357, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act of 2011 • S. 1494, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Reauthorization Act of 2011 • S. 1266, Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2011 • S. 2156, 

Migratory Bird Habitat Investment and Enhancement Act • S. 2282, North American Wetlands 

Conservation Extension Act of 2012 

Greg Schildwachter, PhD 

Watershed Results LLC 

June 19, 2012 

Senator Benjamin Cardin 

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 

1. Do you agree that conservation leads to benefits for hunters? 

We may have different understandings of the terms "conservation" and "hunting", so apologies 

if I miss your meaning. To me and other sportsmen, this question would sound odd, like asking 

if medicine leads to benefits for doctors. Hunters are practitioners of conservation and engage 

in it to create benefits both for their own pursuits and to produce the general benefits 

stewardship. This is why hunters played a leading role in creating American conservation 

agencies and other institutions and why hunters practice so much conservation today. 

It was hunters who formed the Boone and Crockett Club in 1887, which, as Dr. George Reiger 

describes in American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation {2001, Oregon State 

University Press), "was named after two of America's most famous hunters [and] was the first 

private organization to deal effectively with conservation issues of national scope [such as] the 

creation and administration of the first national parks, forest reserves, and wildlife refuges" {p. 

4). 

As an example of how hunters practice conservation, note that this year is the 751

h anniversary 

of the founding of the group Ducks Unlimited, which is one of the many mission-oriented 
136 


25052.104

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 2 

hunting groups founded since the Boone and Crockett Club to enhance particular species or 

types of wildlife or habitat. DU's precursor organizations were the American Wild Fowlers and 

the More Game Birds in America Foundation. These groups, like others that have focused on 

other game birds and big game wildlife, have accomplished nationwide restoration of these 

species and their habitats. Ducks Unlimited has conserved more than 12.6 million acres of 

habitat in North America and has, in the words of Dan Ashe, the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, "led the way when it comes to conserving habitat for the benefit of waterfowl, 

other wildlife, and people" (remarks at the signing ceremony for the 2012 Revision of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, June 1, 2012). 

2. In the past, you've highlighted the close links between hunting and 

conservation. Yet the benefits of wildlife protection can extend the local 

economy. Is there sufficient interest in these shooting ranges to generate 

that type of local economic benefit? 

Again, please forgive me if our terms differ, because this question appears to put conservation 

and protection in contrast to one another, though in fact protection is part of conservation. 

Conservation is an encompassing category of stewardship of natural resources that involves 

protection and also some forms of development and certainly also includes scientifically-guided 

harvest and other removals of wildlife, trees, and grasses through hunting, forestry, grazing, 

and prescribed burning. The close link between hunting and conservation supports local 

economies, as do protected areas that serve conservation purposes, especially if these areas 

are not managed actively but are open to hunters and anglers, hikers, rafters, bikers, 

birdwatchers, and other recreationists. In similar ways, shooting ranges play a role in 

conservation and support local economies also. For a thorough view of these economic 

benefits, refer to the report, The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural 

Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States, produced for the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation by Southwick Associates (October, 2011). 1 have attached 

an electronic copy for inclusion in the hearing record. 

The primary support that shooting ranges provide for local economies is through purchases of 

guns and ammunition and other shooting equipment, much of which are local transactions and 

some of which include out-of-town visitors who also buy fuel and rent hotel rooms. 

Shooting also supports the national economy and the heart of the U.S. conservation system. 

That system relies on an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition, which since 1991 has 

amounted to more than $3 billion. This revenue is allocated to state wildlife management 

agencies to manage wildlife and habitat. At the same time, while shooting is a sport unto itself, 

it is also an entry-point into hunting and other forms of conservation that recruits new 

volunteers for conservation organizations. 

Wal<>rslwd R<>sul!s '"- 4632 2'"' St South. Arlington, VA 2220~ 
137 


25052.105

Senator James Inhofe 

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 3 

1. Can you talk about the importance of reauthorizing the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act, and more specifically, why it is important to 

have a voluntary program like NAWCA that incentivizes state and private 

funding? 

We need to reauthorize NAWCA in particular and continue with other voluntary incentive 

programs in general because these types of programs inspire active conservation among 

landowners and other non-federal partners and attract financial donations to match and state 

and federal spending. 

The economic value of matching programs like these is obvious, and there are also less 

noticeable values in the type of conservation that NAWCA accomplishes and the 

broader significance of voluntary conservation. 

NAWCA and other voluntary programs promote active conservation on private lands. This type 

of conservation relies on resources in the private sector including private land, labor, and 

expertise. It applies these resources to accomplish actions such as prescribed burning and 

wetland restoration that improve habitat conditions that will not develop- and likely would 

degrade- without such intervention. 

Finally, in a larger sense, these programs that call upon individuals to take responsibility for 

conservation are a continuing reminder that conservation cannot persist by sole reliance on 

governmental action. This was a key insight of Aldo Leopold, our founding wildlife scientist and 

philosopher of conservation who wrote the first textbook in wildlife conservation (Game 

Management, 1933) and many famous and beloved essays (A Sand County Almanac with 

Sketches Here and There, 1949). 

Leopold described the role for governmental conservation as large and growing during his 

career more than 70 years ago. He spent most of that career working in governmental 

conservation. He predicted it would grow further and it did. At the same time he also warned 

of "a clear tendency in American conservation to relegate to government all necessary jobs that 

private landowners fail to perform." He warned that many of these jobs are "too large, too 

complex, or too widely dispersed to be performed by government." His view has been borne 

out both scientifically and culturally. It is through programs like NAWCA that we properly limit 

what we ask of state and federal governmental programs and properly encourage involvement 

by landowners and others. 

Watt>rsh!'d R!>sults '"- 4632 2"" St South· Arlington, VA 22204 
138 


25052.106

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 4 

2. How do voluntary efforts to promote conservation raise more money for 

the federal government and work more efficiently than regulation and 

mandates? How does the user fee model better leverage private and public 

funds to promote conservation than government regulation and mandates? 

Voluntary conservation extends buying power of public funding and the user-fee model raises 

additional dollars by appealing directly to and collecting revenue from those who benefit most 

directly from conservation. 

Wealthy countries such as the United States are blessed with strong private contributions that 

match public funds for conservation and support non-profit groups. User-pay arrangements 

add additional funds to the conservation economy by collecting receipts directly in exchange 

for enjoying the outcomes of conservation. For example, entrance fees, licenses, and excise 

taxes on equipment and supplies are all means of collecting user-pay receipts. Note: the 

reason we count a federal excise tax among "voluntary" user-pay arrangements is that hunters 

and firearms manufacturers devised and supported passage of this policy in the 1930s and have 

supported it since. 

The regulatory-and-mandates approach to conservation differs from voluntary-user-pay 

approaches in what it is designed to accomplish. Regulations and mandates are best 

suited for establishing standards for controlling risks. Voluntary-user-pay arrangements 

are better suited for producing outcomes by applying resources, labor, and expertise. 

Prohibitive standards can require expenditures (e.g., investing in pollution-control 

technology) but voluntary-user-pay arrangements run on directed, purposeful 

investments organized to produce results. Furthermore, a standard that successfully 

controls risk (which includes balancing the costs and benefits at a level with broad public 

support) has succeeded in maintaining a conservation value; on the other hand, a 

voluntary-user-pay program that succeeds does so by creating, restoring, or maintaining 

a conservation value. 

3. You mentioned the economic benefits of voluntary conservation efforts 

such as NAWCA. Can you expand on how programs like this create 

infrastructure and help further economic recovery? 

Habitat is the infrastructure of wildlife conservation as roads, waterways, pipes, and sewers are 

the infrastructure of society: each enables the population it supports to move about and find 

and use the resources it needs to survive. As for society, where the costs of living and 

transporting and transacting goods and services is related to the quality of infrastructure, so for 

wildlife populations the challenges of finding and moving among sources of food, water, 

shelter, and space influence the size and strength of those populations. 

WatPrstwd RPsulls '"- 4632 2"'1 St South· Arlington, VA 22204 
139 


25052.107

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 5 

By the same analogy, NAWCA and other habitat programs boost economic activity. Wellmaintained and efficient roads and utilities make economic activity easier for people by aiding 

transactions. Likewise, wildlife habitats make it possible and affordable for hunters, anglers, 

birdwatchers, and other recreationalists to seek out and enjoy fish and wildlife, which requires 

them to purchase equipment and services and pay travel costs. 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

1. Dr. Schildwachter, could vou explain how some of the federal voluntary 

conservation programs on today's hearing agenda are based on a "user-pay 

arrangement"? 

"User-pay" refers to the arrangement by which the cost of a public service is paid or defrayed 

by the citizens who benefit most directly from that service. A toll road, for example, is a public 

route paid for in part by those who drive there. Most wildlife conservation is funded in a 

similar way in that hunters and anglers pay state and federal license fees to hunt and fish and 

pay a federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, tackle, and boat fuel. These fees and 

taxes fund state and federal programs to maintain and restore fish and wildlife populations. 

The analogy holds in a broader sense as well. Just as roadways benefit society at large by 

supporting the production and delivery of goods and services, so does wildlife conservation 

benefit society by maintaining, creating, and restoring habitats that beautify landscapes and 

help purify air and water. 

The relevance of "user-pay" for policy is in helping decide budget allocations. User-pay clearly 

indicates shared responsibility for public benefits like wildlife conservation. The benefits are 

shared among individuals who seek them, others who appreciate them, and everyone who is 

better off indirectly. Correspondingly, the costs are borne directly by some and indirectly by 

others. Public budgets should favor these user-pay arrangements because they are less of a 

transfer of wealth than other programs and make more with public funds. 

2. Has it been your experience that voluntary, proactive conservation 

programs like NAWCA and NFWF are preferable to heavy-handed, coercive, 

bureaucratic approaches like those embodied in the Administration's 

"wetlands guidance document"? 

The issue here is not the preferability between regulations and voluntary action but the 

proportionate use of each. Also, by promoting incentives and action, we can help resolve the 

regulatory standoff. 

Wdlf'rshf'd Rt>sulls '"- 4632 2'd St South- Arlington, VA 22204 
140 


25052.108

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 6 

The guidance and the debate over the guidance are both needlessly overblown, but it is easy to 

see how we arrived in this situation. The difficulty in setting wetlands regulations has become 

plain in the several court cases that have reached the Supreme Court in the last decade and in 

the advocacy campaigns drummed up around the attempt by this administration and the last to 

implement those court rulings. 

We have lost perspective of the basic policy challenge in the competition over the 

complications in setting the reach of federal authority and the improving the effectiveness of 

federal regulations. 

The basic challenge is to reverse the trend of wetland loss by eliminating careless losses, 

avoiding needless losses, and producing gains by restoring and creating wetlands. The 

regulations address the careless and the needless losses; NAWCA and other programs address 

restoration, creation, and enhancement. The regulatory program has permitted the conversion 

of around 20,000 acres per year in recent years, which is the net result of examining 

development proposals, forbidding careless conversions, and minimizing necessary 

conversions. And, these 20,000 acres are not utterly lost because they have been replaced with 

more than the same acreage of wetlands created or restored elsewhere as mitigation. 

Meanwhile, NAWCA and other programs create, restore, and enhance nearly 1 million acres per 

year over and above the 20,000+ acres of mitigation that we have tabulated separately. The 

tabulations are explained in the four annual wetland reports issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality in 2005-2008. 

We can and should depressurize the regulatory debate by promoting the active programs like 

NAWCA and NFWF. First, active programs produce far more acres of benefit than are secured 

by the regulatory program. Second, active programs produce intentional benefits at larger 

scales than do regulatory programs which guard against incidental losses on the margins of 

scattered activities such as road building and real estate development that are undertaken for 

other reasons. With greater confidence that we are reversing the trend of wetland loss by 

concerted and directed efforts, we should find it easier to resolve the technical and political 

difficulties holding up a workable and durable policy on wetland regulations. 

3. Is it your review that youth today have fewer and fewer opportunities to 

participate in shooting sports than previous generations? How would S. 1249 

help to address that issue? 

There are fewer opportunities for shooting sports today because more people live in urban and 

suburban areas. While these higher-density population areas are efficient uses of space that 

help enable us to set aside recreation lands, it also makes it more difficult to reach those 

recreation lands. To create more opportunities for shooting sports, therefore, it helps to have 

Wdtt'rslwd Rf'sults '"- 4632 2"'' St South -Arlington, VI\ 22204 
141 


25052.109

Schildwachter Replies on Water and Wildlife bills 

19 June 2012 

page 7 

enough ranges that they are accessible and designed to be placed safety in proximity to other 

land uses. S. 1249 helps in this by expanding the allowable uses of existing private-state-federal 

partnership funds to include shooting ranges. 

4. I think you are right that wildlife diseases such as the White-Nose Bat 

Syndrome need to be addressed. Regarding S. 357 (Wildlife Disease 

Emergency Act), what are your specific concerns? 

Simply that many state, state-based, and private institutions are already working on wildlife 

diseases and collaborating with federal agencies on these problems yet these existing 

arrangements do not seem to be acknowledged or built upon inS. 357. I am sure that, based 

on existing cooperation, an effective rapid-response policy can be developed by the community 

of wildlife disease experts that will enhance their efforts. 

Walt>rshf'd RPsul!s '"- 4632 2"'1 St South Arlington, VA 22204 
142 


25052.110

The Economics Associated with 

Outdoor Recreation, Natural 

Resources Conservation and Historic 

Preservation in the United States 

For: 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

By: 

Southwick Associates 

October 10, 20ll 

SOUTHWICK 

ASSOCIATES 

PO Box 6435 

Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 

Tel (904) 277-9765 
143 


25052.111

Summary Findings 

Outdoor recreation, natural resources conservation and historic preservation in the United 

States all have measurable economic impacts. Some selected facts from the following 

report are highlighted here. These are illustrative of the entire picture that can be 

developed following a close study of the economics of these sectors at the national level. 

All dollar figures are reported in 20 II dollars, except as noted. 

Combined Value of Outdoor Recreation, Nature Conservation and Historic 

Preservation 

Values for jobs, tax revenues and other economic impacts are reported in this 

review for numerous forms of outdoor recreation, conservation and historic preservation 

activities. Due to limited data, it was not possible to account for all economic 

contributions from these activities. An accounting is presented here of the known 

activities presented in this report, which can be considered a minimum estimate: 

Jobs= 9.4 million 

FederaL state and local tax revenues = $107 billion 

Total economic activity (equivalent to GDP) = $1.06 trillion. 

Outdoor Recreation 

In 2006, the total contribution from outdoor recreation in the United States was 

over $730 billion a year, generates 6,435,000 U.S. jobs and $88 billion in federal 

and state tax revenues. This includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and the 

"human-powered" recreations such as hiking, camping, skiing, paddle sports and 

bicycling. 

In 2008, 28.3% of U.S. adults went boating at least once. Recreational marine 

manufacturers employed more than 135,900 people and retail boating/service 

businesses employed another 217,718 people. 

Other motorized recreation, such as motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and 

snowmobiles are not included in the estimates presented above but would push 

the totals to larger levels. 

The combined spending effect of hunting, fishing and wildlife watching 

associated with National Forest Service land totaled $9.5 billion in annual retail 

sales, supported 189,400 jobs and provided $1.01 billion in annual federal tax 

revenues. 

2 
144 


25052.112

Visitors to Anny Corp of Engineers land generated $34.0 billion in sales, 

contributing $17.1 billion in direct income, and supported 420,000 JObs at the 

national level in 1996. 

Outdoor recreation sales (gear and trips combined) of $325 billion per year are 

greater than annual returns from pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing 

($162 billion), legal services ($253 billion), and power generation and supply 

($283 billion). 

Natural Resources Conservation 

The total value of ecosystem services provided by the acreage of natural habitats 

in National Wildlife Refuges in the United States totaled $32.3 billion/year, or 

$2,900 thousand/acre/year. 

The value of ecosystem services provided by natural habitat in the 48 contiguous 

United States amount to about $1.6 trillion annually, which is equivalent to more 

than 10% of the U.S. GDP. 

The loss of about 9.9 million acres of wetlands in the U.S. since the 1950s has 

resulted in an economic loss of more than $81 billion in all wetlands-related 

ecosystem services. 

Visitors to Army Corp of Engineers land generated $34.0 bill10n in sales, 

contributing $17.1 billion in direct income, and supported 420,000 jobs at the 

national level in 1996. 

Home owners near parks and protected areas are repeatedly seen to have property 

values more than 20% higher than similar properties elsewhere. 

Historic Preservation 

Nationally, the federal tax credits returned more than $22.3 billion in federal tax 

dollars since 1978 on $17.5 billion in tax credits- a return of 27.4% from every 

dollar invested. 

Economic activity resulting from federal historic preservation tax credits supports 

61,200 jobs, $6.6 billion in economic activity and generated $935 million in tax 

revenues. 

On the statewide level, Philadelphia historic rehabilitation efforts resulted in 

average annual impacts of$1.1 billion in total expenditures that supported 9,560 

jobs and $353 milliDn in earnings within the state of Pennsylvania. Tax revenues 

3 
145 


25052.113

from this work included $6.6 million local taxes for the city and an additional 

$24.3 million in tax revenues for the state. 

In Texas in 1997, rehabilitation efforts created more than 4,200 jobs and overall 

historic preservation activities created more than 40,000 jobs in the state that year 

(Center for Urban Policy et al, 1999). 

In Nebraska an average of $46 million spent on statewide historic rehabilitation 

per year from 200 I to 2005 resulted in I ,004 jobs, and addttional $31 million in 

income and 45 million in GDP at the national. 

Every million dollars invested in residential historic rehabilitation generates 

approximately 36 jobs, $1.24 million in income and nearly $200,000 in state and 

local taxes. 

Heritage tourism in Philadelphia supports over 45,000 jobs and $3.5 billion in 

economic activity annually. 

In 2010, 15 million visitors to Civil War Battlefield managed by the National Park 

Service in just five states (MO, PA, SC, T~, and VA) generated 7,700 jobs. 

Properties in historic districts have increased values, generally around 20% higher 

than other similar properties elsewhere. 

Cross-Cutting Department of Interior Activities 

Overall, in 20 I 0 activities associated with DOl lands provided more than 2.2 

millionjobs for Americans, which generated $377 billion in economic activity. 

Water, timber and forage activities on DOl land supported about 370,000 jobs and 

$50 billion in economic activity. 

About $2 billion was spent on construction and maintenance activities related to 

recreation and conservation, which supported about 41,000 jobs and contributed 

about $5.7 billion in economic activity. 

$222 million that was spent by DOl on land acquisition was estimated to 

contribute about $457 million in economic activity and support about 3,000 jobs. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed about $4.2 billion in economic 

activity and supported over 32,000 jobs through their management of 553 

National Wildlife Refuges and thousands of smaller natural areas in the United 

States. 

4 
146 


25052.114

Table of Contents 

Summary Findings .............................................................................................................. 2 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6 

A. Outdoor Recreation ....................................................................................................... 7 

I. Overall Outdoor Recreation (excluding motorized sports) ......................................... 7 

2. Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching ................................................................... 8 

3. Boating and Motorized Outdoor Recreation ............................................................. 10 

B. Nature Conservation ..................................................................................................... 12 

l. Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................... 12 

2. Value of Rare and Threatened Species ..................................................................... 15 

3. Visits to Natural Areas .............................................................................................. 17 

4. Property Values ......................................................................................................... 18 

C. Historic Preservation ................................................................................................... 20 

1. Rehabilitation Work .................................................................................................. 20 

2. Historic Tourism ....................................................................................................... 24 

3. Property Values ......................................................................................................... 25 

4. Other Economic Benefits .......................................................................................... 25 

D. The Department of the Interior .................................................................................... 27 

E. Gap Analysis and Next Steps ....................................................................................... 28 

I. Overall Gaps ............................................................................................................. 28 

2. Outdoor Recreation ................................................................................................... 28 

3. Nature Conservation ................................................................................................. 29 

4. Historic Preservation ................................................................................................. 29 

F. References ..................................................................................................................... 30 

5 
147 


25052.115

Introduction 

This document was commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to serve 

two purposes. The first purpose is to identify the level of impacts that natural resource 

conservation, outdoor recreation and historic preservation have on the U.S. economy, 

what data currently exists and key data gaps that must be filled. Outdoor recreation and 

historic preservation are included to determine areas of potential economic overlap with 

the Foundation's natural resource conservation mission. The second purpose is to serve 

as the basis for the development of an assessment tool that can be used by the Foundation 

to determine the economic and job activity created by the Foundation's conservation 

grant investments. 

The infonnation in this report stems from a desk study of academic and trade journals, 

websites and other publications that cover these subjects. A number of studies were 

found that address methodology and economics theory regarding these topics, but they 

are beyond the scope and intent of this report and are not included here. Only those 

papers and websitcs which contain solid economic studies with relevant data are 

synopsized here and listed in the bibliography accompanying this paper. Unless 

otherwise noted, all dollar figures in this report have been converted to 20 II dollars to 

account for inflation. 

Each section-outdoor recreation, nature conservation and historic preservation- has 

been covered separately, although there is some degree of overlap between these fields. 

For instance, the number of visitors to National Wildlife Refuges and their impact on 

local, regional and national economies is relevant to both the outdoor recreation fields 

(due to the large usage by hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers) and to natural resources 

conservation (due to the value of conserving these large tracts of natural land). Similarly, 

historic preservation literature contains infonnation on the impacts of property values 

through historic designation and the nature conservation literature contains infonnation 

on property values near conservation areas. The informational pie could be cut a number 

of ways, but the cleanest is to keep these sections separate in the discussion that follows. 

One recent study by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOl, 20 II) cross-cuts all of 

these areas and is presented in its own section in this report to give an idea of the 

overlaps. Specific topics covered in the DOl report also are repeated under the relevant 

sections. 

6 
148 


25052.116

A. Outdoor Recreation 

Thanks to national surveys that collect information on various types of recreation in the 

United States, there is a body of infonnation available on the economic impact of various 

fonns of outdoor recreation in the country, including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing 

and non-motorized outdoor recreation (hiking, paddling, skiing, etc.). A few types of 

outdoor recreation, however, are not included in these surveys and country-wide impacts 

are not available, including motorized sports like off-road vehicles, snowmobiling, etc. 

However, a few statewide or localized studies give examples of some of the economic 

returns possible from these activities. 

In addition, there have been a number of studies of the economic impacts from outdoor 

recreation in particular locations, parks and sites which emphasize the returns from these 

recreational activities in local communities and for the parks themselves. The results 

presented in this section overlap a bit with the nature conservation section when it comes 

to cataloguing the economic impacts from visitations to various refuges, parks and other 

recreational areas. Comments are provided when overlap occurs. All dollar figures have 

been converted to 20 I I dollars to account for inflation. 

1. Overall Outdoor Recreation (excluding motorized sports) 

The standard reference for overall economic impact on the national level from outdoor 

recreational pursuits is the 2006 report "The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy" 

produced for the Outdoor Foundation, with data from consumer surveys conducted by 

Harris Interactive and analyzed by Southwick Associates, Inc. This report considers 

outdoor recreation to include bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow sports, 

hiking, climbing and wildlife viewing, with data available both regionally and nationwide 

for these activities. Hunting, t1shing and wildlife viewing impacts were obtained from 

other sources and added into the Outdoor Foundation study. Specit1cally, research 

conducted by Southwick Associates on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies and the American Sportt1shing Association for hunting and sport t1shing, 

respectively, were built into the Outdoor Foundation estimates and the wildlife viewing 

impacts were obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These three t1sh and 

wildlife-based recreation reports were developed using expenditure and participation data 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and U.S. Census Bureau's 2001 National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, and updated in 2006/07. 

The next national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife recreation will be available by 

mid to late 2012. 

Very limited information were available regarding participation and economic 

contributions from motorized sports like motorcycles, off-the-road vehicles, recreational 

vehicles and snowmobiling. This represents a significant gap in the literature and in the 

overall estimates of recreation's economic contributions. 

7 
149 


25052.117

In 2006, the Outdoor Foundation concluded that the total economic activity from outdoor 

recreation in the United States is $730 billion a year and generates 6,435,270 jobs in the 

country. Included in this total is $46 billion in gear retail sales, $243 billion in trip related 

sales and nearly $88 billion in federal and state taxes. These contributions come from 

both direct and ripple etTects throughout the economy. Outdoor recreation sales (gear and 

trips combined) of $289 billion per year are greater than annual returns from 

pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing ($162 billion), legal services ($253 billion) 

and power generation and supply ($283 billion), showing the sizeable impact recognized 

from outdoor recreation. 

The national level impact from individual outdoor recreation is illustrated in Table A I. 

Of all the activities itemized, camping and biking provided the most jobs and had the 

largest economic impacts in the country. 

Table A 1: Economic Impacl{rom Outdoor Recreation in the United States (2006, 

Outdoor Foundation) 

Number of Jobs Gear Trip Fed and Total 

Participants Supported Related Related State Economic 

Sales Sales Taxes contribution 

(millions) (thousands) (billions) (billions) (billions) (billions) 

Bicycling 59.8 1.135 $6.2 $46.9 $!7.7 $132.8 

Camping 45.1 2,334 $8.7 $100.6 $36.4 $273.0 

Fishing 32.9 587 $6.4 $16.2 $4.1 $61.4 

Hunting 12.8 323 $6.9 $5.5 $2.2 $34.1 

Paddling 23.6 308 $2.7 $11.8 $4.8 $36.1 

Snow-based 15.6 567 $3.1 $23.4 $8.8 $66.3 

Trail-based 55.8 716 $3.3 $30.2 $11.2 $83.7 

Wildlife 66.1 467 $8.8 $8.6 $2.7 $43.5 Viewing 

Total -- 6,435 $46.2 $243.2 $87.9 $731 

2. Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching 

Hunting, fishing and wildlife-watching segments of the active outdoor recreation sector 

have been thoroughly studied and reported on for individual states and for the nation as a 

whole (US DOl, 2006). These data were incorporated into the Outdoor Foundation 

report discussed above. Additional details are presented in Table A2, based on the 2006 

8 
150 


25052.118

National Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Table A2: Annual Participants and Expenditures for Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife 

Watching in the United States (US DOl, 2006) 

Participants tl7.5 million I 

Expenditures $137.4 billion 

Sportspcrsons I 

Total participants* .13.9 million 

Anglers 30.0 million 

!Iunters 12.5 million 

Total days 737 million 

Fishing 517 million 

!lunting 220 million 

Total expenditures $86.1 billion 

Fishing 4 7.4 billion 

Hunting 25.7 billion 

Unspecified 13.0 billion 

Wildlife \Vatchers 

Total participants** 71.1 million 

Around the home 67.8 million I 

Away from home 23.0 million i 

Total expenditures $51.3 billion 

* 8.5 million both fished and hunted. 

** 19.7 million both viewed wildlife around the home and 

awav fi·mn home. 

In 2006. hunters and anglers spent S86.l billion including trip-related expenses ($25.7 

billion). equipment costs ($47.4 billion) and other expenditures ($13.0 billion) for items 

like magazines, permits, concession kes. etc. In addition, wildlife watchers in the United 

States sp<ent $51.3 billion including trip-related expenses (S 14.5 billion). equipment costs 

($26.1 billion) and other costs ($1 0.11 billion) such as magazines, landscaping to attract 

wildlife and contributions to conservation organizations. These figures include 

expenditures t(Jr vehicles, boats, real estate and other large ticket items not included in 

the Outdoor Foundation's comprehensive outdoor recreation impacts. 

A recent report (Southwick and Loftus, 20 II) looking at the impact of excise taxes on 

hunting, shooting and fishing equipment found that in 2009 nearly $1.2 billion was 

collected from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and 

ammunition, adding still more money to the economy via conservation efforts enacted by 

state conservation agencies the recipients of these dedicated excise taxes. 

9 
151 


25052.119

Another study completed at about the same time assessed the economic impact of 

hunting, fishing and wildlife watching specific to National forestry Service (NfS) lands 

(American Sportfishing Association, 20(J7). Data used in the American Sportfishing 

Association (2007) report stems from :2000-2003 visitor counts and spending information 

within 50 miles ofNFS lands, as collected by the NFS via its National Visitor Usc 

Monitoring survey ( NVUM). Overall, hunters spent $ Ll 00 million annually to hunt NFS 

lands, which supported 21,400 jobs across the country and provided $137 million in 

federal income taxes. Anglers spent $729 million annually, which supported 14,500 jobs 

and provided $81 million in federal income taxes. Wildlife viewers spent another $207 

million in retail sales on or near NFS lands, which supported another 4,700 jobs and 

provided nearly $18 million more in federal taxes. The combined spending effect of 

these outdoor activities on NFS lands totaled $2.1 billion in annual retail sales, supported 

40,600 jobs and provided $236 million in annual federal taxes. This data also shows 

some of the economic impacts of conserving natural habitats and is mentioned in the 

report section on nature conservation as well. 

Additionally, the ripple effect greatly increases the economic contribution of fish and 

wildlife-based recreation on NFS lands. Table A3 below shows the total economic impact 

of' hunting, fishing and wildlife watching on NFS managed land in the United States. 

based on 2000-:2003 survey data and analysis of spending within the state where each 

forest unit is located (not limited to the 50 mile radii around each unit). 

Tahle A3: The Annual Economic Effects of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife- Viewing within 

U.S. Forest Service-Managed Units (American Sport tshing Association, 2007) 

Total Salaries Jobs(Full Sales/ State Federal 

Retail Ripple Wages & & Fuel Tax Income Income 

Sales Business Tax Tax 

(millions) Effect Profits Part-time) Revenues Revenues Revenues (millions) (millions) (thousands) (millions) (millions) (millions) 

Hunting $5,138.9 $14,052.7 $3,488.1 97.1 $198.7 $55.7 $621.2 

Fishing $2,755.2 $7,770.0 $2,016.6 57.7 $133.8 $35.2 $324.9 

Wildlife 34.6 Watching $1,590.7 $3,966.5 $1,149.3 $85.8 $29.4 $134.6 

Totals $9,484.8 $25,789.2 $6,654.0 189.4 $418.4 $120.3 $1,080.6 

3. Boating and Motorized Outdoor Recreation 

Motorized outdoor sports include activities like otT-road driving. snowmobiling. dirt 

hiking and other sports engaged in on public and private lands, as well as boating on U.S. 

inland and coastal waters. 

Recreational boating is a large sector of outdoor recreation in the United States and data 

is readily available on its overall economic impact. According to the National Marine 

Manufacturers Association (NMMA, :20 I 0), in 2008, nearly 66 million people in the 

10 

I 
152 


25052.120

United States went boating at least once, representing 28.3% of U.S. adults. In 2008 

there were 5,284 recreational marine manufacturers which employed more than 135,900 

people and generated $2.9 billion in revenue. There were also about 33,000 retail 

boating/service businesses, which employed another 217,718 people. In all, in 2009, 

recreational boating generated $32.5 billion in sales and services. 

The economic impacts of other terrestrial forms of motorized outdoor sports, like 

snowmobiling and the use of off-highway vehicles have not been as well studied. In a 

handful of states. studies have looked at the economic impact of these sports, but there is 

no comprehensive overvi<!w of the collective impact of these activities on the national 

level. A Bureau of Land Management online PowerPoint." presentation (US BLM, 2006) 

stales that "motorized outdoor recreation" contributes an additional S25 billion in total 

economic impact in 1998 but gives no source for this figure. This figure may relate to just 

BLM lands. 

The national numbers arc most likely much higher than the BUv1 estimates. In Arizona, 

for instance. an Arizona State University study (Silverman, 2003) based on a 

questionnaire survey 1(JUnd tbat off-highway vehicle recreation in 2002 accounted for 

nearly S4 billion in spending, which created a statewide economic impact of $5.23 

billion, added $230 million to annual state tax revenues and supported 36,95 I jobs in 

Arizona. 

A similar study looking at the impact of otf-highway vehicle recreation in four central 

Florida counties (Parent et al, 2007) found that combined resident and non-resident 

riders· expenditures l(lr equipment and tra\ el was $15.3 million in 2006. This amounted 

to S24.3 million in total output, indirect taxes of $2.40 million and provided 3 I g jobs in 

the region. a rural area of Florida where other forms of employment arc scarce. 

Based on studies like these, there is no doubt the outdoor motorized sporting community 

has a strong economic role in the United States. but further national level study is needed 

to measure this. 

II 
153 


25052.121

B. Nature Conservation 

Natural resources conservation includes preserving natural ecosystems like wetlands, 

forests and meadows, conserving endangered and threatened species, protecting 

biodiversity, and all programs, projects and properties required to do so. Four main 

aspects of nature conservation have been addressed by economists: 

I) The value of ecosystem services provided by natural areas, 

2) The willingness-to-pay by residents and visitors to conserve various species, 

3) The revenue accrued by visits to natural areas, and 

4) Property values that are impacted by proximity to protected and natural areas. 

All dollar figures reported here, unless otherwise noted, have been converted to 20 II 

dollars to account for inflation. 

1. Ecosystem Services 

Ecosystem services include all the functions performed by nature that provide benefits to 

humans. Basic services include climate regulation 1

, waste treatment2

, water supply3

, 

carbon sequestration4

, nutrient cycling5

, habitat provision6 and many others that all help 

modulate and regulate climate, weather and various resources needed for human comfort, 

security and well-being. Saltwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands, temperate and tropical 

forests, grasslands, lakes, etc. all provide different levels of a myriad of environmental 

services. 

In recent years, the valuation of ecosystem services has blossomed into a booming 

academic field. Hundreds of papers on this topic appear in various technical and trade 

journals. But many of these are discussions of different ways to approach this task and 

do not provide quantified results. Just a few of them yield numbers that relate to more 

than a few specific sites but are typically focused on a limited set of dimensions. A 

variety of international online data bases attempt to catalogue these studies and more 

efforts are currently underway (McComb et al, 2006). 

One benchmark study that initiated this burgeoning field of literature was produced by 

Costanza et al (1997). A group of renowned environmental economists gathered for a 

week with the express purpose of developing global numbers to represent the value of 

ecosystem services for all habitats on earth. Nearly 3,000 papers have cited the resulting 

1 Climate regulation includes temperature and precipitation regulation and other overall impacts on the 

climate, locally and globally 2 Waste treatment water purification, pollution control, etc. 3 Water supply includes flood control, storage and replenishing of water, etc. 4 Carbon sequestration is the capture of carbon dioxide and the regulation of atmospheric gases 5 Nutrient cycling includes the capture, storage and recycling of necessary nutrients 

"Habitat provision includes providing refugia for resident and transient populations of animals, plants, etc. 

12 
154 


25052.122

study and the numbers, adjusted for current inflation rates, appear in many articles. No 

other attempt has yet been made to reproduce these findings. For now, these numbers 

still represent the state of the art, although they are nearly fifteen years old. 

In the United States, one recent study estimates the value of ecosystem services provided 

by the USFWS National Wildlife Refuges in the contiguous United States (Ingraham and 

Foster, 2008). Using 1992 land cover data, these researchers determined the extent of 

various habitats in all the refuges, including 13.3 million acres composed of about 27% 

shrub land; 18% wetland; 17% open water; 13% planted/cultivated; II% grassland; I 0% 

forest; 4% barren; I% developed; and less than I% perennial ice/snow. Following a 

thorough analysis of the literature, they calculated an estimate, essentially an average, for 

all relevant North American economic valuation studies for the major habitats 

represented in the National Wildlife Refuge System. This effort focused on a handful of 

major ecosystem services most widely analyzed in the economic literature: carbon 

sequestration, disturbance prevention (e.g., flood control), freshwater regulation and 

supply, waste assimilation and nutrient regulation and habitat provision. The total value 

of ecosystem services provided by the acreage of major different habitats in these refuges 

totaled $32.3 billion/year, or $2,900 thousand/acre/year. 

When these figures were extrapolated to the contiguous 48 U.S. states (using U.S. 2006 

National Land Cover Survey Data) and for all of the United States, including Alaska and 

Hawaii (using 2001 NLCS Data) it is evident that the contribution made to the 

environment by natural lands is far from trifling. In fact, the total amount of ecosystem 

services provided by these categories of natural land amount to about $1.6 trillion, which 

is more than I 0% of the GDP in 2009 when land in the contiguous United States is 

tallied. Although Ingraham and Foster (2008) specifically did not include National 

Wildlife Refuges in Alaska and Hawaii (and these may have unique difTerences), if their 

numbers are extrapolated to these areas, the total amount of ecosystem services provided 

per year in the entire United States is more than $2 trillion. Results from the Ingraham 

and Foster study, in 2011 dollars and extrapolated to the contiguous United States, arc 

presented in Table B I. These numbers only reflect terrestrial environments and do not 

include the: sizeable contributions from surrounding seas. 

13 
155 


25052.123

Table Bl: Ecosystem Services provided by Natural Habitats in the Contiguous U.S. 

States, based on Ingraham and Foster (2008) and using U.S. National Land Cover 

Survey Data (2006) 

Value of Acres in Acres in Ecosystem the Total Value 

Dollars/ National Services from Lower48 of these 

Classification Acre Wildlife National u.s. services Refuges Wildlife States (billions) (millions) Refuges 

(millions) (millions) 

Forest $1,014.27 1.12 $1,132 498.18 $505.3 

Shrubland $660.13 4.58 $3,020 426.50 $281.5 

Grassland $61.67 1.39 $85 288.93 $17.8 

Wetlands $10,608.43 2.60 $27,536 102.23 $1,084.5 

Total 9.69 $31,775 1,315.84 $1,889.2 

When different land cover classes were separated in the Ingraham and Foster study of 

ecosystem services of National Wildlife Refuges, wetlands were found to provide the 

most services, about $27.5 billion annually or $10,600/acre/year. Costanza eta! (1997) 

found a similar value for wetlands ($8224 dollars/acre/year) when their original numbers 

were converted from hectares to acres and in 20 II dollars. Costanza et al also 

individually detailed the different ecosystem services that wetlands provide. The 

economic estimates for these services are presented in Table B2. The loss of wetlands 

over the past few decades has resulted in a concomitant loss of ecosystem services. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Report on the Environment 

2008, since the 1950s about 9.9million acres of wetlands have been lost in the United 

States. As seen in Table B2, this represents an economic Joss of more than $81 billion in 

all wetlands-related ecosystem services. When a similar analysis is run using the total 

wetlands ecosystem services values calculated by Ingraham and Foster, the results are 

comparable, showing a total loss of about $105 billion. Although Ingraham and Foster 

did not break down wetlands services into subcategories, their figures for wetlands 

services also fell into the same range. Whichever number is most accurate, it is clear that 

the total loss of ecosystem services from the loss of wetlands between the 1950s and now 

is substantial. 

14 
156 


25052.124

Table B2: The value of ecosystem services provided by wetlands, based on ana~vsis of 

Costanza et al (1997) and amount ~{loss ofthese services since the 1950s 

Value of Services 

Ecosystem Service Dollars/acre/year lost from 

wetlands since 

1950s (millions) 

Gas Regulation $82 $812.29 

Disturbance $2,800 $27,721.93 Regulation 

Water Regulation $9 $91.61 

Water Supply $2,344 $23,208.49 

Waste Treatment $2,577 $25,511.02 

Habitat/Refugia $188 $1,856.68 

Food Production $158 $1,563.52 

Raw Materials $65 $647.40 

TOTAL Services $8,224 $81,412.94 

A similar analysis could be done for other natural areas in the United States, the different 

types of forests, lakes, deserts, grasslands, etc. Lack of conservation of natural resources 

presents a degradation of the ecosystem services these lands provide and an ultimate 

economic loss to society. 

2. Value of Rare and Threatened Species 

Another much smaller body of economic literature addresses the value of various species 

in the United States to residents and visitors to areas where these species are found. A 

recent meta-analysis of these studies [Richardson and Loomis (2009)] found that on a 

household basis, people would pay an average anywhere from $8 (striped shiner), $19 

(sea turtle), $36 (bottlenose dolphin), $56 (whooping crane) up to $241 (Washington 

State anadromous fishes) annually in 2006 dollars to preserve populations of various rare, 

endangered or useful species (Table B3). Further analysis demonstrated that the amount 

people were willing to pay varied depending on if they were residents or visitors to an 

area where the species exists, the rarity of the species, the charisma of the species and a 

variety of other factors. It is unlikely that most households in the U.S. including those far 

from the habitat of the targeted species would pay such sums, so an aggregate number 

extrapolated nationally is not valid, but it gives some idea of the existence value people 

place on the wildlife around them. 

15 
157 


25052.125

Table B3: Summary ofeconomic value of threatened, endangered and rare species based 

on a meta-analysis of>vilfingness-to-pay studies hy Richardson and Loomis (2009) 

Low High Average of all 

Value Value studies 

Studies reportinl:( annual WTP 

Bald eagle $24 $50 $44 

Bighorn sheep $19 

Dolphin $40 

Gray whale $27 $52 $39 

Owl $44 $146 $73 

Salmon/Steelhead $11 $156 $91 

Sea lion $80 

Sea otter $45 

Sea turtle $21 

Seal $39 

Silvery Minnow $43 

Squaw fish $13 

Striped Shiner $9 

Turkey $12 $17 $15 

Washington state 

anadromous fish populations $165 $349 $270 

Whooping crane $49 $77 $63 

Woodpecker $15 $22 $18 

Studies reporting lump sum WTP 

Arctic grayling $22 $29 $26 

Bald eagle $275 $392 $333 

Falcon $36 - Humpback whale $269 

Monk seal $186 

Wolf $25 $182 $68 

Eagle and Betters ( 1998) used a similar analysis of some of the earlier willingness-to-pay 

studies and broke down the results per individual animal of each species considered, 

extrapolated to the national level. Thus, for instance, when the willingness to pay for 

maintaining whooping cranes ($44) was divided by the number of cranes alive in the wild 

at that time (109) and extrapolated to the national level, each individual crane had a worth 

to citizens of $36 million dollars. The authors used such calculations to make a case that 

the fines levied for illegal taking of endangered species are far less than the value these 

species have to Americans and the fines should be based on the rarity and value of each 

individual species, not a much smaller fine, unifonn across the board. 

16 
158 


25052.126

3. Visits to Natural Areas 

Other sections of this report look at overall values for outdoor recreation like hunting. 

fishing, boating, nature-viewing, etc. There is also a body of literature that relates 

specifically to the economic impact of various parks and reserves. Although much of this 

economic impact is due to outdoor recreation, other visitors may come to these areas for 

sight-seeing, for family gatherings, for educational benefits and for many other values not 

captured by the category of outdoor recreation. 

In June, 20 II the U.S. Department of Interior (DOl) produced a report on their economic 

contributions and, among other things, provided current information on park visitation 

and the economic benefits accrued from these activities. For all of their bureaus 

combined, 439 million visits were made to DOI lands, which supported 388,000 jobs and 

provided more than $47 billion in economic activity. National parks, monuments and 

recreation areas, National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management lands 

involve the most recreational visitors. These lands are also the ones most involved in 

natural resources conservation, another way of showing the impact that preserving these 

lands has on the economy. 

Table B4: Visitors to Department of the Interior Lands (DO!, 2011) and their economic 

impact in~ J()f() 

Value of Estimated Estimated 

Recreational Economic Employment 

Recreational Visits Impact Impact 

Visits (millions) (millions) (#of jobs) 

Bureau of Land 

Management 58,643,712 $2,967 $7,715 58,947 

land 

National Parks, 

l\1onuments, 285,279,021 $12,356 $31,574 246,956 Recreation Areas 

(NPS) 

National Wildlife 

Refuges 44,849,524 $1,554 $4,138 32,564 

(USFWS) 

One detailed study of visitation to National Wildlife Refuges (Caudill and Henderson, 

2005) looked further into the impacts on the local communities around these reserves in 

2004. In 2004, there were 36.7 million visitors who generated $1.64 billion of economic 

activity in regional economies, similar to the tlgures reported in Table B4 for 2010. 

Caudill and Henderson went further into their analysis and showed that about two-thirds 

of the total expenditures were generated by non-consumptive activities and not fishing 

(27%) or hunting (5%), which illustrates the value these natural areas have for passive 

enjoyment of nature. The authors also conducted willingness-to-pay studies to determine 

the value of these refuges beyond what it actually cost them to visit. They found that 

17 
159 


25052.127

visitors showed a consumer surplus of more than $1.3 billion, with $816 million of this 

amount attributed to non-consumptive visitation. 

The value ofNational Parks to local communities was reported by Stynes (2011) in a 

detailed analysis. In 2009, visitors to National Parks spent $12.56 billion in "gateway" 

areas adjacent to the parks and more than 56% of the total spending was by visitors who 

stayed outside the parks. Nationally this visitor activity accounted for 247,000 jobs, $9.66 

billion in labor income and $16.46 billion in value added. The local impact across all 

parks amounted to direct and secondary effects of 149,500 jobs, $4.56 billion in labor 

income and $7.74 billion in value added. 

Seventeen National Monuments in the western states that have been established since 

1982 were also the subject of a study on the impact on local communities (Headwaters 

Economics, 2011). Although the results varied, all of the communities showed an 

increase in economic growth after the monuments were officially designated. Similar 

results were found by Lorah and Southwick (2003) and others regarding healthier 

economic growth rates in communities adjacent to federally protected lands compared to 

communities dependent on extraction industries. 

The Army Corps of Engineers also maintains some land that is in a natural state. In 

1996, recreational visitors spent, $8.3 billion on trips within 30 miles of these sites, 

contributing $4.4 billion in direct income and supporting 180,000 jobs all in the local 

economy (Stynes et al, 1996). When the analysis was expanded to the national level, the 

results were even larger. The effects of the visits on the national economy were $34.0 

billion in sales, contributing $17.1 billion in direct income and supporting 420,000 jobs. 

In addition to all these federal lands, there are countless state parks and county parks that 

all preserve natural habitats and many, if not most, also charge admission. A myriad of 

individual studies exist for many of these parks, and their cumulative effect on jobs and 

expenditures as well as their total economic impact due to nature conservation and 

recreation is no doubt another highly significant factor to consider. The results of some 

of these studies are considered under the outdoor recreation section of this report. 

4. Property Values 

Another way to look at the value of nature conservation is to look at property values near 

protected areas, open spaces and other natural amenities compared to property values 

without such proximity. Unfortunately, there are no studies that look at the overall value 

of properties near national parks, wildlife refuges or other open spaces, just a myriad of 

single-site studies. 

One such study (Neumann eta!, 2009), for instance, looks at the property values near a 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in central Middlesex County, Massachusetts compared 

to values near other types of open space, including golf courses, recreation parks, 

cemeteries, conservation land, etc. The authors found that properties closer than 100 

18 
160 


25052.128

meters to the NWR had property prices $1,075 higher than those further away. They 

found similar premium prices for proximity to golf courses and sports/recreation parks 

but found no such premium etTect for those properties close to cemeteries and 

conservation areas-other forms of open space. This study focuses on a NWR in a 

suburban area and the authors are confident that these results can be applied to property 

values around other suburban NWRs. However, there is no simple way to determine how 

many of the 550 plus NWRs are considered to be "suburban" and therefore it is not 

possible to estimate the overall value contributed by NWRs on a national scale. 

Another study looked at 20 years of research into property values near different 

categories of parks, from urban to specialized recreational parks, and included natural 

parks (Crompton, 2005). Overall, this study found a 20% increase in property values 

where properties are next to a passive park and suggests that these numbers can be used 

more widely to estimate the economic contributions of parks. 

Lutzenhiser and Netusil (200 I) were able to study Portland, Oregon and they show 

tangible benefits to property values for parcels in proximity to parks that were urban 

(with most of the area landscaped), natural (which are maintained primarily for wildlife 

and passive recreation like hiking and bird-watching) or specialty (maintained for only 

one purpose, i.e. boat ramps). The rates are presented below in Table 85. It is evident 

that those properties near the natural parks had the most increased value from this 

proximity, in some cases realizing nearly a 20% boost in property value because of their 

proximity to a natural park. 

Table B5: Properly value increases, as percentage of the average home value, for 

parcels in proximity to different types ofparks in Portland, Oregon. Based on 

Lulzenhiser and Netusil (2001) 

Urban Natural Specialty 

park Park Park 

' Distances in Feet 

Less than 200 2.91% 16.93% 11.17% 

201-400 3.11'/'o 15.43% 8.68% 

401 600 1.80% 19.07% 15.53% 

601-800 1.23% 17.02% 8.55% 

801-1,000 1.42% 13.57% 7.51% 

1,001-1,200 2.55% 12.28% 6.89% 

1,201-1,500 0.52% 15.08% 5.80% 

These figures cannot be expanded to other areas of the country, but the 20% extra value 

determined by both the meta-analysis of many studies (Neumann eta!, 2009) and the 

nearly 20% increase for some properties near natural parks give an indication of the 

overall increase in property values that arc possible when the worth of neighboring 

natural areas are considered. 

19 
161 


25052.129

C. Historic Preservation 

Historic preservation generates economic benefits in a number of ways, including the 

ripple effect through the economy due to restoration work, effects on property values in 

historic areas and districts, visitor and tourist spending, and other surprising features such 

as income through the film industry and other media seeking historically preserved 

sections of large and small cities across the country. 

A number of papers have looked at the economic impacts of historic preservation in 

various cities and for select historical sites like Civil War battlefields. A comprehensive, 

national report was issued in 20 I 0 by Rutgers University on behalf of the National Trust 

Community Investment Corporation (a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation). This document provides the primary estimates on the economic returns 

from preservation efforts. 

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (h!ffi:!i'>cv\Y\.V.achp.gQ.Y!ccononl.it:_: 

'i_t_lllewi<:le.html) provides an exhaustive bibliography of numerous state-wide studies 

showing the economic effects of historic preservation activities, but no overall summary 

of these findings is available, and for the most part the studies focus on different 

dimensions of the issue using different tools making them difficult to compare. 

Two recent in-depth papers looking at historical preservation in Connecticut (Place 

Economics, 20 II) and Philadelphia (Econsult, 20 l 0) have ample data that is thoroughly 

analyzed and provides strong insight into the economics involved, at least in these two 

different areas. The results of these two studies form the basis of this review, with some 

added older studies providing similar examples. All monetary estimates arc reported in 

20 II dollars. 

1. Rehabilitation Work 

The National Trust Community Investment Corporation (Listokin and Lahr, 20 ll ), based 

on reported use by communities, developers and other of federal tax credit provisions, 

were able to estimate the economic activity and impacts resulting from historic 

rehabilitation efforts. Table Cl presents a summary of the comprehensive results. 

Nationally, the federal tax credits returned more than $22.3 billion in federal tax dollars 

since 1978 on $17.5 billion in tax credits a return of 27.4% from every dollar invested. 

This activity had an annual average impact on U.S. economic output of$6.6 billion, 

supports 61,200 jobs and generated $935 million in tax revenues. 

20 
162 


25052.130

Table Cl: Total Annual Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Efforts Nationally, 

per Rutgers Universizy (2010) 

Total Local, 

Total Total Income, State, & Federal 

Jobs or earnings Total Output Tax Revenues 

National 

Impacts 61,200 $2,390,000,000 $6,649,000,000 $935,000,000 

A detailed study of economics and historical preservation and rehabilitation activities in 

Philadelphia (Econsult, 2010) found that the preservation work itself produced large scale 

economic benefits to Philadelphia and the rest of the state. In Philadelphia, various tax 

credits spurred more than $4.5 billion of private investment on historic preservation work 

between 1998 and 2008. This activity had an annual average impact of $662 million in 

total expenditures, supported 2,840 jobs and earned $107 million in earnings (salaries, 

wages and business profits) for the city of Philadelphia (Table C2). The citywide impacts 

included federal tax credit projects, investment by private owners, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and residential conversion of homes. 

On the statewide level, the Philadelphia rehabilitation efforts resulted in average annual 

impacts of$1.1 billion in total expenditures that supported 9,560 jobs and $366million in 

earnings within the state of Pennsylvania (Table C3). Tax revenues from this work 

included $6.6 million local taxes for the city and an additional $25.3 million in tax 

revenues for the state. 

Table C2: Total Annual Economic Impact of Various Historic Preservation Efforts in 

Philadelphiafrom £consult C01poration (20 I 0) 

Total 

Federal Investment Investment Residential Annual 

City of Tax by Private by Gov. Conversion Impact 

Philadelphia Credit Owners andNGOs of Historic All 

Projects Properties Project 

Tvpes 

Total Output 

($ millions) $224 $257 $67 $115 $662 

Total 

Employment 960 1,100 290 490 2,840 

Total I 

Earnings 

($millions) $36 $42 $11 $19 $107 

Total Local 

Tax 

Revenues 

($millions) $2.20 $2.60 0.7 $1.20 $6.60 

21 
163 


25052.131

Table C3: Estimated Total Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Efforts on the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1998 to 2008 in 2011 Dollars (Econsult, 2010) 

1998-2008 Total 1998-2008 

Annualized 

Direct Expenditures (millions) $4,679 $467 

Indirect and Induced Expenditures $6,763 $676 (millions) 

Total Output (millions) $11,443 $1,143 

Total Employment 95,630 9,563 

Total Earnings (millions) $3,666 $366 

Total State Tax Revenues (millions) $252 $25.3 

The state of Connecticut has been in the forefront of recognizing the value of tax credits 

for historic rehabilitation in spurring economic growth and has three on-going tax credit 

programs: the Historic Homes Tax Credit, the Historic Structures Rehabilitation Tax 

Credit and the Historic Preservation Tax Credit. The results of a recent study into the 

economic effects of these enhancement programs from 2000 to 20 I 0 has been thoroughly 

analyzed (Place Economics, 20 II) showing a considerable impact in various economic 

indicators listed below. 

Table C4: Historic Preservation in Connecticut: 2000-2010 (Place Economics, 2011 

$46 Million Private sector investment in historic buildings 

$251 Million Direct salary and wages in Connecticut from rehabilitating historic 

structures 

$133 Million Indirect salary and wages in Connecticut from rehabilitating historic 

structures 

$15.1 Million Personal Income Taxes from rehabilitating historic structures 

$15.7 Million Grants to local governments and non-profit organizations 

$11.2 Million Sales Taxes from historic preservation projects 

$8.1 Million Increased property taxes to local governments each year 

$2.1 Million Business Income Taxes from rehabilitating historic structures 

4,144 Direct jobs in Connecticut from rehabilitating historic structures 

2,293 Indirect jobs in Connecticut from rehabilitating historic structures 

Similar situations arise in other states where rehabilitation of historic properties has been 

studied. For instance, in the state of Texas, in 1997 rehabilitation efforts created more 

than 4,200 jobs in Texas and overall historic preservation activities created more than 

40,000 jobs in the state that year (Center for Urban Policy et al, 1999). In Nebraska an 

average of $46 million spent on statewide historic rehabilitation per year from 2001 to 

22 
164 


25052.132

2005 resulted in I ,004 jobs and an additional $31 million in income and $45 million in 

GDP at the national level (Lahr, M. and D. Listoken, 2007). 

A few studies also look specifically at the amount of return from tax credits for historic 

redevelopment. In the State of Maryland, for instance it was found that tax incentives 

stimulated an $8.53 return from private sources on every state dollar invested (Cronyn, J. 

and E. Paull, 2009). 

Another case study (Billington, 2004, 2005) looks at leveraging federal funds to gain 

more private sector investment in one of the 23 National Heritage Areas managed by the 

U.S. National Park Service. In the Blackstone Valley National Heritage Corridor in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island from 1984 (when the National Heritage program began) 

to 2003, the National Park Service invested about $15 million, which generated nearly $8 

million in additional private sector funding for particular projects (neither figure adjusted 

for inflation). 

Overall, the U.S. National Park Service invested $107.2 million into the 23 National 

Heritage Areas from 1984 to 2003 generating $261.7 million in private sector investment 

(again neither figure adjusted for inflation)--a return of more than two dollars for every 

one dollar of National Park Service funding invested here. 

On the national level, Lis token eta! ( 1998) compares the economic return on different 

types of activities and found that when compared to book publishing, pharmaceutical 

production and electronic component production, for instance, the economic impact from 

residential historic rehabilitation ranks highest in major economic measures. 

Table C5: Economic Impacts per Million Dollars oflnitial Expenditure 

Economic Residential Book Pharmaceutical Electronic 

Effect Historic Publishing Production Component 

~Na_tional) Rehabilitation Production __ ,_ -·- --·---·----

Employment 36 35 28 30 (jobs) 

Income $1,240,000 $1,160,000 $1,045,000 $1,018,000 

GDP $1,672 $1,722 $1,546 $1,483 

State taxes $106,000 $103,000 $93,000 $87,000 

Local taxes $89,000 $86,000 $79,000 $74,000 

Additionally, historic rehabilitation represents the majority of central city construction in 

Baltimore, St. Louis, San Francisco and Washington D.C., bringing new life and 

economic return to older areas. Increasingly former factories and other "brownfield" 

areas are also being converted to apartments and townhouses, while retaining their 

historic exteriors in many cities in the country, leading to economic development in these 

once-blighted areas, which are often situated in scenic areas like riverfronts. 

23 
165 


25052.133

2. Historic Tourism 

In the United States, heritage tourism has been found to be a lucrative market attracting 

well-educated and well-heeled visitors that spend more than other tourists. A recent 

study commissioned for the U.S. Cultural & Heritage Tourism Marketing Council 

(Mandala, 2009) was able to provide numbers for these assertions. This study found that 

the 78% of national vacationers who participated in heritage and cultural activities 

accounted for 90% of the economic impact of domestic tourism. Heritage travelers 

traveled more frequently than others and spent an average of $1050 per trip, contributing 

more than $203 billion annually to the U.S. economy. A number of studies have looked at 

the economic impact of different historical sites and regions across the United States 

echoing similar findings about the relevant affluence of historic visitors and the farreaching effects of their visits on local or statewide economics, too numerous to be fully 

examined here. 

Philadelphia is a city renowned for its historic preservation activities, spurred by U.S. 

National Park Service facilities and exhibits and enhanced by private enterprises, and has 

been relatively well-studied in this regard. Laurie (2008) refers to an older paper by 

Rypkema and Wiehagen for the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia which 

found that heritage visitors spend 45% more than other visitors and spend an average of 

4.7 nights, compared to 3.3 nights for all U.S. travelers. Unfortunately, this study is no 

longer available for direct reference. However, the Preservation Alliance for Greater 

Philadelphia has continued to fund work showing economic benefits from heritage 

tourism. In a recent rcpmi for the Alliance (Econsult, 20 10), the researchers found that 

heritage tourism in Philadelphia and nearby areas contributes $3.5 billion in total output, 

supporting over 45,000 jobs and $! 026 million in earnings in Pennsylvania each year. 

The economic value of visits to Civil War battlefields has also been studied recently 

(Harbinger Consulting Group, 2011) (Table C6). These studies measure different 

parameters but the major findings are summarized below. 

Table C6: Representative impacts to local communities from visitation to Civil War sites 

in the United States (Harbinger Consulting Group, 2011 

Number .Jobs Value added 

Area of Income/Wages Support (rents and 

Visitors taxes etc) 

MO/P A/SC/TNIV A NPS 

affiliated Civil War 15 $147 million 7,700 $230 million battlefields and historic sites million 

(2008) 

Journey through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage 7 million $92 million 5,100 NIA 

Area (2007) 

20 Civil War battlefields 

with survey data (2003- N/A NIA N/A 32.7 million 

2005) 

24 
166 


25052.134

Civil War attractions include more than just National Park Service managed sites. In 

Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, all states with major 

Civil War activity, more than 20 million people visited various Civil War attractions in 

2009, resulting in large scale economic benefits throughout the area. 

Natural Heritage Areas that are managed by the National Park Service also draw visitors 

and their dollars to surrounding communities. In one study (Stynes and Sun, 2004), it 

was found that 25.000 visitors in 2003 to seven National Heritage areas spent on average 

$123 each, adding up to $3.1 million locally, which supported 51 jobs, $960,000 in 

eamings and $1.5 million in value added (indirect taxes, profits, rents, etc.). 

3. Property Values 

Overall, a number of studies demonstrate that the property value of homes in historic 

districts increase once historic status is granted to the community. In a thorough, recent 

study of historic properties in Philadelphia (Econsult, 2011) it was found that homes 

within a national historic district showed a premium price of 14.3 percent and those 

within a local historic district received a premium of 22.5 percent over the value of 

homes outside these districts. Those homes in local historic districts in Philadelphia 

appreciated one percent more per year than other homes. 

The Econsult team analyzed data from other studies as a background for their work in 

Philadelphia. One study from the Office of the Budget in New York City found that from 

1975 to 2002, historic properties increased an average of 10.2 percent per year, while 

other properties only grew 9.0 percent per year. Another study in Beaufort, South 

Carolina analyzed by the Econsult team showed that an average house in the historic 

district sold for 21% more than a similar house outside the district. In Texas, cities with 

active historic preservation programs showed an increase in property values of 20% 

(Center for Urban Policy et a!, 1999). Other similar studies exist for a number of 

localized areas around the country. 

4. Other Economic Benefits 

Historic preservation activities reap other economic rewards in addition to increased 

property values, revenue from tourism and the direct result of construction and 

restoration activities. One sector that has been analyzed is the value of historical 

neighborhoods from the film-making industry. 

The city of Philadelphia reaps rewards from its preservation of large blocks of historic 

buildings and various historic sights as a location for films, television shows and other 

media requiring historical backdrops. About $116 million was reaped in direct spending 

in Philadelphia accruing from the film-making industry in 2007, an amount that has 

25 
167 


25052.135

steadily increased from $31 million in 2000 (Econsult, 20 I 0). Laurie (2008) reports that 

one particular movie filmed in Philadelphia, Beloved, for instance, brought $15 million 

direct economic impact to the city. These numbers are as given and not adjusted for 

inflation to 20 ll dollars. 

Even venues smaller than Philadelphia can gain economic benefits from the movie 

industry through their historic preservation activities. For instance, Asheville, North 

Carolina has drawn movie makers looking for historic locations. From 1980 to 1997 

(Rykema, 1988) direct expenditures of over $4.6 billion have come to the town through 

the film industry, which chooses this venue in part for its historic buildings but also 

enhanced by its scenic location in the Appalachian Mountains. 

There are many small studies of particular historical areas and their economic impact on 

property values, but, as with other aspects of this report, there are no generally accepted 

overall figures for these areas across the nation as a whole. 

26 
168 


25052.136

D. The Department of the Interior 

In December. 2009, the Department of the Interior (DOl) published it's first-ever report. 

a preliminary one, on the "Economic Impact of the Department of Interior· s Programs 

and Activities." In June, 2011 this report was released as a final report, "The Department 

of the Interior's Economic Contributions," with numbers updated through 2010. DOl is 

the U.S. agency most directly involved in natural resources conservation and their 

findings are relevant to this report. Monetary amounts are reported in 2011 dollars. 

Key findings relevant to this review are: 

Overall, in 2010 DOl provided more than 2.2 million jobs for Americans, which 

generated $377 billion in economic activity. 

About 439 million visits were made to DOl land-national parks, monuments, 

recreation areas, fish and wildlife refuges, etc. These visits supported more than 

388,000 jobs and contributed more than $49 billion in economic activity. This 

amounts to about 8% of the direct output of personal consumption tourism 

expenditures in the U.S. and about 1.3% of direct tourism related employment. 

Water, timber and forage activities on DOT land supported about 370,000 jobs and 

$50 billion in economic activity. 

About $2 billion was spent on construction and maintenance activities related to 

recreation and conservation, which supported about 41,000 jobs and contributed 

about $5.7 billion in economic activity. 

$222 million that was spent by DOl on land acquisition was estimated to 

contribute about $457 million in economic activity and support about 3.000 jobs. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed about $4.2 billion in economic 

activity and supported over 32,000 jobs through their management of 553 

National Wildlife Refuges and thousands of smaller natural areas in the United 

States. 

The DOl report gives an overall synopsis of all DOl activities and includes details for 

topics beyond the realm of natural resources conservation. It does not look into other 

areas of economic relevance, including the value of ecosystem services, property values 

around natural lands and other aspects relevant to this study. It also appears to not 

consider the multiplier effects or economic activity occurring outside ofDOI lands as a 

result of recreational activity on DOl lands, though such ex-situ impacts are considered 

for commercial activities such as energy extraction. Data from the DOl study are 

included in relevant sections of this report. Other sections of this paper attempt to give an 

27 
169 


25052.137

overview of the benefits to many other stakeholders in the United States, above and 

beyond the efforts of a single U.S. Agency. 

E. Gap Analysis and Next Steps 

As this study shows, there are a number of older and more recent papers regarding 

various aspects of the economic side of outdoor recreation, nature conservation and 

historic preservation, but few studies encompass the entire United States. Most studies 

either deal with single sites or categories of sites, or detailed discussions of different 

methodologies, but overarching studies are rare. In this section we identify some of these 

gaps and some ideas for further study that is needed before the entire impact of these 

fields can be determined. 

1. Overall Gaps 

One major gap in the literature for all three topics regards the impact on property values 

for parcels based on relative location to conservation areas, recreation areas and historic 

areas. Regional and national averages are needed in each sector to define the overall 

value of these areas to the economy. Similar methodology could encompass the entire 

spectrum of these properties to make comparisons easy. 

Another overarehing gap in economic studies at the national level is the impact of state 

and local parks. These parks fill a variety of needs including nature conservation, historic 

preservation and outdoor recreation, and a single study of state parks could detail the 

economic effects of all of these statewide, regionally and nationally. 

Additional efforts can be made to identify the return on future recreation, conservation 

and historic preservation investments. Initial data needed for such an evaluation tool or 

method were seen in the results of this review. A fonnalized effort can be made to 

provide ratios or other measures that would help identify the potential jobs, tax revenues 

and other economic returns from possible public dollar investments. 

2. Outdoor Recreation 

Thanks to the Outdoor Foundation, there is a complete breakdown of the statewide, 

regional and national economic impacts from a number of traditional outdoor recreations, 

including bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow sports, trail use and 

wildlife viewing. 

Unfortunately there are other outdoor sports that are not included in this report. One 

large gap is in motorized outdoor activities like the use of off-road vehicles, 

28 
170 


25052.138

snowmobiling, dirt bikes, etc. A similar study is needed to quantify the economic 

impacts from these activities at the national level. Similarly, although on a smaller scale, 

nontraditional activities like hang-gliding, parasailing and other activities need coverage 

as well. 

The overall impact of outdoor recreation can also be measured by the increased revenue 

from visitors in communities surrounding recreational areas, by the impact on property 

values of homes near recreation areas and other means. Only a handful of studies, 

however, detail these economic effects from recreation. 

3. Nature Conservation 

Determining the economic effects of nature conservation has some similarities with the 

study of the economic effects of outdoor recreation and in some cases the same studies 

can do double-duty, especially when the effects of visitors to refuges and parks are 

concerned. These visitors come to these areas in large part to enjoy their outdoor 

recreational pursuits. The land reserved for these activities also plays a large role in the 

conservation of natural resources in the United Stales. 

But, as with the analyses of outdoor recreation, most of the studies of visitors and 

residents and the impact on their homes and communities come from single sites or a 

handful of sites with particular characteristics. More studies at the national level are 

needed to better elucidate the overall economic impact from conserving natural lands. 

Updated and more-thorough estimates on current values for ecosystems from various 

types of habitats and combined values are needed. Current values are old, and limited. 

The science is available to assign such values, but funding has not been available. 

Another area that could use more analysis is the study of forests in the United States~the 

types of forests, the extent of these forests, and the ecosystem services that forests 

provide on a national level. Similarly, the amount of land converted from natural lands to 

agriculture and municipalities (which add little to the world's ecosystem services) could 

be analyzed to show the loss of these services over time and the amount that it costs to 

make up the difference. 

4. Historic Preservation 

The historic preservation impacts are well represented by Listokin and Lahr (20 II). 

Additional work may be needed to better identify local efforts. The biggest need relates 

to historic tourism. A scattering of such studies related Civil War battlefields and others 

are available, but few look at the impact on the regional or national levels. 

29 
171 


25052.139

F. References 

American Sportfishing Association, 2007, "State and National Economic Effects of 

Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation on U.S. Forest ServiceManaged Land," U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Andrew Loftus Consulting and Southwick Associates, Feb, 2011, "The Financial Returns 

and Benefits of Hunting and Fishing Excise Taxes." Produced on behalf of the 

Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. 

Billington, R., 2004, "Federal Leverage Attracts Private Investment at US Heritage Sites: 

A Case Study," International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.349-· 

359. 

Billington, R., 2005, Federal Investment Attracts Private Investment in Industrial Historic 

Sites, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 18:1, 79-83. 

Caudill, J., Henderson, E., 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to 

Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. USFWS Division of 

Economics, Washington, DC. 

Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, Texas Perspectives and the LBJ 

School ofPublic Affairs, Austin University, 1997, "Economic Impacts of Historic 

Preservation in Texas." 

Costanza, R, R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. 

Naeem, R. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt, 1997, 

"The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Nature, Vol. 

387, pp. 253-260. 

Crompton, J.L., 2005, "The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from 

the past two decades in the United States," Managing Leisure I 0, 203 ·-218. 

Cronyn, J. and E. Paull, 2009, "Heritage Tax Credits: Maryland's Own Stimulus to 

Renovate Buildings for Productive Use and Create Jobs, an $8.53 

Return on Every State Dollar Invested", Abel Report, Vol. 22, No.!. 

Eagle, J.G. and D.R. Betters, 1998, The Endangered Species Act and Economic Values: a 

Comparison of Fines and Contingent Valuation Studies, Ecological Economics 26 

( 1998) pp. 165-171. 

Econsult Corporation, 2010, "The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in 

Philadelphia," Philadelphia, Pa. 

30 
172 


25052.140

Harbinger Consulting Group, 20 II, Economic Benefits of Civil War Battlefields, 

Summary of Existing Data and Analysis, Prepared for the Civil War Trust. 

Headwaters Economics, 2011, Summary: The Economic Importance of National 

Monuments to Local Communities, Headwaters Economics 

(http:/ /hcadwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/national-monuments, downloaded 

9112/11 

Ingraham, M.W. and S.G. Foster, 2008, "The value of ecosystem services provided by 

the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous U.S Ecological 

Economics 67: 608-618. 

Laurie, J, 2008, "Historic preservation and cluster based economic development," 

Economic Development Journal Vol. 7, No I, pp. 38-46 

Lahr, L. and D. Listokin, 2007, "Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Nebraska," 

Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. 

Listokin, D, and L. Lahr, 2011, "Second Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the 

Federal Historic Tax Credit," Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers 

University. 

Listokin, D. and L. Lahr ( 1998), a pro-preservation scholarly essay on "The 

Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development" 

(cited by Mason 2006, but original not located). 

Lorah, Paul and R. Southwick, 2003, "Environmental Protection, Population Change and 

Economic Development in the Western United States," Population and 

Environment 24(3), pp. 255-71. 

Lutzenhiser, M. and N. R. Netusil, 2001, "The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home's Sale 

Price," Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 291-298. 

Mandala Research LLC, The Cultural and Heritage Traveler, U.S. Cultural and Heritage 

Tourism Marketing Council. 2009, 

(http://www.culturalheritagetourism.org/documents/CHTStudyOct2009.pdf) 

Mason, R., 2005, "Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the 

Literature," A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution 

Metropolitan Policy Program. 

National Marine Manufacturer's Association, 2010, 2009 Recreational Boating Statistical 

Abstract, Chicago, Ill. 

31 
173 


25052.141

Neumann, B.C., K.J. Boyleb and K.P Bell, 2009, Property Price Effects of a National 

Wildlife Refuge: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts," 

Land Usc Policy 26: pp. 1011~1019. 

Outdoor Industry Foundation, 2006, The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy, Boulder, 

CO. (Outdoor Foundation). 

Parent, G., J. Alavalapati, T. Stein and A. Hodges, 2007, Economic Impacts and 

motivations of Off-highway Vehicle Recreationists: A Case Study from Florida," 

for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of 

Forestry. 

Place Economics, June 2011, Investment in Connecticut: The Economic Benefits of 

Historic Preservation, Creating Jobs, Leveraging Resources, Advancing 

Sustainable Growth, Enhancing Community Quality, Washington, DC, 2011, 

http://www .cultureandtourism.org/ cct/lib/cct/Economic _Impact~ Study_ %28Fina I 

_6-201 l%29.pdf 

Richardson, L. and J. Loomis, 2009, "The total economic value of threatened, endangered 

and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics 68: 1535-

1548. 

Rykema, D, 1998, Profiting From The Past: The Impact of Historic Preservation on the 

NC Economy, http://www.presnc.org/Preservation-Answers/Profiting-from-thePast. 

Silberman, Jonathon, 2003, "Economic data on off-highway vehicle recreation for the 

State of Arizona and for each Arizona County", Arizona State University, 

downloaded from: http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/w _ c/OHV%20Report.pdf. 

Stynes, D.J., January 2011, "Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National 

Park Visitation and Payroll," Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/SSD/NRR20 11/281, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource 

Studies Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222. 

Stynes, D.J, W. Chang and D. B. Propst, 1996, "National Economic Impacts of CE 

Recreation Visitor Spending, an Update for 1966, 1996 National CE Estimates 

02/16/98. 

Stynes, Daniel J. and Ya-Y en Sun, 2004, Economic Impacts ofNational Heritage Area 

Visitor Spending; Summary Results from Seven National Heritage Area Visitor 

Surveys, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Report on the Environment: Highlights of 

National Trends, 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/roe/docs/roe _ hd/ROE _ HD _Final~ 2008.pdf 

32 
174 


25052.142

U.S. Department of the Interior, 201 L The Department of the Interior's Economic 

Contributions," Washington D.C., June 23, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, "2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation," Washington D.C. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2006, Meeting the Challenge: Recreation on Public 

Land, PowerPoint presentation available at: 

http://www. b lm.gov /pgdata/ etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_ and_ Renewab lc _ Rcso 

urces/recreation_images/national_recreation/planning.Par.0634.File.dat/Rcc%20tr 

ends%20&%20challenges%20-AORE%20-%20 ll-15%20web%20version.pdf 

Woodward, Richard and Yong-Suhk Wui, 2001, The Economic Value of Wetland 

Services: a Meta-Analysis, Ecological Economics 37 (2001), pp. 257-270. 

33 
175 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I thank all three of you for your testimony. 

First, let me just ask a general question on the conservation 

bills, five specific, and then you also added the range issue in our 

parks. Do I understand from Dr. Inkley and Dr. Schildwachter, 

from your testimonies, that you support these conservation bills? 

Are there any amendments or any changes that you would want 

to see us consider, or are you satisfied by the way they are drafted 

and you give basically unqualified support for those five bills, in 

Dr. Inkley’s case, six bills in Dr. Schildwachter’s case? 

Mr. INKLEY. Go ahead, Greg. 

Mr. SCHILDWACHTER. Yes, sir. I am on board. I would only add 

that another feature that I would urge the Senate to consider as 

they are looking at these programs with the cost share basis and 

the matching funds and the mechanisms by which they work in 

that these programs really need to be prized as we do the necessary work of balancing the budget because the programs not only 

leverage dollars from the private sector, but in creating the infrastructure as I described, they also become places where sales of 

services and equipment can then proceed and in their way contribute to economic recovery as well. 

Mr. INKLEY. Thank you for asking. Yes, we do support these 

wildlife bills and their passage. 

The one bill, Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, S. 357, we would 

like to see several discussions pertaining to some possible amendments. One of those is that the bill currently would apply only to 

native species, and while invasive species are a huge problem in 

this country, invasive species also can carry disease which may be 

transmitted to native species. So, it would seem appropriate that 

this bill also apply to some of the non-native species that may 

present a problem by carrying diseases to native species. 

Second, we would like to see the definition of the Wildlife Disease Committee, or the members of that committee, further defined 

to make sure there is a balance of government and non-government 

members on that committee to make recommendations. Those are 

our two primary recommendations for the wildlife—— 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we thank you for that. I would seem to 

me that if an invasive species disease is affecting native species 

that it would probably be covered under the provisions. But it is 

a point that might be worth us reviewing. 

Mr. INKLEY. We would like to see that clarified, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. OK. Thank you. 

The point about the economic issues is right on target. I mean, 

we do look at conservation as helping, first of all, the economic activities that you have already talked about. So, we do see this as 

a plus on the economic side. 

What we want to make sure is that the monies that are being 

generated are used for their intended activities; they are not taken 

for other purposes. We have had a great track record on all of these 

programs. The funds have actually gotten to their intended use, 

and we would certainly want to make sure that continues as we 

look at reauthorizations or expansions of the different conservation 

programs. 

176 

Dr. Wasserman, let me turn to the chimpanzee issue for a moment, if I might. I think you have been pretty clear about your position. It does seem to be contrary to what the National Institutes 

of Health are suggesting to us and that is that there could be a potential use of chimpanzees for research in the future and therefore 

that capacity needs to be maintained, admittedly at a different 

level and under different protocols for future use that we have been 

using currently, but that there is this ongoing potential need that 

we would not want to see legislation prevent. I take it you disagree 

with that? 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Not completely, Senator Cardin. First of all, 

thank you for having this hearing and for considering this subject, 

which is so important. 

We met in your office and you expressed a similar concern. In reviewing the Institute of Medicine report, they brought in biodefense 

testimony just on this specific question, what if there is an emergency—you have to have chimpanzees available. 

During that discussion, it was stated that we could never consider, never consider where that emergency could come from because using a chimp, it takes so long for a chimpanzee to respond, 

and we have so much better and more viable non-chimpanzee models to use. 

Nevertheless, I recognize the concern that you express and that 

others have expressed, and there has been an amendment that has 

been submitted that under certain situations, with transparency, 

with an opportunity for public comment, then we think that the 

public’s health could be protected and the inclusion of that amendment should satisfy those concerns. 

Again, I must reiterate that all of the research and all of the testimony suggested that there is really no need for the chimpanzee 

model. We are not talking about other animals at this point because this bill is exclusively focusing on chimpanzees. 

I could go through a litany of differences between how the chimpanzee as a biological model differs from the human despite the 

sharing of genetic materials. And particularly in hepatitis C and 

HIV research, which is why we had so many chimpanzees in the 

past several decades, it was learned that chimpanzees could be infected with HIV but the disease does not progress to AIDS the way 

it does with humans. 

In testing approximately 85 promising vaccines in chimpanzees, 

there were 200 clinical experiments in humans, none of which 

proved fruitful. And in fact, that is how one wastes time in doing 

research where we focus on the wrong model and spend unnecessary time on it. 

So, we feel very confident that there will not be the need for 

chimpanzee research in any kind of a public health emergency and 

would urge that we do not amend this legislation in a way that 

could be taken abuse of and not really effectuate what this legislation proposes to do. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I thank you for that. And while we appreciate the spirit of the amendment that you are suggesting, we will 

wait to see. We will not wait long. And Dr. Anderson indicated that 

he will have written comments to us, I think he said timely. We 

would welcome your thoughts as we get additional information, not 

177 

only from the National Institutes of Health but also from the Institute of Medicine as they are looking at ways of transitioning to a 

new policy. We would welcome your response to that information. 

Dr. WASSERMAN. Thank you. I would be delighted. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Let me point out that the record of 

the Committee will remain open for 2 weeks. That allows for questions by members of the Committee to our witnesses. It is more 

likely we are going to get questions for the first panel, but it could 

also be for the second panel. We ask that if there is a written request for information that you respond to that in a timely fashion. 

I would also point out that we have received written testimony 

from Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the 

National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, the Humane Society, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Without objection, their statements will be included in our records as well as, as pointed earlier without objection, the full testimonies of all of our witnesses today. 

Once again, I want to thank you all for your cooperation. 

And with that, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[The referenced testimonies follow:] 

178 


25052.143

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC. 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

WATER AND WILDLIFE SUBCOMMITTEE 

APRIL 24,2012 

CONCERNING: 

S. 2282, THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012 

S. 2156, THE MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT INVESTMENT & ENHANCEMENT ACT 

S. 2071, THE PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2012 

S. 1494, THE NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOliNDATION REAliTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011 

S. 1249, THE TARGET PRACTICE & MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SUPPORT ACT 

S.l266, THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONSERVATION Acr 0F20ll 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide information regarding reauthorization of the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act, amendment of the Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp 

Act, granting of authority to the Interior Secretary to issue electronic duck stamps, 

reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, amendment of the PittmanRobcrtson Act regarding public target ranges, and the creation of a restoration program affecting 

the Delaware River Basin. Ducks Unlimited appreciates the consideration of the Committee on 

these bills. 

Ducks Unlimited has been a strong and active proponent of waterfowl conservation for 75 years. 

Our mission is to conserve, restore, and manage wetlands and associated habitats for North 

America's waterfowl, and for the benefits these resources provide other wildlife and the people 

who enjoy and value them. We work in Canada, Mexico, and throughout the United States. and 

since 1937, DU has conserved more than 12.7 million acres of habitats important to waterfowl. 

With more than a million supporters, Ducks Unlimited represents a significant conservation 

voice for waterfowl and the landscapes that support them. Our work is science-based. We use 

reliable information from disciplines of wetland ecology, waterfowl biology, hydrology, civil 

engineering, social science, and landscape ecology to develop, implement, and adapt waterfowl 

conservation actions. We work in partnership with agencies, organizations, and private 

landowners in the most important landscapes used throughout the watertowllilecycle including 

breeding, migration, and wintering habitats. These kinds of partnerships are essential for 

efficient and effective conservation, and we support legislation and policy that advance these 

efforts. 

S. 2282, TO REAUTHORIZE THE NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT: 

Ducks Unlimited (DU) is pleased to testify before the Environment and Public Works 

Committee on the fifth reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(NA WCA). Since enactment, NA WCA has played an invaluable role in wetlands conservation 

in North America by helping to stimulate local partnerships aimed exclusively at habitat 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 1 
179 


25052.144

conservation for wetland-dependent species and the many people who take enjoyment from 

them. NA WCA continues to be an extraordinarily popular program among those involved. We 

commend Congress for its foresight in creating NA WCA in 1989 and repeatedly taking action to 

ensure the long-term success of this important program. 

Since its enactment in 1989, NA WCA has accomplished measurable success in all 50 states, 

Canada, and Mexico. The creation of the program over 22 years ago was a bipartisan effort, and 

NA WCA has consistently attracted strong bipartisan support in Congress. Presidents of both 

parties have signed legislation relating to NA WCA and sought appropriations to support it. This 

program has enhanced more than 7 million acres across the United States and many more in the 

breeding and wintering habitats in Canada and Mexico. Reauthorization ofNA WCA is critical 

to build on this success and ensure the conservation of high quality wetlands in the United States. 

NA WCA is a model program for engaging partnerships and leveraging federal funds. More than 

4,500 separate NA WCA partners have come together to implement more than 2,216 on-theground, voluntary conservation projects with multiple benefits for wetlands, wildlife, and people. 

The multi-sector list includes all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies, hundreds of private 

landowners, a diversity of conservation organizations, small businesses, corporations, tribes, and 

local governments. 

In addition to being one of the tederal government's most effective conservation programs, 

NAWCA is a model of fiscal responsibility as it provides an excellent return on a relatively 

modest federal investment. The law requires every federal dollar put into the program to be 

matched by at least $1 in non-federal money. On average, partner match has been $3.20 for 

every $1 in federal money. The partner investment in NA WCA totals more than $3.5 billion 

during the life of the program. In FY 20 II, a total of I 08 projects were approved for the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico-94 in the United States, 6 in Canada, and 8 in Mexico. 

Historically, the lower 48 states of the United States have lost approximately 53% of their 

original wetlands. The state of California has lost a staggering 91% of its original wetlands and 

Maryland wetland loss is 73%. Oklahoma has lost two-thirds of its wetlands to agricultural, 

industrial, and residential development. While NA WCA has helped to replace some wetland 

losses, the most recent study of wetland trends showed that the net loss of wetlands across the 

United States increased by 140% between 2004 and 2009. The need for this voluntary wetland 

conservation program has never been greater. 

NA WCA facilitates efforts by resource managers and multi-sector partners to use a variety of 

strategies to restore and enhance degraded habitat along with protecting the quality habitat that 

remains. The habitat work that is completed on both public and private lands improves 

recreational opportunities and often provides additional economic benefits for landowners and 

their communities. Wildlife-related recreation such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching 

generates over $100 billion of economic output each year. In many cases, this economic activity 

is vital to the incomes ofrural Americans and creates jobs that cannot be expotied. 

The economic, sociaL and wildlife conservation benefits of this program make it the model for 

"good government". The restoration and protection of wetlands and associated habitats made 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 2 
180 


25052.145

possible by NA WCA has many benefits for both people and wildlife. Scientific studies clearly 

demonstrate that wetlands not only recharge groundwater supplies but also act as filters to help 

purify water. Wetlands also trap and hold precipitation and runoff, and act as butTers in coastal 

regions, lessening damage from Hoods and hurricanes. 

In Alabama, for example, 4 NA WCA projects have been completed in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta. 

These lands are now accessible for hunting, fishing, boating conservation education, camping, 

research, bird watching, and canoeing. $4 million in NA WCA funds have leveraged over $18.5 

million in partner funding, a match rate of over 4.5: I. Over 47,000 acres of wetland and upland 

habitat have been conserved using these dollars. In Maryland, 17 projects have enhanced over 

44,500 acres of habitat. Using over $11 million in federal funding, partners were able to raise 

nearly $49 million in private funding in areas such as Blackwater National Wildlite Refuge and 

the Pocomoke River. 

Undeniably, the benefits ofNA WCA extend well beyond waterfowl. Wetlands provide a home 

for more than 900 wildlife species at some time during the year and approximately 6% are 

waterfowl. As intended by Congress, the criteria for NA WCA projects include waterfi.1wl as 

well as other wetland-associated migratory birds and threatened and endangered species. Under 

this guidance, NA WCA projects are benefitting a diverse array of species. including tish and 

mammals. 

NA WCA serves as a vital tool for cooperative efforts to address landscape-level habitat 

challenges in vital areas for waterfowl, including inland wetland systems such as the Prairie 

Pothole Region of the Great Plains and the Lower Mississippi River Valley, as well as iconic 

coastal communities such as the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes, to name a few. 

What began as a funding mechanism to accelerate implementation of the international North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in 1989 has 

become a highly successful program with widespread success and support. NA WCA has 

stimulated hundreds of conservation partnerships that would not exist otherwise. The result is 

millions of acres of habitat conserved that provide myriad benefits for wetlands, wildlife, and the 

public. 

NAWCA is the most effective wetland restoration program in the country. We strongly support 

the legislation and urge the Committee to reauthorize NA WCA for an additional five years with 

annual appropriations of up to $75 million. 

S. 2156, To AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION STAMP ACT: 

Ducks Unlimited supports the increase in the price of the Federal Migratory Bird Conservation 

and Hunting Stamp, commonly referred to as the Federal Duck Stamp. The value and efficiency 

of this conservation program arc noteworthy and our membership supports it. This legislation 

would permit the Secretary of the Interior to set the price of the Federal Duck Stamp, in 

consultation with the members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 3 
181 


25052.146

The price of the stamp has not increased since 1991. During that timeframe, the buying power of 

duck stamp revenues has not kept pace with the cost of wetland and upland acreage. Since its 

inception in 1934 (when the price was $1 ), its buying power has never been lower than it is 

today. While other products have dramatically increased in price, the duck stamp has remained 

at $15. Land prices have doubled and tripled across much of the prairie Duck Factory. rendering 

today's duck stamp revenues less than half as effective in conserving habitat as in the early 

1990s. The price increase will allow duck stamp revenues to keep pace with the consumer price 

index and would help address rising conservation costs associated with increasing land values. 

The nearly 1.4 million "Duck Stamps" purchased annually are a significant part of the waterfowl 

conservation picture. Waterfowl hunters have been the primary purchasers of these stamps year 

in and year out, and want to see it continue to contribute to this eftort. The stamp has raised 

hundreds of millions of dollars since it was introduced in 1934 and more importantly. has 

conserved more than 5.2 million acres of migratory bird habitat across the United States. 

Water±owlers are an economic "driver" in the U.S., responsible for more than $2.3 billion in total 

economic output per year. Their participation in waterfowl hunting ensures an essential source 

of conservation revenue and they are an important source of policy support, and serve as the 

foundation tor important hunting traditions. An average of$854 was spent by waterfowlers who 

hunted both ducks and geese according to estimates from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife-Related Recreation As a proportion of 

total expenditures. the duck stamp accounted for less than 2% of the dollars spent on hunting 

equipment, dogs, travel, food, lodging, and other trip costs in 2006. Waterfowlers are 

conservationists and want to ensure that these opportunities exist for generations to come. 

Any increase in Duck Stamp price may result in an immediate, but temporary, decrease in the 

numbers of stamps sold. In the past, reductions averaging 5% have occurred after a stamp price 

increase; however, sales recovered nearly to previous levels toll owing these price increases. An 

increase in stamp price will result, however, in an increase in revenue, especially if hunter 

numbers remain at levels similar to recent years or hopefully, increase over time. 

Communication must be integrated as pmi of the proposal to increase the price of the duck 

stamp. Ducks Unlimited is a key part of this effort. DU voluntarily assists in communications 

eflorts promoting the federal duck stamp contest as well as duck stamp sales to generate more 

support for waterfowl and wetlands conservation. In fact, we have encouraged our members to 

buy two or more stamps this year to voluntarily support this habitat conservation. 

Each year, about 20 percent of all duck stamps are purchased by individuals who do not hunt 

waterfowl that particular year. Many of these stamps are bought by collectors and avid 

conservationists who support habitat programs funded by duck stamp sales. It is appropriate that 

wetland and waterfowl enthusiasts hunters and nonhunters alike- support the stamp price 

increase because the habitats acquired and protected with duck stamp revenues benefit far more 

species than ducks and geese, Wetland and upland habitats provide hundreds of species of 

resident and migratory birds, mammals, fish. reptiles, and amphibians with vital habitat. 

Conservationists, whether they hunt or not, can make a difference with each duck stamp they 

purchase. 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 4 
182 


25052.147

DU has some level of reservation regarding the provision allowing the Secretary to waive the 

requirement that certain individuals purchase a federal duck stamp. While there might be 

situations where exemptions or waivers are warranted, we are concerned that such a provision 

might open the door for numbers of exemptions to be requested in the future. We believe that 

any waivers should be extremely limited in nature and have a de minimus effect on overall 

receipts. 

This legislation will enable the Secretary of the Interior to set the price of the stamp to keep pace 

with rising land prices and provide adequate revenue from sales to support the original intent of 

the program. The Secretary will make any decisions regarding stamp price under the advisement 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, which is made up of four members of 

Congress and three members of the Cabinet. All the Commission members are intimately 

familiar with the duck stamp program, and well qualified to determine whether the price of the 

federal duck stamp should remain steady or be raised. They are staffed by property appraisers 

and other real estate experts. Ducks Unlimited supports both this legislation and efforts by the 

Congress to authorize an increase in the price of the duck stamp. 

S. 2071, To ALLOW THE INTERIOR SECRETARY TO ISSUE EI.ECTRONIC DUCK STAMPS: 

For generations, waterfowlers have paid for conservation programs and the Duck Stamp is a 

good example of the effort to invest in the resource we care for. As seen above, funds from the 

purchase of this stamp go towards acquiring land beneficial to the public and waterfowl across 

the country. 

Duck stamps are used by every waterfowl hunter over the age of 16. Traditionally waterfowlers 

could buy their stamps at post offices if they were in stock, and some stores selling sporting 

goods would buy a quantity to re-sell as a convenience to their customers. When the internet 

became popularized they could also buy their duck stamps on-line through a contractor known as 

Amplcx that serves as a USPS fulfillment center. However, if bought online then, the purchaser 

had to wait until their stamp was mailed in order to use it for hunting. 

Six years ago, the Electronic Duck Stamp Act (Act) was passed, making it possible to buy a 

federal duck stamp over the internet, and immediately go afield, and to make it easier for federal 

duck stamps to be sold to the public. Duck stamps are not always available at small rural post 

offices and even some larger ones, and are sometimes difficult for waterfowl hunters and 

collectors to purchase over the counter. This often happens later in the season when stores sell 

out of the supply they may have purchased earlier in the hunting season. Under the Electronic 

Duck Stamp Act, if a stamp is bought over the internet, the purchaser is given a special receipt 

valid for up to 45 days, which can be used while hunting in place of the actual stamp, giving 

sut1lcient time to mail a physical stamp to the purchaser. 

It is important to note that even if a purchaser buys his/her stamp in this manner, they will still 

receive an actual stamp in the mail. We have concerns that if a physical stamp was not issued to 

the purchaser, the value of the federal stamps as collectors' items and a long and important 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 5 
183 


25052.148

tradition could be lost and have a potentially negative effect on sales. This loss of value did 

occur to some state duck stamps when they were made available electronically, and the tradition 

and artistic value of the federal duck stamp program is too strong to risk losing. This has not 

happened, however, to the federal stamp, thanks to the fulfillment requirement of the Act. 

The trial that was arranged under the Electronic Duck Stamp Act legislation has worked. Federal 

stamps are now available instantly over the internet, yet due to the requirement of fulfillment, it 

has not made the stamp just a novelty item. The integrity of the system is secure. Because of its 

success in making federal duck stamps easier to obtain while preserving the heritage and utility 

of the traditional stamps and attendant art, Ducks Unlimited supports the proposal to make this 

program permanent. 

S.1494, TO REAUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE l<'OLNDA TION: 

Established in 1984 by the Congress, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) 

was created to facilitate and develop private investments to conserve fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats. The Foundation has been very successful in linking private partners with federal 

agencies in order to build strategic partnerships. These partnerships have addressed some of the 

most signit!cant threats to fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, and done so 

successfully. Ducks Unlimited supports the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation and appreciates the Committee's continued suppoti of S.l494. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NA WMP) is an international strategy and 

plan for action for conserving and restoring migratory waterfowl populations throughout the 

continent. Developed in 1986, NA WMP involves many partners such as federal agencies, states 

and local government, corporations, non-profits, and private individuals. NFWF was a critical 

partner with DU and state fish and game agencies during the early years of implementation of the 

NA WMP and worked with DU and states to deliver initial funding to jump start its 

implementation. 

As grant recipients and partners of the Foundation, DU recognizes the important role of the 

Foundation in leveraging federal funds with private sector contributions to conserve fish, 

wildlife, and their habitats. For more than 27 years, the Foundation has been a vital source of 

funding for voluntary, non-regulatory, on-the-ground conservation efforts that directly benefit 

the sporting community through improved fish and wildlife populations and hunting and angling 

opportunities. As directed by Congress, the Foundation establishes partnerships among federal 

agencies and corporate partners to catalyze investments for fish and wildlife conservation. For 

every federal dollar invested in the Foundation, more than three dollars is delivered to the ground 

for conservation. 

Across the nation, Foundation grants are conserving working landscapes, improving public 

access, and fostering innovative strategies that maximize species and conservation outcomes. In 

addition, the Foundation has developed a focused strategic plan based on national, regional, and 

local conservation needs. Program performance is monitored and evaluated on an annual basis to 

ensure that grant dollars are allocated only to the most cost-effective and conservation-efficient 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 6 
184 


25052.149

projects. These efforts benefit natural resources while positively impacting local economies 

through enhanced recreation, tourism, and other business activities. The Foundation has 

demonstrated its unique ability to leverage federal funds and bring together public and private 

entities to implement coordinated conservation strategies through grant-making programs. 

NFWF has made a strong commitment to restoration and protection of waterfowl and migratory 

bird habitat through their work at the Foundation, and DU supports reauthorization. 

S. 1249, TO AMEND THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT: 

Along with 26 other members of the America's Wildlife Conservation Partnership, Ducks 

Unlimited has joined in support of this legislation to amend the Pittman Robertson Act to 

provide incentives for stales to develop shooting ranges on federal public lands. This legislation 

would also result in increased wildlife conservation funding. 

Hunters, shooting sports participants, and firearms. archery, and ammunition manufacturers are 

the largest financial supporters of wildlife conservation throughout the United States having 

contributed more than $6 billion to habitat conservation, recreational shooting and wildlife 

management through Pittman-Robertson excise tax payments, including almost $4.8 billion just 

since 1991. Despite the unqualified success of this historic "user pays" system, PittmanRoberlson funds have not always been administered consistently in a manner that encourages the 

creation of recreational shooting opportunities. Unfortunately, these opportunities for both 

informal recreational and competitive shooting on public lands have declined significantly in 

recent years. The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would help address 

this loss of access and opportunity by providing states with more flexibility in their use of 

Pittman-Robertson funds to develop shooting ranges on federal public lands. 

Under the Pittman-Robertson Act, states must fund the cost of wildlife restoration and shooting 

range projects using revenue generated primarily from the sale of hunting licenses and game 

tags. The federal government's 75% reimbursement derives from the Pittman-Robertson excise 

taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. In order to facilitate the development and 

management of shooting ranges on federal public lands, the Target Practice and Marksmanship 

Training Support Act would increase the reimbursement to 90%. Pittman-Robertson funds are 

allocated to states on a formula basis. Therefore, while it would provide additional capability to 

states, the reimbursement rate would not result in increased federal spending. 

In addition, this important legislation would amend an existing requirement that PittmanRobertson funding used for shooting ranges be obligated within two years by allowing the funds 

to accrue over five years. This extension would allow individual projects to be funded over 

multiple budget cycles and significantly enhance the ability of states to build and maintain 

shooting ranges. In addition, the legislation would limit the unnecessary exposure to liability that 

federal land management agencies may face when providing recreational shooting oppmtunities 

on public lands. 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 7 
185 


25052.150

Providing states with these new incentives will improve the safety of recreational shooting and 

assist in the recruitment and retention of hunters and shooters. It will also result in additional 

purchases of firearms. archery equipment, and ammunition, the excise taxes on which will 

provide increased funding for wildlife conservation and hunter education programs. Therefore, 

DU supports S. 1249. 

S. 1266, To CREATE A RESTORATION PROGRAM AFFECTING TilE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

Ducks Unlimited supports the efTorts to create a framework for making substantial progress 

towards the protection and restoration of the ecologically and economically significant Delaware 

River Basin. 

The Delaware River Basin is the largest drinking water supplier in the Mid-Atlantic. It supports 

a multi-billion dollar economy in the form of fisheries, recreation. and tourism, and provides 

valuable wildlife habitat. After experiencing two consecutive catastrophic flooding events, the 

Delaware River Basin requires attention now more than ever. Action outlined in this legislation 

will provide for the sustainable future of the Delaware River Basin and the tremendous benefits 

it provides. 

This bill would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with other federal 

agencies. to establish the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program to increase coordination 

and collaboration of conservation efforts currently underway in the entire Basin. Concurrently, 

the legislation would provide for the creation of a competitive grants program--along with muchneeded technical assistance--to add to the limited federal resources available to the watershed. 

The involvement of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency is 

important to the success of this inter-agency partnership to restore and protect the Delaware 

River Basin. 

The Delaware River Basin is unique, economically and ecologically important. Ducks Unlimited 

supports this kgislation. 

Thank you. 

Testimony of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., April 24, 2012- Page 8 
186 


25052.151

TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD OF JEFF TRANDAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING THE NATIONAL FISH AND 

WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT (S. 1494) 

April, 24 2012 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was established by Congress in 1984 to 

catalyze private investments to conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Since inception, 

NFWF has been successful in bringing together federal agencies with private partners to build 

strategic partnerships to address the most significant threats to fish and wildlife populations and 

their habitats. We appreciate the Committee's continued support ofNFWF and consideration of 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (S. 1494). 

The goal ofNFWF is to ensure abundant wildlife species in order to allow the economic health 

of our nation to continue. The key elements of our approach include: (I) leverage, (2) efficiency. 

(3) partnerships, (4) transparency, and (5) measurable outcomes. 

Using this approach, NFWF strives to support community-based, voluntary conservation actions 

that are cost-effective and positively impact working lands and local economies. NFWF is 

currently working with 14 federal agencies and more than 50 corporations, foundations. and 

other private organizations to coordinate and leverage funds for conservation through 

competitive grant programs. 

To date, NFWF has leveraged $576 million in federal funds into $2 billion for conservation 

through more than 11,600 grants in the United States and abroad. 

Across the nation, NFWF grants are restoring and protecting imperiled species, improving 

working landscapes for wildlife. promoting healthy oceans and estuaries, and conserving 

treasured places for future generations of Americans. NFWF grants are locally-driven and 

advance collaborative, non-regulatory conservation efforts that enhance and sustain recreation, 

tourism, and other business opportunities. 

NFWF has fulfilled Congress' mandate to generate private investment for conservation and 

continuing this work is especially important as federal budgets more and more constrained. 

NFWF is a sound federal investment because of our efficient operations, proven track record and 

statutory requirement to leverage federal funding with private contributions to conserve and 

manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act affirms the original purposes of 

NFWF and strengthens the ability ofNFWF to raise private dollars, work with federal agencies 

more eftectively, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and maximize conservation outcomes. 

Importantly, S. 1494 will enst1re NFWF's ability to save money for the federal government 

through efficient grant administration, effective collaboration, and significant leverage through 

private sector contributions. 
187 


25052.152

NFWF Background 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-244) created 

NFWF as an independent, 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization with perpetual succession. The 

purpose ofNFWF is to promote private investments that benefit the activities of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and to further 

the conservation and management of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources ofthe United States 

for present and future generations of Americans. 

NFWF was reauthorized in 1998, 1990, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2006. The National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act of2006 (P.L. I 09-363) renewed NFWF's direct 

appropriations authorization through FY 2010 of up to $25 million annually through the 

Department of the Interior (DOl) and $5 million annually through the Department of Commerce 

(DOC). Despite expired authority, funding for NFWF was included in the Department of 

Interior's budget requests and approved by Congress in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The Department 

of Interior's FY 2013 budget request is the same as the FY 20 I 2 enacted levels. 

In FY 2012, Congress approved $7.5 million for NFWF through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), $3 million through Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and $3 million through the U.S. 

Forest Service (FS) for a total of$13.5 million. These funding levels are consistent with 

previous years and have strong support in the House and Senate. 

As intended by Congress, NFWF's direct appropriations serve as the ''seed" funds for NFWF to 

attract private contributions for fish and wildlife conservation. NFWF is required by law to 

match each directly appropriated federal dollar with a minimum of one non-federal dollar. We 

consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging all federal funds at a 3:1 average ratio 

through private sector and grantee matching contributions. Further, NFWF is prohibited from 

spending directly appropriated funds on administrative or overhead expenses. Thus, every 

directly appropriated dollar provided to NFWF is awarded to grant recipients for on-the-ground 

conservation. 

In addition to direct appropriations through DOl and DOC, NFWF is authorized to receive other 

funds from federal agencies to further the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants 

and other natural resources. NFWF receives other federal funds through cooperative agreements 

and often serves in a fiduciary role for federal agency partners. NFWF currently works with II 

federal agencies through cooperative agreements and awarded $31 million through cooperative 

agreements in FY 20 I l. 

Partnering with NFWF benefits the mission of the agencies, foster collaboration, and facilitate 

positive conservation outcomes in several ways: (I) NFWF leverages federal funds with private 

sources, (2) NFWF offers expertise in grant administration, (3) NFWF has the ability to convene 

multiple federal agencies and non-federal partners to address specific conservation challenges, 

and (4) NFWF provides scientific leadership in achieving measurable and sustainable 

conservation outcomes. 

2 
188 


25052.153

In addition to the agencies that are specifically mentioned in the NFWF Establishment Act- U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NFWF 

works closely with numerous other federal agencies with responsibilities in natural resource 

conservation. NFWF's major federal partners include: Bonneville Power Administration, 

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Marine Mammal Commission, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, 

USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

In working with multiple federal agencies. NFWF has developed a successful model of 

coordinating and leveraging federal funds to form public-private partnerships for fish and 

wildlife conservation. Since 1984, NFWF has received thousands of contributions from private 

individuals, corporations and foundations. Examples ofNFWF's major private partners include: 

Altria, ArcelorMittal, Anheuser-Busch, Bass Pro Shops, Bed Bath & Beyond, BP. Chevron. 

ConocoPhillips. Covanta Energy. Fed Ex, Jackson Hole One Fly Foundation, Northrup 

Grumman, Orvis, PacifiCorp, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Shell Oil Company, Southern 

California Edison, Southern Company. Syngenta, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, 

Trade Wind Energy. Walmart. Walton Family Foundation, and William Penn Foundation. 

NFWF Grantmaking 

For nearly three decades, NFWF has been at the forefront of national conservation activity. With 

our partners, NFWF has contributed to some of the nation's most important conservation 

programs, invested millions in worthy and successful projects, and spearheaded programs to 

conserve our nation's most treasured natural resources. Since inception in 1984, NFWF's 

breadth of experience in conservation has expanded, our fundraising capabilities have grown, 

and the demand for our expertise has increased. All of these results have made it possible for 

NFWF to continue to drive groundbreaking conservation, create diverse partnerships. and 

leverage significant intellectual and financial resources. 

In 2008, at the direction ofNFWF's Board of Directors, NFWF adopted a new decision-making 

framework that has enabled us to hetter define, invest in, and deliver measurable improvements 

to targeted species. This framework includes a rigorous science and evaluation function to ensure 

that NFWF grants are focused on projects likely to maximize conservation impact while 

remaining fiscally responsible. This decision-making process has resulted in a better way of 

tracking progress and measuring the benefits ofNFWF investments. For example, significant 

increases in populations of coho salmon, Apache trout, sea turtles and American oystercatcher 

have been documented at critical sites where NFWF has invested. 

Meaningful and measurable outcomes, evaluation, and accountability are NFWF's building 

blocks to ensure maximum conservation impact. We work directly with federal and state 

agencies and our other partners to measure progress, promote adaptive management, demonstrate 

results, and continuously learn from project investments. NFWF's grant-making involves a 

thorough internal and external review process. Peer reviews involve federal and state agencies, 

affected industry, non-profit organizations, and academics. Grants are reviewed by the NFWF's 

science and evaluation team before being recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. 

3 
189 


25052.154

By law, Congressional offices are notified 30 days in advance of grants that will be awarded in 

their district or state that includes more than $10,000 in federal funds. 

NFWF solicits grant proposals through detailed application processes and programs are highly 

competitive. NFWF grant recipients include state agencies, county and municipal governments, 

tribes, universities, and non-profit conservation organizations. NFWF provides critical support 

to local land trusts, conservation districts. watershed associations, sporting and recreational 

interests, and other organizations working at the local level to conserve and manage fish and 

wildlife resources. 

In FY 2011, NFWF awarded $46 million in federal funds (via direct appropriations and 

cooperative agreements) and $16.5 million in non-federal funds through 569 grants. Grant 

recipients provided an additional $67.7 million in matching contributions for a total project 

investment of$130 million. 

NFWF Partnership Examples 

With our federal and private partners, NFWF is working to identify and fund critical 

conservation efforts across the United States that will achieve measurable outcomes for fish, 

wildlife, and other natural resources. For example: 

Chesapeake Bay: NFWF has worked with our federal and state partners since 2000 to 

administer the Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund (Fund). Through the Fund, diverse agencies 

like the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service are able 

to leverage resources with corporate sponsors like Altria, Walmart, and FedEx to increase the 

impact any one of them could have alone. The Fund plays a critical role in local implementation 

of the most innovative, sustainable and cost-effective strategies for restoring and protecting 

water quality and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Grants, technical 

assistance, information sharing, and monitoring arc all important components of the program that 

ensure project success and sustainable outcomes. To date, projects funded through the Fund 

collectively are projected to reduce water pollution by over 12.1 million pounds of nitrogen, 3.2 

million pounds of phosphorous, and 371 million pounds of sediment, as well as increase 

populations of oysters, Eastern brook trout and important anadromous fish such as river herring 

and shad. 

Short Grass Prairie Ecosystem: NFWF is accelerating our investments in the short grass 

prairie ecosystem of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. A primary focus of 

this initiative is improving habitat for the lesser prairie-chicken to prevent listing of the species 

under the Endangered Species Act. In 2011, NFWF secured support for this expanding initiative 

with funding through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and a private partner, 

Trade Wind Energy. NFWF will be working with our federal partners. including FWS and BLM, 

to leverage and coordinate a diverse array of federal and private resources for projects across the 

region. Specitically, grants to local organizations will address the technical assistance needs of 

farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners for optimizing habitat for lesser prairie-chickens. 

We have already seen the success of this model in New Mexico where new private lands 

4 
190 


25052.155

biologists will be working with the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts and 

private landowners in 2012 to restore critical habitat. We expect at least 100,000 acres of habitat 

in the state to be improved, thereby accelerating recovery of the lesser prairie-chicken and other 

imperiled grassland birds in the region. 

Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Building on nearly a decade of investment to protect and restore 

vanishing longleaf pine forests in the southeastern United States, NFWF established the Longleaf 

Stewardship Fund in 20 II. This landmark public-private partnership will award approximately 

$3 million in FY 2012 with support through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Department of Defense. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Southern 

Company. With the combined financial and technical resources of the partnership, the expanded 

program will support accelerated restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem and implementation 

of the Range-Wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine. NFWF is working with partners to 

establish specific measurable conservation goals that can be tracked over time. These goals will 

support the recovery of important keystone species of the longleaf pine ecosystem including red 

cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise and Northern bobwhite quail and advance specific habitat 

restoration goals outlined in the Range-Wide Plan. 

Gulf of Mexico: In the days following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of 

Mexico, NFWF took immediate action to help protect the species most at risk. We quickly 

convened discussions among our own experts and the best scientific minds in the country, 

creating a strategic response plan to protect imperiled wildlife- particularly sea turtles and 

migratory birds. NFWF's leadership during the crisis drew on an extensive history of 

conservation investments in the Gulf of Mexico. Working in all habitats and on all species 

throughout the region, we had already supported over 450 projects investing more than $128 

million in the Gulf. Many of these projects were made possible through our long-standing 

partnerships with Shell Oil and Southern Company. When the spill occurred, NFWF's wellestablished relationships with federal and state agencies, scientists, and on-the-ground 

conservation organizations were invaluable in assessing local wildlife needs and shaping 

effective responses. 

NFWF determined that affected species would have the best chance of surviving the spill if 

eftorts to boost their populations outside the spill zone were significantly strengthened. In the 

first phase of its Gulf response, NFWF invested in 22 projects which are now delivering results 

in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. Florida and Texas. This first phase of projects was financed 

using $8.8 million from the Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife, established by BP with proceeds 

from the sale of oil recovered from the spill site, as well as a $2.25 million commitment tl·om 

Walmart. Since then, NFWF has invested an additional $14.1 million from the Recovered Oil 

Fund for Wildlife and other sources- $22.9 million total to bolster populations of species 

affected by the spill in advance of formal restoration efforts. These investments have helped to 

pilot cost-effective conservation approaches and build capacity in the region to sustain 

conservation outcomes. With our federal and private partners, more than 500,000 acres of 

coastal of ti·eshwater wetland and aquatic habitat was enhanced to benefit a variety of migratory 

birds. Other investments have increased the number of sea turtle hatchlings by over 100,000 and 

are ensuring the survival of an additional 800-1,000 adult and juvenile sea turtles annually. 

5 
191 


25052.156

Path of the Pronghorn: In 2009, NFWF and our partners identified the Green River Basin of 

Wyoming (Basin) as a priority area for coordinated conservation efforts. The Basin supports 

significant populations of sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn and elk. These species are 

threatened by habitat fragmentation, subdivision, fencing across key migration corridors, 

increased mortality along local roads and highways, and conflicts with expanding energy 

development on their wintering range. In partnership with FWS, BLM, USDA's Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Walmart and the Turner Foundation, NFWF has focused its 

grants to address these threats including improvements to fencing so that pronghorn and other 

wildlife can migrate more easily, reducing the effects of roads on wildlife. and protecting key 

parcels where subdivision and development threaten the entire migration corridor. With NFWF 

support, 121 miles of barbed-wire fencing has been modified to enable movement through the 

corridor by pronghorn, 23,000 acres of habitat is now protected through voluntary conservation 

easements, and the State of Wyoming is constructing state-of-the-art highway crossings for 

wildlife. Success in this region is being used as a model to develop other wildlife corridor 

initiatives in the Northern Rockies. 

Walmart & Acres for America: NFWF established a partnership with Walmart in 2005 to 

provide urgently needed funding for projects that conserve large, landscape-level areas that are 

important habitat for fish and wildlife, while also providing open space and recreational benefits 

for people. Acres for America is a 10-year, $35 million commitment to protect one acre (or 

more) ofwildlife habitat in the U.S. for every acre of land developed by the company through 

2015. To date, Acres for America has invested in projects in 24 states, protecting more than 

687,000 acres of open space and essential hahitat for wildlife and far exceeding the developed 

acreage of Walma1t. Two examples of recent projects include: (I) Appalachian Trail Habitat 

Protection Project that will protect essential forest and stream habitat in North Carolina and 

Tennessee to benefit imp01iant populations of southern Appalachian brook trout, I ,000 species 

of plants, at least 300 species of birds and 20 species of rare and declining salamanders and (2) 

McArthur Lake Wildlife Corridor Project that will protect the narrowest and most critical link 

between the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Mountain ecosystems in northern Idaho, providing a 

crucial connection for I million acres of public land. The project will also protect two grizzly 

bear recovery zones and habitat for more than two dozen species of high conservation need. 

Fishing for Energy Program: In 2008, NFWF established an innovative partnership with 

NOAA's Marine Debris Program, Covanta Energy and Schnitzer Steel Industries. The Fishing 

for Energy Program offers no-cost solutions to fishermen to dispose of old, derelict, or unusable 

fishing gear and works to reduce the amount of fishing gear in and around coastal waterways 

across the United States. Marine debris threatens marine species and navigational safety. 

Derelict fishing gear that remains in the water is known to continue to catch commerciallyvaluable species and catches non-targeted species, including species that may be listed as 

endangered or threatened. The partnership works closely with state and local agencies, 

community and fishing groups. and local ports to install bins at convenient and strategic 

locations into which fishermen can deposit fishing gear. The gear is collected and transported to 

a nearby Schnitzer Steel facility where the metal is recycled and rope or nets are sheared for 

easier handling for disposal. Then the gear is brought to the nearest Covanta Energy-from-Waste 

facility where it is converted into renewable electricity for local communities. One ton of 

commercial fishing gear can generate enough electricity to power an average fiunily home for 25 

6 
192 


25052.157

days. To date, the Fishing for Energy program has collected 680 tons of gear through 

partnerships with 29 ports in the states of California, Florida, Maine. New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia. 

NFWF Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts Program: A key component ofNFWF's 

conservation investment is the Impact-Directed Environmental Accounts (IDEA) program. The 

IDEA program receives, manages, and disburses funds that originate from court orders, 

settlements of legal cases, regulatory permits, licenses, and restoration and mitigation plans. 

Through the IDEA program, NFWF acts as a neutral third-party fiduciary to manage funds for 

the benefit of government and private-sector stakeholders while maximizing conservation 

outcomes. IDEA works co!laboratively with these partners to ensure that the funds are applied to 

the most effective conservation and restoration projects. Depending on the specific context, 

IDEA provides a variety of services including financial account management, assistance with 

project solicitation and selection, negotiation and administration of contracts and grant 

agreements, identification of potential leveraging opportunities, investment of funds pending 

disbursement, and evaluation of project outcomes. 

NFWF is uniquely positioned to administer impact-directed funds in a way that maximizes 

conservation impact within specific legal, regulatory, and contractual constraints. Currently, the 

IDEA program manages over I 00 accounts across the nation, working with federal and state 

agencies and other partners to advance fish and wildlife conservation in more than 20 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

NFWF Reauthorization Act (S. 1494) 

Since enactment of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act of 1984 (P.L. 

98-244 ), NFWF has been reauthorized six times and was most recently reauthorized in 2006 

(P.L. I 09-363). In 2008, legislation was enacted to increase the size ofNFWF's Board of 

Directors from 25 to 30 (P.L. 110-281). 

The National Fish and Wildlite Foundation Reauthorization Act (S. 1494) was introduced by 

Chairwoman Boxer on August 2, 2011 with strong bipartisan support. As of March 12, 2012, 

there are 12 co-sponsors ofS. 1494: Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Cardin (D-MD), 

Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), Roberts (R-KS), Snowe (R-ME), Tester 

(D-MT), Thune (R-SD), Udall (D-NM), and Whitehouse (D-Rl). 

S. 1494 renews NFWF's direct appropriations authorization level of$30 million for an additional 

five years. The $30 million authorization is amended to include: $20 million annually through 

the Department of the Interior; $5 million annually through the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA); and $5 million annually through the Department of Commerce. It is important to note 

that NFWF currently receives $3 million annually through USDA's Forest Service and 

historically received direct appropriations through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

7 
193 


25052.158

S. 1494 includes additional amendments to the Establishment Act that are intended to: 

• strengthen NFWF's ability to work with federal agencies more effectively, reduce 

bureaucratic burdens, and maximize conservation outcomes; 

• clarify NFWF's ability to receive and administer restitution, community service payments 

and similar funds for conservation; 

• improve efficiency by providing discretion to the federal agencies to provide funds to NFWF 

in advance; and 

• clarify agencies' ability to receive funds from NFWF for conservation. 

S. 1494 maintains the following provisions in the Establishment Act: 

• purpose ofNFWF to encourage private investments in conservation; 

• I: I matching requirement for direct appropriations; 

• prohibition on use of direct appropriations for administrative expenses; 

• prohibition on grant funds for litigation, advocacy, or lobbying; 

• appointment of a 30-Member Board of Directors by the Secretary of the Interior that includes 

the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Administrator; 

• requirement to provide Congress with 30-day notice of grants that include $10,000 or more 

of federal funds; 

• requirement to report annually to Congress on NFWF activities. 

Conclusion 

NFWF effectively brings together the federal government and private sector to maximize 

leverage, implement innovative natural resource strategies, and achieve measurable outcomes. 

NFWF's approach has fostered significant accomplishments in conservation and plays an 

important role in ensuring the protection of fish and wildlife species and their habitats for future 

generations. The reauthorization ofNFWF will help to strengthen and continue the success of 

this efficient and important model for voluntary conservation that benefits fish, wildlife. and 

people. We appreciate your continued leadership on behalf ofNFWF and look forward to 

working with you as the legislation moves forward. 

8 
194 


25052.159

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United, National Audubon Society 

The Nature Conservancy, The Wildlife Society 

Senator Benjamin Cardin, Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

509 llart Senate Oftlce Building 

Washington DC 20510 

April20, 2012 

Senator Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

326 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Re: Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, S.357- Hearing on April 24 

Dear Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Sessions, 

The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) is a national partnership of 

several major environmental and scientific organizations that provides a united voice on invasive 

species policy. It includes scientists, lawyers, activists and advocates with many years of 

experience on invasive species issues. The undersigned NECIS members are writing to express 

our support tor the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act, S.357, while we respectfully ask that it be 

modified as we suggest below. We applaud Senator Lautenberg's leadership in addressing this 

issue and we appreciate that it has been scheduled for a hearing in the Environment and Public 

Works Committee on April 24. 

Emerging wildlife pathogens and parasites arc a subset of the invasive species problem. They 

pose a critical threat to the health of wildlife, and in some cases the same pathogens and parasites 

can also harm humans and/or domesticated animals. The global trade in wildlife and pets, 

international travel, introduction of non-native species and changes in land use have all 

contributed to wildlife coming into contact with pathogens and parasites to which they are 

unaccustomed and lack resistance. Prevention is the key to stopping disease outbreaks and the 

often dire health and economic impacts on the nation, such as we are seeing now with the deadly 

white nose syndrome in bats and the chytrid fungus that has eradicated many native amphibian 

species. 

The Wildlife Disease Emergency Act as written would help remedy some of the major 

challenges in responding to emerging diseases. However, to paraphrase the old saying. "an ounce 

of prevention is worth a pound of response". The bill should be strengthened on the prevention 

side. Therefore, we urge these two brief. but critical, changes: 
195 


25052.160

• Sec. 2 PURPOSES, should have a one word addition. (in bold here): 

The purposes of this Act are-

( 1! to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to identifY, prevent and declare 

wildlife disease emergencies; 

• Under Sec. 8- Administration, add a new subsection: 

a) The Secretary may issue regulations ami orders necessary to prevent wildlife 

disease emergencies. 

Four additional changes related to Sec. 3 DEFINITIONS, will give the bill the full scope needed 

to effectively address wildlife disease risks: 

• The definition "(2) DISEASE" should delete the exclusionary phrase "is not a zooRotic". 

A vast number of wildlife diseases are zoonotics. Excluding all zoonotics from the bill 

would not be prudent because, when it comes to their wildlife impacts, the fact that a 

zoonotic disease also may infect humans docs not mean the disease is adequately 

addressed under other Federal laws or by other agencies. Keeping that exclusionary 

phrase in the bill will drastically reduce the ability of the Secretary of the Interior to 

prevent and respond to the wildlife-specific impacts of future zoonoses comparable to the 

devastating West Nile virus or monkeypox virus, which are examples ofzoonotics 

introduced into the United States since 2000. We recommend these additional changes to 

the bill so that, while it would include zoonotic diseases, it also would ensure that the 

Interior Department does not duplicate or interfere with the authority of USDA to 

regulate livestock or plant diseases or the authority of CDC to regulate human diseases: 

[[insert the bolded text in Sec. 8 ADMINISTRATION, so the whole Section would read 

as below, including the new section (a) on adopting needed preventative measures that 

we recommended adding, above:]] 

a) The Secretary may issue regulations ami orders necessary to prevent wildl(fe 

disease emergencies. 

(b) Nothing in this Act--

( 1) limits the authority (>f the 5'ecretary to re:,pond to wildlife disease events that 

are not declared wildlij(: disease emergencies under this Act; 

(2) limits. repeals, supersedes. or modifies any provision of Federal. Stale, local. 

or tribal law (including regulations); or 

(3) authorizes the Secretary to regulate any pathogen or parusite that is2 
196 


25052.161

(A) defined or regulated by the Department (!f Health and Human Services as a 

threat to humans under section 361 o,{the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. C. 264); 

(B) defined or regulated by the Department of Agriculture as a threat to 

livestock or poultry under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S. C. 8301 et seq.); or 

(C) define(/ or regulated by the Department of Agriculture as a plant pest or 

approved for biological control purposes under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S. C. 7701 

et seq.). 

(4) Exception.-The Secretary may regulate a pathogen or parasite described in 

any o.f subpamgraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (3) to the extent that the pathogen 

or parasite poses a wildlife disease risk. 

• The definition "(8) WILDLIFE" is too restrictive. We question the need to include this 

definition in the bill. but if it is to be defined it should simply say "any wild animal" and 

not be restricted as it is now to "native" animals. The Secretary needs to be able to 

address disease in non-native species of wildlife in the country because deadly infectious 

diseases that may at first infect non-native wildlife then may later infect native wildlife. 

• Further, there is no need for the definition to include the list "mammals.fish. birds. 

amphibians. reptiles, mollusks, and arthropods." This excludes coverage of diseases in 

some wild native invertebrate groups. such as, for example, echinoderms or annelids. It is 

preferable to just say "any wild animal". 

• Finally, we recommend that the definition "(9) WILDLIFE DISEASE EMERGENCY" 

should be added to as indicated in bold so as to include "parasites". Many wildlife 

diseases, such as heartwater, arc caused by parasites, so their role should not be ignored. 

The term 'wildlife disease emergency' means a disease that--

(A) is infectious and caused by--

(i) a newly discovered pathogen or parasite 

Thank you tor your attention to these recommendations. If you have any questions. please 

contact our policy lead on this issue, Peter T. Jenkins, Center for Invasive Species Prevention at 

pjenkinsr(tJl(maiLcom or tel: 301.500.4383. 

Sincerely, 

3 
197 


25052.162

Laura Bies 

Director of Government Affairs 

The Wildlife Society 

Michael Daulton 

Senior Director of Government Relations 

National Audubon Society 

Jennifer Nalbone 

Director, Navigation and Invasive Species 

Great Lakes United 

Kristine Serbesoff-King 

Invasive Species Program Manager 

The Nature Conservancy- Florida 

Jared Teutsch 

Water Policy Advocate 

Alliance tor the Great Lakes 

cc: members of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee 

4 
198 


25052.163

Hearing on S.810 

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act 

A bill to phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research, retire them to appropriate 

sanctuaries and end the breeding of chimpanzees for invasive research purposes. 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Testimony of 

The Humane Society of the United States 

April 24, 2012 

The Humane Society of the United States would like to thank Chairman Cardin, Ranking 

Member Sessions and members of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

submit testimony in support of the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act, S. 810, a bill 

which would phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research over three years, end 

breeding of chimpanzees for invasive research purposes and retire government-owned 

chimpanzees to appropriate sanctuaries. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank 

Senators Cantwell, Collins and Sanders for their leadership on this bill. 

On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal protection 

organization, and our more than 11 million supporters nationwide, we strongly support this 

legislation, which would not only protect chimpanzees but would save taxpayers an estimated 

$300 million over the next 10 years. We urge the Subcommittee to support this bill. 

Summary 

Approximately 950 chimpanzees-some who were captured from the wild more than 40 years 

ago, used by the entertainment industry or kept as pets-currently live in six biomedical 

research and testing laboratories in the United States. Despite extensive knowledge of their rich 

social and emotional lives and their ineffectiveness as models for human diseases, some 

chimpanzees continue to be subjected to invasive experiments. However, at any given time, 80-

90% of chimpanzees are not being used in active research protocols and have, instead, 

languished in laboratories for decades, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. 

An Institute of Medicine committee recently concluded that nearly all biomedical research 

using chimpanzees is unnecessary. Further, the !OM committee could not identify a single area 

of research for which the use of chimpanzees is critical. 

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act is needed to ensure that taxpayer money is no 

longer wasted on costly and ineffective research approaches-and to, instead, provide the 

opportunity to invest in alternatives that will translate into human health benefits. Importantly, 
199 


25052.164

this legislation will also provide government-owned chimpanzees with the sanctuary they 

deserve after spending their lives in laboratories-which is also significantly less expensive than 

maintaining them in laboratories While this legislation is a phase out of invasive research, it still 

allows for noninvasive research to be carried out on chimpanzees and other great apes. 

Scientific Debate Put to Rest: Scientists Lend Their Support 

In 2010, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced plans to transfer the approximately 

200 chimpanzees at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico-who had not been used 

in research for almost a decade-to the Southwest National Primate Research Center in Texas 

(also known as the Texas Biomedical Research Institute) where they would once again be 

available for invasive research. Following the initial transfer of 15 chimpanzees, there was a 

massive public outcry in response to these plans. In response, Senators Udall, Bingaman and 

Harkin urged NIH to halt the transfer and commission a study by the National Academy of 

Sciences. The NIH commissioned the study and the Institute of Medicine (tOM) examined the 

necessity of chimpanzees in biomedical and behavioral research. 

In December 2011, the 10M released its final report entitled: Chimpanzees in Biomedical and 

Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity. The 10M committee looked at several areas of 

NIH-supported research involving chimpanzees and concluded that chimpanzees are "largely 

unnecessary" for most current research and, further, laid out criteria for how NIH should decide 

if current and future studies using chimpanzees should be pursued. Importantly, the committee 

could not identify any area of current biomedical research for which chimpanzees are essential 

and pointed to several available alternatives to the use of chimpanzees. Finally, the report 

recommended that NIH invest more resources into the further development of alternatives to 

chimpanzee use. 1 

It's also important to note that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require the use 

of chimpanzees to test new drugs vaccines or biologics, and further, the Center for Drug 

Evaluation and Research (under FDA) actually discourages the use of chimpanzees. 1 

Additionally, there are pharmaceutical companies, such as GlaxoSmithKiine2

, Abbott 

Laboratories3 and ldenix Pharmaceuticals4

, that have publicly adopted policies that have 

completely ended or strictly limited the use of chimpanzees in invasive research. Major 

scientific journals have pointed out the serious ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee research 

1 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. (2011). Chimpanzees in 

Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2 GlaxoSmithKiine. (2011). Use of Non-human Primates (NHPs) in the Discovery and Development of Medicines and 

Vaccines. http://www.gsk.com/policies/GSK-public-position-on-NHP.pdf {Accessed March 9, 2012). 3 Abbott Laboratories. (2012). Policy on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research. 

lJ!!iU1i!QQQ!lJ;;2!!1!.9.!!1.'CJ2illillLF2.W2.!ll.!!'21:ill!:!.Q.!Clli,1E..Q!DJill::J!!!!illil..[gBJUJ.11cilll. (Accessed March 9, 2012) 

Ide nix Pharmaceuticals. {2012). Use of Non-Human Primates (NHPs} in the Discovery and Development of 

Medicines. http://www.idenix.com/hcv/Use%20of%20Chimp%20Policy.pdf. {Accessed March 9, 2012) 
200 


25052.165

and Scientific American published an editorial urging an end to invasive chimpanzee research 5 

Finally, more than 800 scientists with higher-level degrees have signed in support of ending 

chimpanzee use. 

Significant Taxpayer Savings 

The majority of the taxpayer savings that would result from passage of this bill, for a total of 

$300 million over the next ten years, are related to ending the use of chimpanzees in harmful 

experiments that have been deemed unnecessary by the Institute of Medicine. However, there 

is also a cost savings related to sending the nearly 500 federally-owned chimpanzees to 

sanctuary and ending the subsidy of privately owned chimpanzees currently in laboratories. 

Their large size, long lives and complex psychological needs make chimpanzees the most 

expensive animal used in research. Each federally owned chimpanzee born into the laboratory 

costs the government over $1 million to maintain over his or her lifetime. Thankfully, there is a 

more cost effective solution for the hundreds of chimpanzees currently being warehoused in 

laboratories: retire them to sanctuary. 

Sanctuaries are able to provide chimpanzees with superior care at a fraction of the cost of 

laboratories. The amount of money the government spends to simply maintain one chimpanzee 

in a laboratory is as much as $24,000 per year while sanctuaries of a comparable population 

size provide care for approximately $15,500 per year. Additionally, the government currently 

pays the federal sanctuary system $16,700 per chimpanzee per year. Increasing the population 

size at the federal sanctuary will result in additional cost savings. 

Finally, this bill would ensure additional cost savings in the future by preventing the breeding of 

chimpanzees for the purposes of invasive research. In a 2007 report of the NIH Chimpanzee 

Management Plan Working Group, it was estimated that maintaining a population of about 

1,000 chimpanzees in laboratories would require 59 births per year and costs to sustain them 

would be $9.5 million per year. 6 While NIH currently has a moratorium on the breeding of 

federally-owned and federally-supported chimpanzees in place7

, it is important to ensure it 

remains in place. It is simply unwise to use limited research dollars on maintaining a population 

of chimpanzees which has proven to be unnecessary and ethically problematic. This bill would 

help to ensure the proper use of these important research funds. 

Ethics and Public Opinion 

What we have learned about the mental and emotional capabilities of chimpanzees since Dr. 

Jane Goodall first began observing wild chimpanzees 50 years ago is remarkable. Research has 

5 The Editors. (2011), Ban Chimp Testing. Scientific American: 

\ill-rrli~~.illl~if!.9ll!l<'-!l<;~.£QtlllilL\l!k-£f!rtlilll::llil!L:';l:WD!l:llic!.!ng (Accessed on March 21, 2012) 

National Institutes of Health. (2007). Report of the Chimpanzee Management Plan Working Group. 

http:/lwww.ncrr.nih.gov/comparative medicine/chimpanzee management program/ChimP05-22-2007.asp 

(Accessed March 9, 2012). 7 National Institutes of Health. (2012). Chimpanzee Management Program. 

http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/comparative medicine/chimpanzee management program/. (Accessed March 9, 2012). 
201 


25052.166

shown that chimpanzees have complex social and emotional lives; they express a range of 

emotions, including pleasure, sympathy, fear, depression. Their incredible intelligence is 

evidenced by problem solving, tool use, numerical skills, and even the ability to communicate in 

American Sign Language. 

There is overwhelming evidence that life in a laboratory has a significant physical and 

psychological impact on chimpanzees. In 2008, an unprecedented undercover investigation by 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at the world's largest chimpanzee laboratory, 

the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC), revealed what life is like for chimpanzees in 

laboratories.8 The investigator documented chimpanzees isolated in small, steel cages for 

months at a time; chimpanzees screaming when chased with dart guns; and baby chimpanzees 

taken away from their mothers. The HSUS also documented the lives of individual chimpanzees 

like Sterling-a chimpanzee with severe psychological problems who self-mutilated-and 

Karen, who was 53 years old at the time of the investigation. Thankfully, Karen has now been 

retired to Chimp Haven--the federally-supported sanctuary system in Louisiana. Sadly, Sterling 

never reached sanctuary. He died in the laboratory in 2010. 

Following the release of our investigation results, the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) opened an investigation and subsequently cited NIRC for several Animal Welfare Act 

violations. NIRC eventually paid a stipulation of $18,000 to resolve the matter with USDA. 

To add to the troubling findings of our investigation, two recent peer-reviewed publications 

show the long-term effects of laboratory life on chimpanzees. Both papers profile chimpanzees 

who were formerly used in research and are now suffering from symptoms similar to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 9

•

10 

Public opinion is clearly on the side of chimpanzees and public support continues to increase. 

For example, 71% believe that chimpanzees in the laboratory for over 10 years should be sent 

to sanctuary for retirement, 11 which represents the vast majority of chimpanzees in 

laboratories today. According to a 2001 Zogby poll, 54% of Americans believe it is unacceptable 

for chimpanzees to "undergo research which causes them to suffer for human benefit."12 

Similarly 52% of U.S. adults in 200113 were opposed to research that causes pain and injury to 

8 The Humane Society of the United States. (2009). Undercover Investigation Reveals Cruelty to Chimps at 

Research Lab. 

http://www.humonesociety.org/news/news/2009/03/undercover investigation chimpanzee abuse.html. 

(Accessed March 9, 2012). 9 Bradshaw, G.A., Capaldo, T., Lindner, l. Grow, G. (2008). Building an Inner Building an Inner Sanctuary: Complex 

PTSD in Chimpanzees.Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(1), 9-34. 1

° Ferdowsian H.R., Durham D.L., Kimwele C., Kranendonk G., Otali E., et al. (2011) Signs of Mood and Anxiety 

Disorders in Chimpanzees. PLoS ONE 6(6): e19855. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019855 

" 2006 poll conducted by the Humane Research Council 12 2001 poll conducted by Zogby International for the Chimpanzee Collaboratory 

2001 poll conducted by the National Science Board 
202 


25052.167

chimpanzee or dogs, even if it produces new information about human health--this is up from 

30% in 1985.14 

Endangered Species Act considerations 

The plight of the chimpanzee as a species and the impact of using chimpanzees for research 

purposes on the species are important factors to take into account when considering this 

legislation. Wild chimpanzees, for example, have declined in number by two-thirds in the last 

30 years, and the prospects are becoming even more dire for them. 

Currently, captive chimpanzees in the U.S. are deprived of protection under the Endangered 

Species Act even though their wild counterparts are fully protected. The lack of protection for 

captive chimpanzees not only doesn't help conservation efforts, as required by the ESA, but 

actually fuels poaching and trafficking of wild chimpanzees, therefore undermining 

conservation efforts. 

In order to address this problem, a legal petition was filed by The HSUS and several other copetitioners, including the Jane Goodall Institute, Association of Zoos and Aquariums and 

Wildlife Conservation Society, which urged the agency to list all chimpanzees as endangered 

under the ESA. The petition provides compelling scientific and legal evidence that the current 

regulation facilitates exploitation of chimpanzees and has a significant negative impact on both 

wild and captive chimpanzees. 

For example, Dr. Richard Wrangham, a well-known primatologist, offers the following in an 

expert declaration submitted as part of the legal petition: "Commercial exploitation of 

chimpanzees in the U.S. not only directly threatens wild populations, but it also threatens the 

species indirectly by damaging the relationships and credibility essential for successful 

conservation efforts. In my experience, people in Africa are shocked to discover that in America 

it is legal to buy and sell chimpanzees, while it is illegal in African range countries. This 

perceived inequity creates a substantial obstacle for western conservationists such as myself 

when we approach countries where the species survives in the wild, teetering in many cases on 

the edge of extinction, and ask communities and government officials to do even more to 

protect chimpanzees .... The problem of moral consistency is a very real one." 

In September of 2011, USFWS published its initial finding in response to the petition, noting 

that the petition provides substantial information indicating that listing all chimpanzees as 

endangered may be warranted. The agency initiated a formal review of the status of the 

chimpanzee under the ESA, which is currently underway. 

Concerns About National Institutes of Health Oversight of Chimpanzee Colony 

As the subcommittee may be aware, NIH announced that it has accepted the 10M report 

findings and has created a working group to advise them on how to implement those findings. 

14 1985 poll conducted by the National Science Board 
203 


25052.168

We would like to express our concern about continuing to allow NIH to make decisions for 

these chimpanzees. There is a long history of mismanagement of chimpanzees with strong 

evidence that NIH has had close relationships with the laboratories and, further has not had the 

best interests of these chimpanzees, or the taxpayers, at heart. We have enclosed a letter that 

we have submitted to the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General which 

provides additional details about the concerns cited below. 

NIH's mismanagement of chimpanzees dates back to the debacle of The Coulston Foundation 

(TCF), a facility notorious for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, Public Health Service Policy 

and FDA regulations. While NIH funding to TCF was eventually cut off in 2001, NIH provided the 

facility large amounts of funding over several years despite clear indications that there were 

major issues at the lab--including deaths of chimpanzees and primates as a result of Animal 

Welfare Act violations. NIH actually took title to 288 of the Coulston chimpanzees and awarded 

an expensive 10 year, $42.8 million contract to Charles River Laboratories to manage the 

population at Alamogordo Primate Facility, which continues today. 

Despite their tragic history and the fact that many of the chimpanzees at Alamogordo are 

elderly and infected with diseases--making them poor potential research subjects--NIH has 

never indicated a willingness to send these chimpanzees to sanctuary, even though it would 

clearly save money. Instead, NIH attempted to transfer the chimpanzees to the Southwest 

National Primate Research Center through a grant that would actually cost more money than 

the current Charles River contract. In addition, the NIH grant awarded to Southwest for the care 

of federally-owned chimpanzees includes funds for a public awareness program to promote the 

use of chimpanzees in research, despite 10M report findings that chimpanzees aren't necessary 

for research. 

Disappointingly, the situation with the Alamogordo chimpanzees is not the only one in which 

NIH has appears to be circumventing the intent of the Chimpanzee Health Improvement 

Maintenance and Protection Act (P.L. 106-551)--which called for the retirement of "surplus" 

chimpanzees determined as no longer needed for research. Shortly after the bill's passage, NIH 

awarded a $2 million construction grant to New Iberia Research Center to construct "holding 

facilities" for 80-100 chimpanzees so that NIRC could avoid sending chimpanzees to 

sanctuary. 15 Additionally, in the 2011 Request for Proposal for renewal of the chimpanzee 

sanctuary system contract, NIH indicated that there would be no further construction grants 

awarded to the sanctuary and no expansion of the system beyond 130 chimpanzees (there are 

approximately 120 federally-owned chimpanzees at the sanctuary now) 16 

Retired Chimpanzees. Solicitation Number: NHL81-C58-RR-2012-4·KEC. 

b.t!~//www. fbo.g ov /index ?s=op po rtu n ity & m ode=form & ta b=core& i d = f987 3 7 d 68d76 70 518fe 7 d8cc3 6890cf2 & cv 

iew=O. (Accessed on March 9, 2012). 
204 


25052.169

The HSUS has learned that NIH also fails to keep track of the chimpanzees owned by the 

government--except at Alamogordo Primate Facility and Chimp Haven. Responses to repeated 

Freedom of Information Act Requests by the HSUS show that NIH does not keep records of all 

of the chimpanzees the government owns, despite federal requirements to do so. (Please see 

attached FOIA response from NIH FOIA office). 

Finally, NIH has obviously failed to ensure compliance with the breeding moratorium on 

federally-owned chimpanzees which has been in place since 1995. Following our investigation 

at New Iberia Research Center, The HSUS found evidence that government-supported breeding 

continues there. In 2011, our organization filed legal petitions with the Departments of Justice 

and Health and Human Services asking them to investigate the breeding of federally-owned 

chimpanzees at NIRC which has produced over 120 infant chimpanzees. It was later revealed in 

an article in Nature that NIRC admitted they are breeding federally-owned chimpanzees, which 

has resulted in the birth of 123 chimpanzeesu Nature also published an editorial in the same 

issue condemning NIH for not being open about the breeding and suggested that NIH actions 

were damaging their credibility with a public that is increasingly concerned with the treatment 

of animals in laboratories. 18 

Sanctuary Capacity in the U.S. 

In the 1980's and 90's, NIH initiated a massive chimpanzee breeding program to produce a 

chimpanzee model of HIV I AIDS. However, it was eventually determined that chimpanzees are 

not a good model for the disease. This left laboratories with a "surplus" of chimpanzees and an 

increased need for high-quality, chimpanzee sanctuaries in the United States. In 2000, the 

passage of the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act 

established the national sanctuary system. In 2002, Chimp Haven in Louisiana was awarded the 

contract to run the national system and began taking in federally owned chimpanzees from 

laboratories. Chimp Haven currently provides sanctuary for approximately 120 federally-owned 

chimpanzees and, in response to the 10M report results, has stated a willingness to develop 

plans to expand their capacity to as many as 900 chimpanzees. 19 

Around the same time period, New Mexico's infamous Coulston Foundation--which had close 

to 600 chimpanzees--lost significant government and private funding after years of troubling 

issues and eventually went bankrupt. NIH took ownership of half the chimpanzees and awarded 

a contract to Charles River Laboratories to maintain the chimpanzees at the Alamogordo 

Primate Facility on Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The other half of the chimpanzees 

were rescued by Save the Chimps, a sanctuary organization based in Florida, which continues to 

provide excellent care to its nearly 300 chimpanzees residents-all of who have been moved to 

17 Wadman, Meredith. (2011). Lab bred chimps despite ban. Nature, Vol.479, Pages: 453-454. DOl: 

doi: 10.1038/4 79453a. http :1/www. nature .com/ news/lab-bred-chi m ps-d esp ite· ba n-1. 9408#auth-1 18 Editors. (2011), Breeding Contempt. Nature, Vol. 479, Page: 445, DOI:doi:10.1038/479445a 

bi!Q.:ffi~.:NW:_chimphavenJl!E~ernment-rtm..Q!t-asses~J:he:.!:l?.e-of"Q:l!J.D.Q.9nZ~?.:iD..:i.~Search-releasedL 

(Accessed March 9, 2012). 
205 


25052.170

Florida. Save the Chimps took on a financial responsibility that should have been addressed by 

the government and today is run entirely on private donations. 

In 2010, sensing a growing need for collaboration, increased sanctuary capacity and 

professionalization of the movement, several chimpanzee sanctuaries--including Chimp Haven 

and Save the Chimps--came together to form the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance 

(NAPSA). NAPSA's mission is to "advance the welfare of captive primates through exceptional 

sanctuary care, collaboration, and outreach." NAPSA has stated that it supports legislative and 

advocacy efforts that seek to end chimpanzee research and retire chimpanzees. The 

sanctuaries' missions are to provide for the lifetime care and welfare of captive animals by 

providing professional care and housing. Each NAPSA member facility in the US is licensed and 

inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Bill amendment consideration: emergency clause 

It is important to note that The HSUS will continue to support this bill if it is amended to allow 

for the use of chimpanzees in the unlikely case of a new, life-threatening clinical condition in 

humans for which there are no alternatives (including other species) to the chimpanzee 

available and for which there is scientific evidence that the use of the chimpanzee is warranted. 

Our support, however, would depend on a transparent process should such an emergency use 

be pursued. 

Conclusion 

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (S.810) is common sense legislation that is 

needed to ensure the protection of chimpanzees and the judicious use of taxpayer dollars. The 

science, economics and ethics all point toward the need to end harmful research on 

chimpanzees and to retire these long-lived animals to appropriate sanctuaries. We strongly 

urge the Subcommittee to report the bill favorably and urge the Senate to pass this important 

measure. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Great Ape 

Protection and Cost Savings Act. Please feel free to contact The HSUS for further information. 
206 


25052.171

Apri123, 2012 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairwoman 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, 

The Honorable James M. lnhofe 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

On behalf of the ASPCA (the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and our over 2.5 

million supporters nationwide, I am writing in support ofS. 810, the Great Apes Protection and Cost Savings Act 

of 20 ll. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation will not only prevent the cruel treatment of chimpanzees in 

research laboratories, but it will also save taxpayers up to $3 0 million per year. 

About 1,000 chimpanzees, many captured from the wild, currently live in nine biomedical research and testing 

labs in the United States. Despite evidence of their expansive social and emotional development, chimpanzees 

continue to be subjected to painful and invasive experiments. When these animals are not being used for testing, 

they languish in laboratories under terrible conditions. The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act would 

prevent this cruel and inhumane existence by phasing out invasive research on chimpanzees and other primates 

and retire federally-owned chimpanzees to sanctuaries. 

Not only is testing on chimpanzees cruel, but it is also a waste of money. Retiring the 500 chimpanzees currently 

owned by the federal government to sanctuaries where their care is far more inexpensive will also create savings 

for taxpayers. American taxpayers spend nearly $30 million each year on chimpanzee maintenance and research, 

but approximately 90 percent of chimpanzees are not even used in active experiments. Instead, they are wasting 

away in federally funded facilities-some for more than 50 years. 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already moved to permanently end the breeding offederally-owned 

chimpanzees. This legislation takes the next step in ending this cruel practice by saving the lives of chimpanzees 

already in laboratories. We encourage the Committee to make the humane and fiscally responsible decision and 

supportS. 810. 

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. 

Ed 

:a:r~ Sayres 

President & CEO 
207 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

I want to thank Senator Cardin for scheduling this hearing to discuss legislation 

relevant to this Committee, particularly the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1494), which I am happy to be a co-sponsor of. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) enjoys bipartisan support for 

its ability to use Federal funding to leverage non-Federal support for conservation 

purposes—often at well over a 2 to 1 ratio—by creating successful partnerships with 

the Federal Government, State and local governments, and private entities. 

At a time when Federal funding is difficult to come by and our coastal ecosystems 

are under stress from chemical and nutrient pollution, marine debris, energy extraction, overfishing, overdevelopment, and climate change, programs like NFWF are especially important. 

NFWF has awarded 46 grants in Rhode Island since 2000. This $4.8 million in 

Federal funding has leveraged $6.6 million in matching funds, totaling $11.4 million 

invested in conservation. 

For example, NFWF has provided funding to implement a marine science program 

for elementary schools in Newport, Rhode Island, to conduct biological surveys and 

management plans for acquisition of land trusts in Narragansett Bay. These management plans are being developed with private landowners in order to both protect 

natural resources and maintain a working landscape. 

NFWF grantees in Rhode Island include the Rhode Island Party and Charter Boat 

Association, Rhode Island Natural History Survey, and Save the Bay. Among other 

things, these projects are focused on fisheries conservation, collection of marine debris, and improving essential marine and coastal habitats for a variety of native 

wildlife species. 

I’d also like to speak in favor of another piece of legislation being discussed today, 

the North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act (S. 2282). By restoring 

wetlands we also protect a variety of species, including migratory birds, that depend 

on these at risk ecosystems. More than half (roughly 55 million acres) of wetlands 

in the U.S. have been destroyed, including 95 percent of the San Francisco Bay’s 

original wetlands, 22 percent of Rhode Island’s wetlands, 85 percent of seagrass 

meadows in Galveston Bay, and 25,000 acres annually of coastal marshes in Louisiana. 

The destruction of wetlands also harms the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries that rely on the species supported by this critical habitat. S. 2282 would extend 

the authorization of this successful conservation program through 2017. 

Thank you again to everyone who is here to speak on behalf of these important 

programs, and I look forward to future action on both pieces of legislation in this 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding today’s hearing. We have a long list of 

bills on the agenda. 

Before considering new bills—particularly if they will result in new spending—we 

should give serious consideration to our Nation’s fiscal situation. In fiscal year 2013 

our Government will run the fifth consecutive deficit over $1 trillion. We have to 

act now to ensure that all Federal agencies and programs are operating as efficiently as possible; that means at the lowest possible cost. In all programs we need 

to look for new ways to maximize the return on Federal taxpayer dollars. We also 

need to consider the costs and benefits very carefully before creating new programs. 

We should not ask taxpayers to authorize spending more than is absolutely necessary. I believe that until the Senate and this Administration get serious about 

passing a budget that sets spending priorities and addresses our debt problem the 

American people should not be asked to send one more dime in new taxes to Washington. 

With that said, there are several bipartisan bills on today’s agenda that merit this 

Committee’s full consideration. Several bills on our agenda deal directly with issues 

of importance to our Nation’s hunters and sportsmen. For instance, S. 1249, the 

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which is sponsored by 

Senators Baucus, Begich, Bennett, Hagan, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Risch, and Tester, 

would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to expand the availVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:37 Jun 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25052.TXT SONYA
208 

ability of target practice facilities on Federal lands. I think we should give this legislation a close review. 

I also agree with the concept of allowing States to use electronic duck stamps instead of the more expensive paper stamps. S. 2071, the Permanent Electronic Duck 

Stamp Act of 2012, which is sponsored by Senators Wicker, Baucus, and Pryor, 

would authorize the States to issue electronic duck stamps instead of the current 

paper form. 

The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) program has also been an effective program that has helped conserve wildlife across the Nation. As just one example, NFWF partnered with Southern Company to invest over $7 million in projects 

to restore more than 61,000 acres of longleaf pine forest in the southeastern United 

States. I look forward to hearing more about the NFWF program this morning. 

I also appreciate the work of Senator Inhofe in introducing the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) reauthorization bill. Alabama currently has 

several NAWCA projects in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta that are conserving more than 

47,000 acres of wildlife habitat. NAWCA is a voluntary program that does not seek 

to impose unwarranted new regulations on landowners. 

Voluntary, cooperative wetlands programs like NAWCA stand in stark contrast to 

the Obama administration’s command and control environmental agenda that is reflected in many of the Administration’s recent initiatives, including their ‘‘wetlands 

guidance document.’’ Last month, I joined Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, and Heller in 

introducing S. 2245, the Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act, which would block the 

Administration’s new ‘‘wetlands guidance’’ document from going into effect. Our bill, 

which has 32 cosponsors, would prevent the Administration from bypassing Congress and the regulatory approval process to vastly expand its jurisdiction over 

lands and waters across the country. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that 

our Committee include the Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act on the agenda of 

our next legislative hearing or markup. 

Finally, I understand that many people are concerned about the treatment of 

chimpanzees in research facilities. S. 810, the Great Apes Protection Act, is intended 

to end invasive research on great apes. Scientific research that can cure diseases 

for humans and animals is so important that we must think this issue through carefully. I have heard from stakeholders on both sides of this important issue, and I 

look forward to hearing the testimony this morning. 

Thank you. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

209 


25052.172

Testimony for the Record of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

by the 

National Chimpanzee Research Facility Directors 

Regarding 

The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act 

Christian Abee, D.V.M. M.S., DACLAM 

Director, Michale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research 

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center 

Thomas J. Rowell, D.V.M. 

Director, New Iberia Research Center 

University of Louisiana at Lafayette 

John L. VandeBerg, Ph.D. 

Director, Southwest National Primate Research Center, and 

Chief Scientific Officer, Texas Biomedical Research Institute 

Stuart Zola, Ph.D. 

Director, Yerkes National Primate Research Center 

Emory University 

May 8, 2012 
210 


25052.173

Introduction 

We, Drs. Christian Abee, Jeff Rowell, John VandeBerg, and Stuart Zola, are the directors of the 

four research facilities that provide access to the national chimpanzee research resource by investigators 

and commercial companies in the United States, as well as those from other countries. Together with 

the Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF), our facilities make up the National Chimpanzee Resource 

Consortium (NCRC) whose mission is to provide information and guidance about the national 

chimpanzee research resource to Congress, federal agencies, the biomedical research community, and 

the public and to make chimpanzees available to researchers, along with the specialized technical 

capabilities required for that research. We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the 

Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (GAPCSA), S.810, a bill that would stop the use of 

chimpanzees in biomedical research and the breeding of chimpanzees for research purposes, and would 

retire government-owned chimpanzees to sanctuaries. We present our testimony against this bill on 

behalf of scientists and commercial companies who require continued access to chimpanzees for vital 

biomedical research aimed at preventing human morbidity and mortality, and on behalf of the millions of 

Americans whose lives will be saved or vastly improved if chimpanzees continue to be accessible for 

biomedical research under the stringent guidelines established in the recent Institute of Medicine (I OM) 

report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity (2011). 

10M Recommendations and National Institutes of Health Working Group Deliberations 

We fully support the recommendations in the Institute of Medicine (I OM) report and the charge to 

the NIH Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research. 

The 10M committee clearly recognized the continuing need for biomedical research with 

chimpanzees. For example, the report stated that "a new, emerging, or re-emerging disease or disorder 

may present challenges to treatment prevention, and/or control that defy non-chimpanzee models," that 

"comparative genomics research may be necessary for understanding human development, disease 

mechanisms, and susceptibility," and that "chimpanzees may be necessary for obtaining otherwise 
211 


25052.174

unattainable insight to support understanding of social and behavioral factors that include the 

development, prevention, or treatment of disease." Recognizing the need for continued biomedical 

research with chimpanzees, the committee proposed a set of criteria by which each proposed research 

protocol with chimpanzees will be evaluated to determine whether chimpanzees should be used for that 

project, and it recommended that NIH establish "an independent oversight committee that uses the 

criteria" to judge the merits of the proposed experiment. NIH has since established the Working Group to 

provide guidance on the implementation of recommendations in the 10M report. 

The process is working exactly as proposed by the 10M and supported by the NCRC. It would 

be completely inconsistent with the 10M recommendations to pass the proposed Great Ape 

Protection and Cost Savings Act, which seeks to put an end to biomedical research with 

chimpanzees at a time when a year-long study by a prestigious and balanced 10M committee 

concluded that biomedical research with chimpanzees is necessary today and is likely to be 

necessary to combat new diseases in the future. It would be prudent to allow the process to continue 

under the able leadership of the NIH. 

Unfounded Emotional Arguments Versus Improved Human Health 

Although GAPCSA pertains only to chimpanzees, the fundamental tenant of the Humane Society 

of the United States (HSUS) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), two of 

the strongest proponents of GAPCSA, is that all biomedical research with animals should be banned. 

Through the use of animals, including chimpanzees, in biomedical research, scientists have learned 

enough about human physiology and immunology that some areas of research no longer require animals 

for scientific and medical advancement. Science is highly competitive, and when scientists can use 

tissue cultures, computer models, and/or human subjects to advance science and medicine, they do so 

at a great saving of funds in their tight research budgets. When animals are necessary, they use the 

lowest possible animal species by which the goals of the study can be achieved. Only when all other 

2 
212 


25052.175

possible experimental routes have been considered and judged not to be able to achieve the goals in a 

timely manner are chimpanzees used for research. 

Chimpanzees have played a critical role in the development of vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, and 

hepatitis 8, as well as in the development of drugs to treat hepatitis, many types of autoimmune 

diseases, and some forms of cancer. They are being used today to develop a vaccine for hepatitis C 

and better drugs for treating hepatitis 8 and C, as well as drugs known as humanized monoclonal 

antibodies that will be more effective as treatments for autoimmune diseases and cancers. According to 

the CDC, approximately 3.2 million Americans are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The World 

Health Organization estimates that 130-170 million people are chronically infected with the virus 

worldwide, and many of them don't even know yet that they are infected. Tens of millions more are or 

will become victims of autoimmune diseases and cancer. 

If the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research speeds up the discovery of preventions or 

therapies for these diseases by even a few years, the number of lives saved will be enormous. Less 

than 1,000 chimpanzees are available for research in this country and less than 100 are actually 

assigned to research protocols at any point in time (the others may be resting between protocols or held 

in reserve until a project is proposed that requires their particular biological characteristics). In 

comparison, virtually all Americans lead better lives because of the various drugs and vaccines 

developed from research with chimpanzees, and millions will benefit in the future if biomedical research 

with chimpanzees is continued under the strict criteria proposed by the IOM committee. 

GAPCSA is about unfounded emotional arguments versus improved human health. Which 

do we as a society value more- preventing morbidity and mortality of millions of Americans or 

the unfounded notion of putting an end to necessary research with fewer than 1,000 well cared 

for chimpanzees? The four of us are among the millions of people who are likely to benefit from 

continued research with chimpanzees, and we urge the elected representatives of this country to 

value health, quality of life, and longevity for all Americans at a higher level. 

3 
213 


25052.176

Invasive Research 

Proponents of GAPCSA have argued that invasive research with chimpanzees is cruel and 

should be banned by the passage of the bill. What is meant by invasive research is so broadly 

defined in the legislation that it would prevent procedures as simple as collecting a blood sample 

from an arm vein or injecting the animal with a vaccine. These simple procedures, which are 

used every day in clinical medicine and clinical research with people, comprise the vast majority 

of procedures used in research with chimpanzees. Another procedure that is sometimes used is a 

liver biopsy, sometimes called a needle biopsy or a punch biopsy. This procedure is used in hepatitis 

research to assess the disease status or the level of hepatitis virus in the liver. This form of liver biopsy 

is commonly used repeatedly with people who have hepatitis or other liver diseases, or who have had a 

liver transplant. It is typically conducted as an outpatient procedure under local anesthetic. In 

chimpanzees, it is conducted under general anesthetic. Notably, almost all research chimpanzees have 

been trained to volunteer to present an arm to be injected for sedation for a health check or an 

experimental or clinical procedure. A high priority goal in research with chimpanzees is to make the 

procedures as stress-free as possible for them, as an ethical imperative which also contributes to valid 

scientific results. 

Continued Importance of Biomedical Research with Chimpanzees 

Testimony has been presented to the subcommittee claiming that use of the chimpanzee model 

is obsolete. To the contrary, as recognized by the 10M committee, biomedical research with 

chimpanzees continues to be vital to the importance of human health and to the development of 

new preventions and therapies for common human diseases. Whenever possible, medical products 

are brought to market without the use of chimpanzees. As we learn more from research with animals, 

including chimpanzees, it will be possible in the future to bring even more products to market without the 

use of chimpanzees. However, we are still struggling to understand some fundamental aspects of some 

diseases, such as hepatitis C, for which only chimpanzees serve as a valid model. Basic research with 

4 
214 


25052.177

chimpanzees is required to develop that understanding so it can be harnessed to develop a vaccine and 

better drugs to treat this deadly virus. It is not possible at this time to conduct all forms of pre-clinical 

research with other animals and to get the candidate products to market in a timely and safe manner, or 

even to get them to market at all. 

For example, in recent months, a promising hepatitis C drug that was in Phase II clinical trials 

elicited some unexpected results in the human subjects. The FDA halted the trial and told the company 

that had developed the drug that additional pre-clinical studies would have to be conducted in order to 

determine the biological mechanism by which the drug elicited the unexpected effects. Because 

chimpanzees are the only animal that can be naturally infected with hepatitis C virus, the company had 

two choices: conduct research on the biological mechanism with chimpanzees or abandon the drug. If 

chimpanzees were not available, the drug would be abandoned, leaving millions of people without future 

access to its potentially life-saving benefits. In addition, the commercial company would lose tens of 

millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars that it had already invested in developing the drug. This 

scenario is not uncommon, and the loss of opportunity to use chimpanzees in research would not only be 

devastating to the advancement of medicine but also would be severely damaging to the financial 

success of American pharmaceutical companies and to the economy. 

The subcommittee has received testimony that two new drugs for treating hepatitis C have been 

brought to market without the use of chimpanzees. While it is true that those drugs were not tested using 

chimpanzees in pre-clinical research, it is not true that they were brought to market without the use of 

chimpanzees. In fact, development of those drugs depended heavily on prior basic research with 

chimpanzees that enabled us to understand what types of drugs might best be able to prevent hepatitis 

C virus replication in infected individuals. Most HCV anti-viral drugs that reached human trials without 

prior testing in chimpanzees did so because proof-of-concept studies had already been successfully 

conducted with chimpanzees using similar drugs against the same viral targets. While previous research 

with chimpanzees enables some new drugs to be brought to market without preclinical testing in 

chimpanzees, it is not practical to develop entirely new classes of drugs without the use of chimpanzees, 

5 
215 


25052.178

and it is not ethical to test them in humans prior to pre-clinical research with chimpanzees. Banning the 

use of chimpanzees in research would curtail the development of entirely new classes of drugs intended 

to improve health and quality of life for humans. 

The subcommittee also received testimony that is it possible to bring a hepatitis C vaccine to 

market without testing in chimpanzee. The fact is that no hepatitis C vaccine has yet been brought 

to market, and 80,000 more Americans become infected every year. It is imperative that we do 

everything possible to halt this epidemic, which contributes enormously to the burden of healthcare costs as well as to morbidity, mortality, and lost economic productivity. It was not possible 

for vaccines for polio, hepatitis A, or hepatitis B to reach patients without research with chimpanzees, 

and nobody knows whether it is possible to bring a vaccine for hepatitis C to market without 

chimpanzees. What we do know is that if we continue to allow chimpanzees to be used for hepatitis 

C vaccine development, the competitive forces of science and its commercialization will get a 

vaccine to market as fast as is possible, whether or not it is a vaccine that was developed with 

chimpanzees. Eighty thousand newly infected Americans per year is too heavy a personal and 

medical burden on our society to risk delaying the development of a vaccine by banning research 

with chimpanzees. Furthermore, based on the scientific pathways taken in developing vaccines 

for hepatitis A and B, access to chimpanzees for hepatitis C vaccine development is likely to save 

time, and the time saved will save many lives. 

Absence of Disease Progression in Chimpanzees 

Proponents of GAPCSA have argued that because chimpanzees that are infected with hepatitis B 

virus, hepatitis C virus, or HIV do not progress to disease, they are not useful models of research. To the 

contrary, they are ideal models for developing vaccines that prevent infection by these viruses, and they 

are ideal models for developing therapies that prevent viral replication in infected individuals. If we can 

prevent the virus from replicating in infected people, we will prevent the disease from progressing. We 

do not need an animal model of end stage disease, since the goal of the research is to stop infection 

6 
216 


25052.179

from ever occurring or to stop viral replication in infected people. Achieving either of these goals will 

mean there will be no end stage disease in people. 

The subcommittee received testimony that there have been 200 HIV vaccine experiments with 

chimpanzees and that none of them proved to be fruitfuL In fact, the HIV vaccine experiments with 

chimpanzees were highly informative. In the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, dozens of candidate 

vaccines were developed by academic scientists and commercial companies around the country. To test 

each of them in humans was not practical; an AIDS vaccine trial in people requires several thousand 

uninfected people from high risk populations and years to assess the level of protection, if any, afforded 

by the vaccine. Each of these candidate vaccines was administered to chimpanzees, typically two to 

four chimpanzees, and then the chimpanzees were inoculated with HIV. For each experiment, we 

learned in weeks that the candidate vaccine was not effective in blocking HIV infection. We also learned 

a great deal about the human immune response against HIV. That work, which could not have been 

done with human subjects, paved the way for entirely new strategies for HIV vaccine development, which 

are currently being implemented. 

Another research initiative with chimpanzees led to the development of a humanized monoclonal 

antibody that can block infection by HIV in instances of accidental exposure in laboratory or hospital 

environments. Two chimpanzees were inoculated with HIV and then given the antibody 1 hour later. 

The antibody conferred complete protection and later generations of the antibody have proceeded to 

clinical trials. This product offers great hope to the medical and research personnel who are 

devoted to treating patients or developing preventions or cures for AIDS and are at high risk of 

accidental exposure. Furthermore, this product is now in Phase 2 clinical trials as a treatment for 

AI OS patients who are refractory to conventional treatment. It could not have been developed 

without research with chimpanzees, and future products that are aimed at post-exposure 

treatment of accidental infections of pathogens that can infect only humans and chimpanzees 

also will require research with chimpanzees. A similar antibody to HCV was developed in 

7 
217 


25052.180

chimpanzees, and it is in clinical trials to prevent reinfection of the liver in patients receiving liver 

transplants. 

Bans on Chimpanzee Research by Foreign Governments 

It has been well publicized that many foreign governments have banned research with 

chimpanzees, and that Gabon and the U.S. are the only countries that permit research with 

chimpanzees. This fact has been used in the argument that the U.S. also should ban research with 

chimpanzees. However, what is not well known is that with the exception of the Netherlands, research 

with chimpanzees was never conducted in any of those countries, so it was politically expedient to ban 

an activity that never occurred. It also is not well known that academic scientists and commercial 

companies from foreign countries have depended on the U.S. chimpanzee research to conduct the 

experiments required to develop the products they wanted to bring to market. In recent years, our 

chimpanzee resources have been accessed by scientists and commercial companies located in 

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Spain. Some of the 

investigations were funded in part by the governments of those very same countries that have banned 

research with chimpanzees. Not only have the results of the research conducted with chimpanzees 

by foreign scientists at U.S. facilities led to new understanding about pathogenesis and hostpathogen interactions, they have also led to the marketing of vital drugs, including one that is 

now used to treat childhood leukemia. The influx of funds for these studies from foreign countries to 

the U.S. also has supported in part the maintenance of our national chimpanzee resource, a cost that will 

be borne by the U.S. government if it bans research with chimpanzees. 

Attached is a cover note and a letter (September 26, 2011) provided to the !OM committee by 97 

prominent scientists, including several Nobel Laureates and members of the U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences, explaining the critical importance of chimpanzees for research on hepatitis. More than half the 

scientists who signed the letter are from countries in which research with chimpanzees is not conducted. 

Those countries were Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, 

8 
218 


25052.181

South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. While many of those 

scientists do not use chimpanzees in their own research programs, the letter provides persuasive 

documentation of the vital importance of chimpanzees in combating the current hepatitis B and C 

pandemics. 

New, Emerging, or Reemerging Diseases 

The Subcommittee received testimony that chimpanzees are not useful for responding to new 

public health threats because it takes too long to ramp up research with chimpanzees. This argument is 

exactly opposite of the conclusions reached by the 10M committee. In fact, as reported on page 65 of 

the 10M report, The NIH "has identified eight instances over the last two decades where research 

on new (or newly recognized), emerging, and reemerging infectious diseases has called for use 

of chimpanzees to answer crucial questions pertaining to pathogenesis, prevention, control, or 

therapy. In five of these the chimpanzee is still being used." There is no reason to believe that 

this pattern of newly discovered diseases that mandate research with chimpanzees as a public 

health measure will not continue. It is not possible to predict what these diseases will be and when 

they will be discovered, but like HIV discovered in the early 1980s and the hepatitis C virus discovered in 

1989. some of them are almost certain to lead to worldwide pandemics. It is critical that a national 

chimpanzee research resource be maintained so that it can be utilized immediately when new diseases 

are identified. 

The emergency provision proposed for GAPCSA would make it impossible to quickly respond to 

the need for chimpanzees in future research on newly discovered diseases. If GAPCSA were to become 

law, research chimpanzees would be moved to sanctuaries where they would no longer be trained to 

voluntarily participate in research procedures, chimpanzee research facilities and technical staff would be 

repurposed for other types of research (or would lose their jobs), and skills for managing research 

chimpanzees and conducting procedures with them would be lost. When an emergency arose, it would 

take years for public debate to determine if chimpanzees should be used to address it, for recreating 

9 
219 


25052.182

chimpanzee facilities at research institutions, for training veterinarians and technical staff to work with 

chimpanzees, and for training chimpanzees to participate in the research. In essence, there would be no 

capacity anywhere in the world for using chimpanzees if an emergency response to the threat of a new 

disease became necessary. 

Critical Importance of Research with Captive Chimpanzees to Survival of 

Wild Chimpanzees and Gorillas 

If the research population of chimpanzees is relegated to sanctuaries, research on diseases that 

affect both humans and grant apes will be terminated. Historically, the use of chimpanzees to develop 

the polio vaccine, in turn, benefitted chimpanzees that experienced a polio epidemic. Currently, research 

with chimpanzees aimed at developing vaccines for AIDS and Ebola may be a key factor in saving 

chimpanzees and gorillas from extinction. 

When an epidemic of polio occurred among the chimpanzees of Gombe, killing some and 

crippling others, an oral human polio vaccine was provided in food and the outbreak was halted (LawickGoodall, J.V. The Behavior of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve. Animal 

Behavior Monographs, Part 3, Vol. 1. J.M. Cullen and C.G. Beer, eds. Bailliere, Tindall and Cassell, 

London, 1968, p. 170). If a polio vaccine had not been developed, it is likely that polio epidemics would 

have since decimated wild chimpanzee populations (and some human populations), particularly as wild 

chimpanzees and humans came to live in much closer proximity in recent decades. 

Today, Ebola is decimating wild populations of chimpanzees and gorillas, and contributing to their 

extinction. However, a first-generation candidate vaccine has been developed in research with monkeys 

and was tested for its capacity to elicit an immune response in chimpanzees. It is now being used on a 

trial basis on wild gorillas. If research were no longer permitted with captive chimpanzees, the 

development of vaccines to save the lives of wild great apes would be halted. While it might be possible 

to obtain a waiver to do this type of research, there would be no research population of chimpanzees on 

10 
220 


25052.183

which it could be done because the research populations would have been disbanded and the technical 

capacity and infrastructure required to conduct this type of research would have been lost. 

Similarly, chimpanzee AIDS, which is caused by a chimpanzee-specific simian immunodeficiency 

virus (SIV), is killing large numbers of wild chimpanzees (Keele, B.F. et aL Increased mortality and 

AIDS-like immunopathology in wild chimpanzees infected with SIVcpz. Nature 460:515-519-2009. 

Weiss, RA, and Heeney, J.V. An ill wind for chimps? Nature 460:470-471 ,2009). If we lose access to 

captive chimpanzees as research subjects, we will have little hope of developing a vaccine and ensuring 

that it would be safe and effective for protecting wild populations of chimpanzees from AIDS. We do not 

know what new diseases will emerge in humans or chimpanzees in the years and decades ahead 

(chimpanzee AIDS has been known for only a few years), Removing chimpanzees from the 

arsenal of model systems available to combat the pandemics of the future could be devastating 

to both species. 

Cessation of the Breeding of Chimpanzees for Research Will Contribute to Risk of Extinction 

GAPCSA would put an end to breeding chimpanzees for use in research. Most of the nearly 

1,000 chimpanzees available for use in research were produced at research facilities. These animals 

comprise most of the captive chimpanzees in the world. If chimpanzees can no longer be used for 

research and bred for research, this population will become extinct and will not be available for 

protecting the survival of the species. However, if chimpanzees continue to be bred for research, 

the research population will serve as a reservoir that could be available to produce chimpanzees 

for repatriation to suitable protected habitats in Africa if the wild population becomes extinct 

Status of Chimpanzees Maintained at the Alamogordo Primate Facility IAPFl 

The Subcommittee received testimony that there are approximately 200 chimpanzees at 

APF that are old, sick, and not useful for research. In fact, there are 172 chimpanzees at APF and 

107 of them (62 percent) are less than 30 years old. Chimpanzees can live to be 50 years old or 

11 
221 


25052.184

more, so most of the chimpanzees at APF are no more than middle aged. It is true that many of these 

chimpanzees have been infected with hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, or HIV, but the implication of 

previous testimony that these animals are sick as a consequence of those infections is misleading. As 

stated previously, chimpanzees do not develop those diseases when they are infected with the 

respective viruses. Not only is the APF population of chimpanzees generally healthy, but, in fact, the 

most desperately needed chimpanzees today for biomedical research are those that are infected with 

hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus. We need them to conduct research aimed at developing a better 

understanding of how the viruses can evade the host immune system and why it is that the best drugs 

developed to date cannot eradicate the hepatitis B virus (or in some people the hepatitis C virus) and 

therefore cannot cure the patients. Delays in moving the APF chimpanzees to a facility where they can 

be used in research are contributing to delays in developing better drugs as well as a vaccine for 

hepatitis C. These delays translate to thousands of human lives. 

Living Conditions and Medical Care for Chimpanzees at Research Facilities 

The Subcommittee heard testimony that research facilities cannot provide for the complex social 

and psychological needs of chimpanzees and that chimpanzees at research facilities are depressed and 

suffer from multiple organ failure. That testimony was patently false. 

Chimpanzees at research facilities are socially housed, as they are at sanctuaries and at APF, in 

indoor-outdoor facilities and with many enrichment devices and activities. Research facilities, as well as 

sanctuaries and APF, house many of their chimpanzees in primadomes, indoor-outdoor caging of similar 

proportions to primadomes or with large playground attachments and, at some facilities, corrals. 

However, a major difference between research facilities and APF on the one hand, and the best 

of sanctuaries on the other, is that the former have large veterinary, animal care, and behavioral services 

staffs, extensive clinic and hospital facilities, and sophisticated diagnostic pathology laboratories and 

pathology personnel. These research facilities can provide specialized resources that are critical to the 

health and well-being of the chimpanzees because they have large populations of non-human primates 

12 
222 


25052.185

other than chimpanzees. Most sanctuaries have no onsite veterinarians; none has more than one, and 

none has an onsite pathology laboratory at which illnesses can be diagnosed and treated immediately. 

Furthermore, the extensive behavioral services and enrichment staffs at research facilities have 

taught almost all of the chimpanzees to voluntarily participate in injections for sedation or immunization. 

In contrast, most chimpanzees at sanctuaries and zoos must be shot with a dart gun in order to undergo 

an annual physical examination or for treatment of injuries. 

Finally, the extensive veterinary staff at research facilities are able to quickly provide care for sick 

chimpanzees, such as those that have diabetes, and are well trained to present an arm each day for an 

insulin injection. The national sanctuary (Chimp Haven) has refused to accept some chimpanzees that 

had diabetes or other health conditions because it did not have the staff required to care for them. As 

the chimpanzees age over the next 20-30 years, many of them will develop diabetes and other medical 

conditions just as aging people do, and some will attain ages in excess of 50 years old (equivalent in 

many respects to a 90-100 year old person). The research facility veterinarians have many years of 

experience in caring for elderly and sick chimpanzees and have state-of-the-art medical diagnostic and 

treatment capacity. 

The chimpanzees maintained at research facilities and those maintained at sanctuaries are 

generally healthy and their complex social and psychological needs are well provided for as they 

live in social groups in indoor/outdoor housing. However, only one sanctuary in the U.S., Chimp 

Haven, is accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal 

Science, International, is mandated to conform to the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane 

Care and the Use of Laboratory Animals, and is inspected routinely by the USDA. Unlike most 

sanctuaries, all chimpanzee research facilities are subject to these provisions, and they have the 

highest possible capacity to provide medical care as well as training of the animals to cooperate 

in routine clinical (and research) procedures. 

13 
223 


25052.186

Cost of Maintaining Chimpanzees 

The Subcommittee heard testimony that the passage of GAPCSA would save the taxpayer more 

than $300 million over 1 0 years. This assertion has no basis in fact. 

Research facilities are intrinsically more cost-effective than sanctuaries in maintaining 

chimpanzees (and other animals that are used for research) for several reasons: 

1. Economy of scale. Because research facilities that maintain chimpanzees also maintain large 

numbers of monkeys, they have economies of scale in staffing, medical, and other expenses that 

are not possible at chimpanzee sanctuaries. 

2. Some institutions at which research colonies reside contribute funding to partially support the 

colonies at those institutions. 

3. Research facilities already have the capacity to house all the chimpanzees that are available for 

research, including those maintained at APF, whereas new facilities would have to be constructed 

at sanctuaries to house more chimpanzees (i.e., Chimp Haven and all other sanctuaries are filled 

to capacity). 

An example of government cost savings for chimpanzees at research facilities is the cost 

differential of chimpanzees maintained at APF, where no research is conducted and no funds are 

provided by the institution that maintains the animals, by comparison with maintaining the same 

chimpanzees at the Southwest National Primate Research Center (SNPRC), where NIH has proposed to 

move them. It costs taxpayers $5 million each year to maintain those chimpanzees at APF whereas it 

would cost taxpayers only $3 million to maintain them at the SNPRC. Each year that the move is 

delayed it is costing the taxpayers $2 million, and the chimpanzees are not available to contribute to 

critical research initiatives particularly on hepatitis B and C. 

The NIH has conducted an assessment of the cost to taxpayers of maintaining chimpanzees at 

research facilities, at APF where research cannot be conducted and where only chimpanzees are 

maintained so there is no economy of scale, and at the national sanctuary: 

(http://grants.nih.govlgrantslpolicylairlcost for caring housing of chimpanzees.htm) October 31, 2011. 

14 
224 


25052.187

It concluded that the average cost to the taxpayer per chimpanzee per day at our four research facilities 

is $34.50, whereas the cost at APF is $67.40 per day, and the cost at the national sanctuary (which 

covers some expenses through donations) is $46.70 per day. 

It is noteworthy that the taxpayer cost of maintaining chimpanzees at sanctuaries would probably 

escalate if more chimpanzees were sent to sanctuaries because the sanctuaries already are generating 

as much revenue as possible from donations to sustain current operations. Acquisition of additional 

chimpanzees is not likely to be accompanied by acquisition of more donations, so the taxpayers would 

be required to cover the entire cost of maintaining any additional chimpanzees moved to sanctuaries as 

well as the cost of constructing new housing for them. Development of additional sanctuaries would also 

result in additional infrastructure costs. 

There would be no cost savings from moving the research population of chimpanzees to 

sanctuaries. To the contrary, there would be a major additional cost burden to the taxpayers. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we respectfully ask you to consider our testimony and not to pursue GAPCSA 

further. The 10M's publicly available Report Brief also concluded, "The committee recognizes 

how disruptive an outright ban would be, affecting animal care and potentially causing 

unacceptable loses to the public's health. What's more, chimpanzees may prove uniquely 

important to unraveling the mystery of diseases that are unknown today." 

The passage of GAPCSA would be a great tragedy to millions of Americans who are ill or 

are going to become ill from diseases that may be prevented or ameliorated by research with 

chimpanzees, to wild chimpanzees and gorillas that are being devastated by AIDS and Ebola, and 

to the taxpayers who would have to cover the total (or nearly total) costs of maintaining the 

chimpanzees removed from research resulting in the need to construct new housing at 

sanctuaries. The process established by the 10M Committee and being implemented by the NIH 

Working Group is functioning well to ensure that chimpanzees are only used for research when 

15 
225 


25052.188

absolutely necessary while also ensuring that the advancement of science and medicine 

continues at maximal speed to alleviate suffering and to prevent the premature and unnecessary 

death of millions of Americans. 

853290! 

16 
226 


25052.189

American Littoral Society * American Rivers * Delaware Highlands Conservancy * 

Delaware Natnre Society *Delaware Riverkeeper Network* Friends of the Upper 

Delaware River* National Wildlife Federation *New .Jersey Audubon Society * 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary * Pennsylvania Environmental Council *Delaware 

Chapter of The Nature Conservancy * New Jersey Chapter of the Nature Conservancy * 

New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy * Pennsylvania Chapter of The Nature 

Conservancy * Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

September 22, 20 II 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairwoman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable James lnhofe 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

CC: 

The Honorable Ben Cardin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions. Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Dear Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member lnhofe, 

We are writing to request action on the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act (S. 1266), which 

provides a framework for making substantial progress towards the protection and restoration of 

the ecologically and economically significant Delaware River Basin. The Delaware River Basin 

is the largest drinking water supplier in the MidAtlantie, supports a multi-billion dollar economy 

in the form of fisheries, recreation, and tourism, and provides valuable wildlife habitat. After 

experiencing two consecutive catastrophic flooding events, the Delaware River Basin requires 

attention now more than ever. Action outlined in this bill is essential for the sustainable future of 

the Delaware River Basin and the tremendous benefits it provides. The Delaware River Basin 

Conservation Act was introduced and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works on June 23, 2011. 

The bill would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with other federal 

agencies, to establish the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program to increase coordination 

and collaboration of conservation efforts currently underway in the entire Basin. Concurrently, 

the legislation would provide for the creation of a competitive grants program--along with muchneeded technical assistance--to add to the limited federal resources available to the 

watershed. The involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of 
227 


25052.190

Engineers is important to the success of this inter-agency partnership to restore and protect the 

Delaware River Basin. 

The Delaware River Basin is unique, economically and ecologically important, and deserves the 

attention of the Committee while considering legislation for other regional watershed protection 

ettbrts. We believe it is a critical time to elevate the profile of the Delaware River Basin, and 

urge action regarding the Delaware River Basin Conservation Act. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Dillingham 

Executive Director 

American Littoral Society 

Laura Craig, PhD 

Associate Director, River Restoration Program 

American Rivers 

Sue Currier 

Executive Director 

Delaware Highlands Conservancy 

Michael Riska 

Executive Director 

Delaware Nature Society 

Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkecper 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network 

Dan Plummer 

Chairman of the Board 

Friends of the Upper Delaware River 

Tony Caligiuri 

Regional Executive Director 

National Wildlife Federation 

Kelly Mooij, Esq. 

Government Relations Director 

New Jersey Audubon 

Jennifer A. Adkins 

Executive Director 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary 
228 

Æ 


25052.191

Patrick Starr 

Senior Vice President, Southeast Region 

Pennsylvania Environmental Council 

V. Alaric Sample, PhD 

President 

Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

Roger L Jones, Jr. 

Delaware State Director 

The Nature Conservancy 

Barbara Brummer 

New Jersey State Director 

The Nature Conservancy 

Rick Werwaiss 

Executive Director, Eastern Ne\V York Chapter 

The Nature Conservancy 

Bill Kunze 

Pennsylvania State Director 

The Nature Conservancy