U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

38-316 PDF 2008

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

IMPROVEMENT ACT: HAS THE 

PROMISE BEEN FULFILLED? 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 

Serial No. 110-48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Vacancy 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, Prepared statement of .................................................. 66 

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Former Secretary of the Interior ................................. 6 

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

Browner, Carol M., Chairwoman, Board of Directors, National Audubon 

Society ............................................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 26 

Frampton, John, Director, South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources ....................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47 

Hall, H. Dale, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior .................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Hirsche, Evan, President, National Wildlife Refuge Association ................. 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Horn, William P., Counsel, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance ................................. 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 55 

Additional materials supplied: 

Bishop, Paul, Founder, Friends of the National Bison Range, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 69 

Steele, James, Jr., Chairman, Tribal Council, The Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Pablo, Montana, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 70 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION 

OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

IMPROVEMENT ACT: HAS THE PROMISE 

BEEN FULFILLED? 

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ron Kind presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kind, Kildee, Faleomavaega, Brown, 

Saxton and Young (Ex Officio). 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Young, for joining us. 

I want to thank you all, and I want to apologize. We had a little 

mechanical problem with the plane coming in today, but we are 

here safe now and ready to kick off the hearing. 

I am honored to be able to chair this Subcommittee hearing 

today about the status of our Refuge System coinciding with the 

10-year anniversary of the Refuge Improvement Act. It is hard to 

believe it has been 10 years already. This not only gives us a 

chance to look back but also a chance to look forward to where we 

are going as a Nation and as an institution in our support of these 

tremendously valuable public lands called the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

I earlier in this session of Congress helped form a bipartisan caucus with our good friend, Jim Saxton, who is also on the committee, 

along with Mike Castle and Mike Thompson, to have the first-ever 

Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus in order to attract more attention and more focus on the status of refuges and what we need 

to be working on in a bipartisan fashion to support this very valuable system. 

I do have a written statement that I would like to, without objection, submit for the record, but I especially want to welcome our 

panel of guests today, starting with Secretary Babbitt. He was here 

and very instrumental in helping shepherd through the Improvement Act in 1997, the first real organic act for our Refuge System, 

and did a tremendous job in his stewardship as Secretary of the 

2 

Interior during the Clinton Administration, along with the other 

guests who will be represented in the second panel. 

But let me just say there are some very, I think, positive things 

that are going on with the Refuge System. All too often we hear 

some of the reports and studies coming out talking about the shortfalls and the strapped resources and what is not getting done. But 

as someone who represents an area of western Wisconsin that has, 

I think—and I am biased—three of the most beautiful wildlife 

refuges in the Nation—the Upper Miss, the Trempealeau and also 

the Necedah—and having a chance to visit them and others in the 

country, I am always very impressed with the quality and professionalism of the managers, the officers, and the staff of the refuges. 

You can feel their passion and energy every time you step on those 

refuges and listen to the work that they are doing, and the impact 

they are having in the community and with the people—not to 

mention the wildlife that depend on those refuges. 

I think it is exciting seeing the refuge association and the friends 

group and the volunteers that come in to offer their help and assistance. Certainly there are valuable resources for the wildlife that 

depend on it, the quality of water supplies, which is essential for 

this Nation, and the educational opportunities that have really 

been ramped up, too, in recent years. 

I think the outreach campaign—and I am going to ask Mr. Hall 

for a little more information during your testimony—on how we are 

going to tap into the youth of our country to get them more involved in outdoor recreation generally, but also in educational opportunities in the Refuge System, more specifically. 

But, of course, we do have other very important reports: ‘‘Refuges 

at Risk’’, the latest 2007 report, talking about some of the shortfalls in regard to the operation and maintenance budget, some of 

the staff reductions that have occurred, and the quasi-mothballing 

of some of the refuges that has taken place because of limited 

resources. 

We did have a nice ramp-up in funding, I felt, leading up to the 

2003 centennial anniversary of the Refuge System, but since then 

it has been relatively flat-lined. I am happy that with this next fiscal year’s Interior Appropriations bill, working closely with Norm 

Dicks on the Subcommittee, we have had the first significant increase in funding for the Refuge System for a number of years. 

We are just trying to play catch-up right now. Hopefully, we will 

be able to convince the President and the administration that this 

is the right type of investment that we have to make. I know there 

are some funding issues and threatened vetoes out there, but this 

is something I think we have to come together on. 

We also face a serious risk in regard to global warming and the 

impact that is going to have in the refuge, on the ecosystem, but 

also on the habitat and wildlife that depend on these refuges and 

how we are going to combat that. 

We have had a virtual freeze in new funding for new buildings 

recently. It has been very difficult to move forward; and, hopefully, 

we will have some perspective on the state of our infrastructure in 

the Refuge System and what we are facing there. So certainly we 

have had some big challenges that can’t be ignored. 

3 

Also, earlier this year, we had the report from the Cooperative 

Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, the CARE report, again, highlighting their survey and the issues that they think that we have 

to be engaged in. 

So I think the hearing is very important. It is timely. It is a 10- 

year anniversary. It also coincides nicely with National Refuge 

Week this year. And we are bringing back some former alums who 

have considerable expertise in dealing with refuge maintenance, 

along with those currently who are serving our country. 

So, with that, I would like to yield at this time to my distinguished friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young, for any opening statements that he may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Wisconsin 

This afternoon’s hearing will focus on the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to implement the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act since 

its passage in 1997. 

Ten years ago today, President Clinton signed the Improvement Act into law. Noting then that the Refuge System was the world’s greatest system of lands devoted 

to wildlife conservation, President Clinton added: 

‘‘It is a system founded in faith; a belief that in a country as bountiful and diverse 

as ours, there ought to be special places that are set aside exclusively for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. These special places are National Wildlife 

Refuges.’’ 

That statement remains true today. Our National Wildlife Refuge System—larger 

than our National Park System—contains the finest wildlife habitat on the North 

American continent, bar none. The System continues to provide sanctuary for many 

threatened and endangered species, resting habitat for millions of migratory birds, 

and abundant opportunities for virtually anyone, anywhere to rekindle a spirit for 

wildlife and wild places. 

Hailed at the time of its passage as the first true organic act for the Refuge System, the Improvement Act has ensured that the Refuge System will remain, first 

and foremost, now and forever, devoted to fish and wildlife conservation. 

Aside from the ‘‘wildlife first’’ mission established in the Improvement Act, important provisions establishing wildlife-dependent recreation as priority public uses, 

compatibility standards, comprehensive planning, and the maintenance of biological 

integrity and environmental health have all contributed to keep the Fish and Wildlife Service focused on this vital mission. 

But all is not well with the Refuge System. Only last week, Defenders of Wildlife 

released their most recent report, Refuges at Risk, detailing the plight of the Nation’s 10 most threatened refuges ranging from Alaska to the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley. 

Certainly, as the co-chair of the House National Wildlife Refuge Caucus, I am 

painfully aware of ongoing problems created by insufficient funding for operations 

and maintenance, and of the Service falling woefully behind schedule in the completion of comprehensive conservation plans for every refuge or refuge complex. Climate change, invasive species, and water shortages are creating additional challenges. 

The point of today’s hearing is not only to look back to see where we have come, 

but more important, to look forward to see where the Refuge System must go to 

meet the challenges ahead. The Improvement Act has provided a sure footing for 

the Refuge System. How we build on this foundation from here on out, however, will 

determine the wildlife legacy that we bequeath to our descendants. 

I look forward to hearing from former Secretary Babbitt, from Ms. Browner, and 

from our other distinguished witnesses assembled here this afternoon to discuss the 

hope and potential of this very special system of Federal lands. 

4 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and, of course, the Chairman of the full 

committee. At my request, this hearing is being held. I want to 

stress that, because this hearing is about the state of our refuges 

and where we are going under the Act that was passed 10 years 

ago, signed into law by President Clinton. It was landmark legislation then and is today. 

Very humbly, when you think about the beginning of the Refuge 

System on Pelican Island, it has grown to 96 million acres. And I 

want to stress that 96 million acres is the total amount of acreage, 

which is a considerable amount of Federally owned land. 

In my State of Alaska, we have 16 National Wildlife Refuges, 

representing 76.2 million acres. So if you look at it, we have over 

80 percent of the refuge lands in the State of Alaska, so I am quite 

interested in this issue. 

These units allow hunting, fishing and other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation. Prior to the Act, the individual refuge managers had little if any guidance as to what was compatible activity. 

There was no designated priority uses within the system, no ability 

to review existing activities prior to Federal land acquisition, no 

comprehensive inventory of the archeological natural resources or 

wildlife natural resources values within each unit. 

I was the proud sponsor of this legislation to remove these shortcomings. There was a fundamental need to revitalize the Refuge 

System, to end arbitrary or inconsistent compatibility determination, to establish priority uses and to respect historic activities occurring on private lands. 

Getting this legislation enacted was a long and difficult journey. 

It took more than 3 years and months of intense negotiations. I am 

pleased that some of these people are still here. The organizations 

that were partners in the process are testifying today. It is also remarkable this bill passed both the House, and I say this for your 

benefit, and the Senate with only one dissenting vote. 

It is now appropriate to reflect upon this Act and examine the 

current state of the Refuge System. I am frankly amazed that not 

a single provision of this law has been changed. Apparently, we got 

it right and the operation of the Refuge System has improved. In 

fact, in the past 10 years, the number of refuge units have grown 

from 514 to 548; the amount of refuge lands have been increased 

by more than 3 million acres; visitation has increased by more than 

11 million people each year; and 317 of the 452 open refuges allow 

hunting. And this is a historic level. In addition, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is working hard to complete the required comprehensive conservation plan. 

Why I stress the hunting aspect, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 

it was the original idea of the refuge, and we are their biggest supporters, and to change that policy now or on a future date would 

be wrong. 

Before blowing out the birthday candles, however, we must acknowledge that funding for the Refuge System is currently inadequate, and I will be the first one to agree to that, but when you 

think you have 96 million acres of land, and I think we are generVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
5 

ating $17 million, then that is not good management. We must figure out another way to help fund these systems that serve so many 

people. 

We also recognize a lot of the refuges because of other acts of law 

are being overgrown by foreign invasive species and the maintenance backlog continues to grow to a staggering level. It is my hope 

that this hearing will be just the first of a series ever to address 

these problems of true management in the refuge. 

Nevertheless, I do welcome my distinguished witnesses. My hope 

is that we continue to work together. 

And the only thing I would like to say is, when you bring and 

hold this up, Mr. Chairman, I think you also identify who wrote 

it, the Defenders of Wildlife. We have a group of people in this 

room that do not believe in the Refuge System as I envision it and 

do not want any hunting or really recreation other than looking 

and they want the government to control it. And when you do that 

you lose the support of the people, you lose the intent of what the 

Refuge System was set up for. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Bordallo and Chairman Rahall for 

agreeing to my request to schedule an oversight hearing on the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Exactly ten years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed this landmark legislation into law thus creating for the first time in nearly 100 years a ‘‘Mission’’ and 

an organic framework for this unique system of federal lands. 

From its humble beginning on Pelican Island, Florida, the refuge system has 

grown to over 96 million acres of federal lands with refuge units in every state and 

U.S. territory. In my own State of Alaska, we have 16 national wildlife refuges representing 76.2 million acres and each of these units allows hunting, fishing and 

other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. 

Prior to this Act, individual refuge managers had little, if any, guidance as to 

what was a ‘‘compatible’’ activity, there were no designated priority uses within the 

system, no ability to review existing activities prior to federal land acquisition and 

no comprehensive inventory of the archaeological, natural resource or wildlife resources values within each unit. 

I was proud to sponsor this legislation to remove these shortcomings. There was 

a fundamental need to revitalize the refuge system, to end arbitrary or inconsistent 

compatibility determinations, to establish priority uses and to respect historic activities occurring on private lands. 

Getting this legislation enacted was a long and difficult journey. It took more than 

three years and months of intense negotiations. I am pleased that some of the same 

individuals, like former Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and organizations who were partners in this process are testifying today. It is also remarkable that this bill passed 

both the House and the Senate with only one dissenting vote. 

It is now appropriate to reflect upon this Act and to examine the current state 

of the refuge system. I am frankly amazed that not a single provision of this law 

has been changed. Apparently, we got it right and the operation of the refuge system has improved. 

In fact, in the past ten years, the number of refuge units has grown from 514 to 

548, the amount of refuge land has increased by more than 3 million acres, visitation has increased by more than 11 million people each year and 317 of the 452 

open refuges allow hunting. This is an historic level. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service is working hard to complete the required Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans. 

Before blowing out the birthday candles, however, we must acknowledge that 

funding for the refuge system is currently inadequate, an increasing number of 

refuges are being overgrown by foreign invasive species and the maintenance backVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

log continues to grow to a staggering level. It is my hope that this hearing will be 

just the first in a series of efforts to address these problems. 

Nevertheless, I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses and it is my hope 

that we will continue to work together to ensure that the American people do indeed 

have the finest refuge system in the world. After all, it is a system that sportsmen 

have paid for with the billions of dollars in excise taxes and federal duck stamp fees. 

Public Law 105-57 is a true legacy to the vision first articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

I want to thank you personally, too, for your concern and interest 

and support of the Refuge System. You have been a real champion 

on this issue. 

Now we are going to turn to our first witness today, former Secretary Bruce Babbitt. On a personal note, you may recall, or you 

may not, that you were the first public official in my congressional 

district in the 1996 campaign to help me campaign. We did an 

event called the Environmental Management Program, which, of 

course, is spearheaded by USGS. I enjoyed that thoroughly. 

Of course, you were the principal architect of the Improvement 

Act of 1997 and very fully engaged in helping shepherd that 

through the Congress. And now we sit here 10 years later to look 

back and see what has worked and what hasn’t and where we need 

to go from here. So it is a great honor to be able to welcome back 

to the committee here today Secretary Babbitt. Thank you. 

I think everyone is familiar with the lighting system that we 

have here in the committee, the 5-minute rule. Rest assured all 

your written statements will be fully submitted for the record. 

So thank you, Secretary Babbitt; and we will turn it over to you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE BABBITT, 

FORMER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. BABBITT. Chairman, you have amply fulfilled my expectations. That resulted from that first visit and my clairvoyant judgment that you would rise to an outstanding role in this body. 

Mr. Young, I recall the hearing that gave rise to this legislation. 

I recall it as a somewhat contentious and unproductive hearing 

which was followed by a discussion that we had in your office 

which resulted in my recognition that I would have to deal with the 

forces of darkness led by my good friend Mr. Horn and get all of 

the stakeholders into this process. And as you yourself have said, 

it is quite extraordinary, the degree of consensus and the fact that 

10 years later there have been no amendments necessary for the 

bill. 

As I reread the legislation and the report last night, what comes 

back quite clearly is the three-cornered premise of this bill: First 

of all, a strong mission definition; second, a strong statement of 

compatibility that any use of the refuge had to be compatible with 

that primary mission; and, third, the mandate for comprehensive 

plans which would provide the public input and the analytical 

framework for making these compatibility decisions. 

I think it has all worked quite well. I think the most interesting 

example of that is a recent court decision on the Little Pend Oreille 

National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Washington in which Judge 

7 

Stevens analyzes the Act, affirms this kind of triangular structure 

and strongly affirms compatibility, a decision made by the refuge 

manager. 

Mr. Chairman, you have alluded, both you and Mr. Young, to the 

budget shortfall issues; and I won’t add anything to that. I have 

something to say in my testimony. It is getting pretty desperate out 

there. I think the staff reductions are ominous, and it is also slowing the completion of the comprehensive conservation plans. 

The compatibility decisions are not going to be well-made, and 

they may not survive judicial scrutiny unless they are made by 

managers in the context of the analytical framework of those plans. 

Only a third of the plans have been done in 10 years. The deadline 

is 5 years away. We still have two-thirds of the plans to go. It is 

important; and, as Mr. Young says, we must find some way to resolve that issue. 

I would like to devote my remaining 1 minute and 54 seconds to 

two minor topics: global warming and land use. Let me just say 

with respect to global warming, it is going to impact migratory species most ominously. That includes most of the waterfowl, which 

are at the base of this refuge, in the refuges in Alaska, on the Pacific, the Atlantic flyway, the gulf of the Mississippi Flyway. 

If you look at the sea level rise maps—get those maps. EPA has 

put them out. Overlay them on two places, Pamlico Sound in North 

Carolina and the Delta of the Mississippi River. You will see that 

by the middle to the end of this century on facts already in place, 

sea level rise is simply going to erase a number of the units in the 

Refuge System. We need to begin a process of systematically analyzing that, because the whole Refuge System is at enormous risk. 

Let me conclude with just one example that I happen to have 

been involved in very recently. It is the Pocosin Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge and the wildlife complex on Pamlico Sound. If you 

look at the EPA maps and the current consensus estimates of sea 

level rise, half of that 100,000 acre refuge will be gone in this century. Pea Island is likely to perish, as are areas in the Outer 

Banks. Now, what that means is we are going to have to come to 

grips with how these refuges migrate along with the coastal ecosystems of which they are a part. I don’t have a lot of answers, but 

we haven’t even started asking the questions. 

Now, to make matters worse, as I conclude, in North Carolina, 

the Navy selected the western margin of that refuge for an outlying 

landing field. It was a decision not made with careful analysis. 

There are many alternatives. The landing field has been opposed 

by most of the North Carolina delegation, by the Governor and it 

has now come before this Congress in footnotes to the appropriations bill. 

The reason I cite that is because it is a perfect example of the 

land use conflicts that we are going to see as these refuge systems 

begin—or at least the wildlife begin either to migrate with the 

shifting coastlines or to perish or at least be at risk of extinction. 

That underlines my final point. Even as we expand them, as we 

must, most of the wildlife refuges outside of Alaska are postage 

stamps on large landscape ecosystems; and they are continually 

going to be threatened by growth, development, inconsistent uses 

unless we find some way of engaging States and local governments 

8 

in comprehensive State-centered land use planning with the 

refuges in mind. 

I would leave for your consideration some other interesting Federal examples: the Coastal Zone Management Act, which has a 

State Federal process. You should look at the wildlife action plans, 

which have induced the States to begin that process. 

But I would conclude by saying we could do a much more robust 

statutory and budgetary job of looking beyond the borders of these 

refuges at the changes that are going to take place and finding inventive ways to engage States, local communities and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service in looking ahead for the next century. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Babbitt follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, 

Former Secretary of the Interior 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for inviting 

me to testify at this important hearing. As Secretary of Interior I worked closely 

with this Subcommittee, Congress, and the President on crafting and passing the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997. And I am keenly interested in how the administration, Congress, and the public can work together to ensure that the ideals exemplified in the Refuge Improvement Act are fully implemented in order to for the Refuge System, and the wildlife it supports, to thrive for 

the next century. 

Teddy Roosevelt once said, ‘‘Wild beasts and birds are by right not the property 

merely of the people who are alive today, but the property of unknown generations, 

whose belongs we have no right to squander.’’ By creating the first refuge at Pelican 

Island in 1903, President Roosevelt delivered on that statement. And thanks to the 

leadership of presidents who followed, of wildlife champions in Congress, of the unsung employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and of citizens banding together 

to protect wild places, the Refuge System has grown to encompass more than 500 

units: a magnificent system of lands and waters, unique in the world, enjoyed by 

almost 40 million visitors a year. 

Upon taking office in 1993 I encountered a system in peril, its problems documented in innumerable GAO reports, Fish and Wildlife Service reports, lawsuits, 

and Congressional hearings. Then after several more congressional hearings, the 

clouds parted and we began a serious dialog with this Committee under the personal leadership of Mr. Young and with the active participation of several members 

here today. 

The result was the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. That 

title, however, belies the significance of the legislation, for it is much more than just 

another ‘‘improvement’’; it is the first ever organic act for the Refuge System, comparable to the celebrated 1916 organic act of the National Park Service. 

For most of the time since the Act became law, I have been back in private life, 

most recently as Chairman of the Board of the World Wildlife Fund. During that 

time I have had many occasions to visit and enjoy the refuges, meandering quietly 

and reflectively, without the overhang of staff, security and press, spending time 

with dedicated refuge staff and the marvelous corps of citizen volunteers that you 

can encounter at most refuges. 

In the process I have observed first hand many positive improvements, notably 

the changes driven by the compatibility requirements of the Act. However, I have 

also seen that the promise of the Refuge Act, that we would elevate the Refuge System and administer it to the highest standards, has not been fulfilled. 

The Refuge Improvement Act, overwhelmingly passed by Congress, was a promise 

to the American people: that the system of lands and waters that had been set aside 

for wildlife for the benefit of the citizens of this country would be properly cared 

for. I fear this promise has not been fulfilled. Today we find a refuge system crumbling from the weight of an immense backlog of operational expenses. Today we find 

a refuge system hemorrhaging a fifth of its hardworking staff. Today we find a 

refuge system having to choose between restoring habitat or educating children 

about the wonders of the natural world. Today we find a refuge system that has 

been neglected, and, unhappily, in some cases, a refuge system where the sound 

9 

management decisions of its professionals have been undermined by political meddling. 

In my testimony today I will attempt to document some of these unfulfilled 

promises—not to dwell on the past, but to move the refuge system forward. And I 

will conclude with several observations about what needs to be done in a broader 

context to involve our states and local governments in the protection and enhancement of wildlife and their habitat. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Compatibility 

Of all the improvements mandated by the Act, the ‘‘compatibility’’ requirement is 

perhaps the most important. Refuges are where wildlife come first, they are closed 

to all other uses unless it can be demonstrated that such uses will not be harmful 

to the wildlife conservation purpose of the refuge system. In 1989, the GAO found 

that over half of all refuge managers reported harmful secondary uses occurring on 

their refuges. It was clear that comprehensive legislation was needed to fix this and 

other problems facing the refuge system. 

The Refuge Improvement Act strengthened the compatibility standard and process, requiring greater transparency and public input into Fish and Wildlife Service 

decisions. The Fish and Wildlife Service responded by promulgating strong regulations and policy to implement the new standards. 

To date, however, many compatibility determinations remain weak and lack 

strong scientific justification. More disturbing, cases are coming to light where correct compatibility decisions are being subverted by political directives from above. 

A particularly egregious example is occurring at Yukon Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge in Alaska where the Fish and Wildlife Service and the native Alaskan Doyon 

corporation are negotiating a land exchange within the refuge to get around a compatibility determination against oil and gas development within the refuge. By removing lands out of the refuge, compatibility will no longer apply. Drilling will have 

devastating consequences for the refuge, and this maneuver sets a terrible precedent for refuges throughout the country. 

At Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, again with strong scientific evidence of the impacts of the road running through the refuge, the refuge 

manager determined that a number of proposed alternatives for bridge replacement 

and road maintenance would be incompatible with the refuge’s purposes. Under intense political pressure, the Interior Department has acquiesced in a compatibility 

evaluation process that ignores the impacts of additional road building within the 

Refuge. 

There are more examples of this type of meddling in the sound professional judgment of dedicated refuge managers, reflecting administration policies contrary to 

the Congressional mandate embodied in the compatibility standard at the hear of 

the Refuge Improvement Act 

Unfulfilled Promise: Planning 

The Refuge Improvement Act provided the public the opportunity to engage in 

refuge management for the first time. The comprehensive conservation planning requirement of the Improvement Act is the main avenue for implementing many of 

the provisions of the Act, and it is an opportunity for the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to inform the public about each refuge, gain support from the surrounding communities, and obtain valuable input into the management of these precious lands. 

Many refuges have been able to use the planning process to solve complex problems. 

The Refuge Improvement Act called for all refuges to have comprehensive conservation plans by 2012. Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service has only completed one third of the plans while two thirds of the time has elapsed. Yet, instead 

of proposing a strong investment in the planning process, the administration actually proposed cutting the planning budget in its Fiscal Year 2008 request. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health 

Twenty some years ago, selenium contamination from surrounding agricultural 

runoff had become so bad on Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in California that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service had to harass waterfowl to keep them off the refuge’s 

toxic ponds after more than 1,000 ducks died from selenium poisoning. Almost all 

the fish had disappeared. The refuge had died. This episode raised important questions about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to address conservation issues beyond their refuge boundaries and whether the Fish and Wildlife Service had an affirmative duty to sustain wildlife on a national wildlife refuge. 

The Refuge Improvement Act addressed these questions, particularly its provision 

requiring the Secretary of Interior to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the refuge system. Many external actions and threats imVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

pact the refuge system’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Yet this core provision of the Act has never been adequately implemented. 

Water, essential for life, is an example. The vast majority of the refuge system 

contains important wetland and aquatic habitat, habitat that is vital to the millions 

of migratory birds and other species that depend on refuges. Congress recognized 

the importance of water to the refuge system, requiring the Secretary of the Interior 

to assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and quality to achieve the 

refuge system mission and the purposes of each refuge. Yet very little has been done 

to identify threats to refuge waters, secure adequate quantities of water to meet 

refuge objectives, or even maintain water quality, as exemplified at Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge in Montana where ducks are once again dying from selenium 

poisoning and toxic brine. Refuges in the Central Valley of California cannot compete on the open market for available water, leaving many of their lands dry. In 

Nevada, the Fish and Wildlife Service has virtually given away water rights at the 

Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge, succumbing to the largest groundwater development in the country’s history threatening a refuge designed solely around the 

water and aquatic habitat it provides for an endangered fish. 

Equally alarming is virtual take-over of the refuge system by invasive exotic 

plants and animals, threatening the biological integrity of each and every refuge. 

Some refuges today are virtual monocultures of plants from Asia, or Australia, instead of the native plants and unique habitats of North America that have evolved 

with the wild beasts and birds the refuge system was set aside for. On top of this, 

due to budget shortfalls the Fish and Wildlife Service is being forced to completely 

de-staff entire refuges—refuges that may quickly succumb to damaging invasive 

species in the absence of adequate control efforts. 

Global warming is a serious threat to the System. Warming temperature and 

changing patterns of precipitation will require many species assemblages to migrate 

northward or upward in elevation, a process that is visibly underway in the West 

and in Alaska. Along the Atlantic and Gulf coastlines, rising sea levels will inundate 

large areas of existing refuges. Water will become even scarcer in many regions. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service must have the mandate and the resources to assess these 

changes and to analyze them in detail in the comprehensive plans for individual 

refuges. The National Park Service has already initiated such a process, and there 

is no time to be lost in getting this process underway in the Refuge system. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Monitoring 

The Refuge Improvement Act recognized that you can’t manage a refuge if you 

don’t know what wildlife and habitat is present or how wildlife and habitat is responding to management and external threats. Congress required the Secretary to 

‘‘monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge’’ and required the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the system using modern scientific 

resource programs. Though some regions of the Fish and Wildlife Service are beginning to invest in monitoring programs; overall, monitoring, if it is occurring at all, 

has been poorly planned, lacks scientific rigor, and is not providing the Fish and 

Wildlife Service the information it needs to adequately manage the refuge system. 

Robust monitoring programs are especially important as climate change alters habitats, predator-prey relationships, and other ecological functions. The refuge system 

should be our early warning system for these types of effects, but today these effects 

remain largely undetected and misunderstood. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Strategic Growth 

Amid an era of increasing population growth, virtually unchecked suburban 

sprawl, and rapid intensification of agriculture, it is critically important that we 

protect our increasingly isolated wildlife and last remaining wild places. Congress 

recognized this urgent need in the Improvement Act a decade ago, when it directed 

me and all future Interior Secretaries to strategically expand the refuge system in 

a manner that would protect and restore the unique wildlife and ecosystems of 

America. Never before has the need to prioritize such a visionary directive been so 

great. 

Barely a two hour drive south of Washington, D.C. lies a refuge that is practically 

begging for land acquisition funds before the clock runs out. Rappahannock River 

Valley refuge is one of those rare and special places in the East, where river otters 

still swim freely, where endangered fish and plants still thrive, and bald eagles still 

soar in tremendous numbers. But how long can this condition persist as commercial 

enterprise and housing developments begin to overtake the area, as they threaten 

to do in many parts of our country? It was Congress’s intent to avoid situations such 

as this, where the very integrity and purpose of our treasured wildlife refuges are 

severely undermined. Because of years of funding neglect by the administration and 

11 

Congress, private partners and land donors have done their best to pick up the 

slack, but even these noble efforts have barely managed to cobble together a few 

thousand acres, well short of this refuge’s 21,000 acre acquisition goal. As is, Rappahannock River Valley refuge exists as a handful of scattered parcels, and unless 

those tracts can be connected and expanded soon, America will have a few more 

housing developments and a lot less of its natural heritage. 

Rappahannock River Valley refuge is unfortunately not unique. All across America, our refuges are feeling the pressure from encroachment, fragmentation, and 

global warming. If America wishes to retain wild places well into the future, and 

I believe it does, it is now time for this administration and Congress to make a renewed commitment to the vision of 10 years ago. That vision saw a refuge system 

where not only wildlife thrive and find safe harbor, but also where our children 

learn of natural history, hunting, fishing, and to simply play in the woods. We owe 

it to our future generations to grant them the opportunity to see a bald eagle fly, 

or a river otter frolic, and to do so, full implementation of the strategic growth directives in the Improvement Act are vital to America’s success in this important endeavor. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Public Use and Enjoyment 

Fish and wildlife come first on national wildlife refuges so they will be sustained 

for the benefit of the American public. Ninety-eight percent of the refuge system is 

open to the public. The Refuge Improvement Act created a unique system of 

prioritized uses: wildlife refuges are places where compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is facilitated over other uses. This makes sense. National wildlife refuges 

should be places where the public can hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, 

and most importantly, learn about wildlife. There is a refuge within an hour’s drive 

of every major urban area in the country. What a fantastic opportunity to welcome 

the public, especially children, to learn and experience the wonders of the natural 

world. If we don’t teach our children to appreciate and understand wildlife and our 

natural resources, who will be tomorrow’s stewards of these precious resources? Environmental education programs and other visitor programs are being slashed due 

to budget shortfalls. One school in Washington state had been working hand in 

hand with the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge on a reforestation project. Each 

year, the entire school of 750 students would take a trip to the refuge to learn about 

the wildlife and habitat, and assist staff in its restoration. But the Fish and Wildlife 

Service had to drop this tremendous experiential learning opportunity because of 

lack of funds. We can’t let opportunities like these fade. National wildlife refuges 

should be the centers for combating what author Richard Louv calls ‘‘nature deficit 

disorder’’ in our children. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Law Enforcement 

The protection of refuge wildlife, facilities, and public safety is the most basic 

function of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2006, there were over 95,000 law enforcement incidents ranging from stolen property to violent assaults. Every crime 

that occurs in America also occurs on national wildlife refuges. In 2005 an International Association of Chiefs of Police study of the Refuge System found that 

refuge law enforcement was woefully inadequate and recommended a 133% increase 

in law enforcement officers to respond to vandalism, poaching of wildlife, drug trafficking and myriad other crimes. 

In New Jersey, budget cuts have left just one law enforcement officer at Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge, covering 47,000 acres. The refuge manager there responded by saying, ‘‘there’s going to be more partying and more illegal ATV use on 

the refuge. There’s going to be more illegal trash dumping.’’ In some areas of the 

West, huge swaths of land are left to lone law enforcement officers. This is no way 

to treat this great system of lands or the public. 

Unfulfilled Promise: Funding 

While refuges continue to operate under the tight constraints of a federal appropriation that has declined or remained flat in recent years, their expenses continue 

to increase. Each year, refuge expenses must grow by $15 million just to meet everescalating fixed costs for salary adjustments, fuel, utilities, facilities rent and maintenance, and more. But because the refuge system cannot even keep pace with inflationary costs, the System is in serious financial trouble. 

Let us not equivocate. The refuge system is reeling from years of fiscal starvation. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has made public its intent to slash 20 percent of its 

refuge workforce, resulting in the permanent loss of more than 560 employees at 

a time when most refuges are short-staffed to begin with. In fact, a third of our nation’s refuges already have no staff whatsoever. The refuge system is losing its biologists, its maintenance workers, its educational outreach staff, even its refuge manVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

agers. Years of inadequate budgets have forced FWS not only to shed staff, but as 

I’ve already testified, to cut education for school groups, to scale back on biological 

monitoring and strategic planning, and to shelve scores of important conservation 

and restoration activities. Maintenance projects are backlogged, visitor centers are 

closing, and invasive species are, in some cases, literally taking over. 

There is, of course, a remedy for these deficiencies. The Refuge Improvement Act 

established robust standards that would have ensured the health of the Refuge System for generations to come. It’s now time to empower the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the refuge system with the fiscal resources they need to provide another century of wildlife protection and education to current and future Americans. To live 

up to the standards of the Refuge Improvement Act, to address the $2.5 billion operations and maintenance backlog, to stop the hemorrhaging of staff, to strategically 

grow the System, and to ensure adequate law enforcement, ecosystem health and 

a positive visitor experience for generations to come, I call upon the administration 

and this Congress to fund refuges at a level that is commensurate with the enormous ecological and economic value they return to the American people. 

Moving the Refuge System Forward 

Several months ago, after speaking at a refuge event, I was asked ‘‘could you 

identify the single most important issue facing the refuge system in the coming century? And what legislation you would propose to address it? 

It did not take me long to identify the issue. Most of our wildlife refuges are relatively small, amounting to postage stamps affixed on large landscapes that are rapidly filling with development. Our population, now about 300 million will increase 

by a third, by another hundred million by the year 2040. Now take a look at the 

map of our refuge system. Most refuges are located along or near the Atlantic, Gulf 

and Pacific coasts, and on river flyways, precisely the areas where most of the population growth and development is occurring.. Which in turn poses the question; can 

our refuges and their animal and plant communities survive in the next century as 

isolated plots in a sea of encroaching development? 

Refuge lands must be expanded to insure an adequate future for our wildlife. 

There are, to be sure, limits, both fiscal and practical, to boundary expansion as the 

answer to refuge protection. In the longer term, the only way to insure the viability 

of our refuge system to encourage proper land use and sustainable development on 

the landscapes of which the refuges are only a tiny part. 

Land use is and will remain a primary responsibility of state and local governments. Yet there is no reason why the federal government should not provide incentives to state and local governments to join more actively in the management of the 

landscapes surrounding our refuges. 

What kind of incentives? One precedent that deserves consideration is our experience with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. CZMA offers federal assistance to coastal states willing to establish land use plans for their coastal areas, and 

since enactment of the legislation 29 of the 30 eligible states have joined in this program, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the 

Department of Commerce. 

The statutory mission statement of the Coastal Zone Management Act might well 

be applied to a comparable program for refuges: to ‘‘protect and enhance fragile natural resources by reducing conflict between competing land and water uses while 

representing a comprehensive approach to managing the impacts of development 

and other activities....’’ 

Whatever the exact approach, I can say with confidence that the refuge system 

remains in need of a strong program of state and local participation in the management of lands surrounding the refuges. And there other Federal programs that could 

be targeted to provide incentives for federal, state, local and private partnerships 

to encourage sustainable use of adjacent lands, such as the Conservation Reserve 

Program administered by the Department of Agriculture, and the various private 

land stewardship programs administered by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. 

In conclusion, the Refuge Improvement Act remains, ten years after enactment at 

the initiative of this Committee, a strong legal foundation for the administration of 

our refuge system. What is most needed is the leadership, vision and resources to 

ensure that its promise is fulfilled for the benefit of future generations. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. I would be remiss if I also did not extend her greetings 

to you. Chairman Bordallo desperately wanted to be here. She is 

13 

en route from Guam but wanted to express her welcome to you 

here today, too. 

Let me just follow up, if I may, on the whole phenomenon on 

global warming and the impact it is going to have on the Refuge 

System. And now as an outside observer with the service and the 

management of these refuges do you feel there are sufficient steps 

being taken in light of the science and the impact it is going to 

have on the refuge within the service itself, management plans, or 

does something structural have to change within the service itself 

in order to put together the planning and the comprehensive analysis that you were just talking about? 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I think there has to be a structural 

change. The pervasive nature of these changes is such that they 

really can’t be adequately addressed, although they should be analyzed in the comprehensive conservation plans. The service must 

have a mandate and the resources—for example, to look at the entire region of Pamlico Sound, Florida Bay, the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Coast, they are all related; and we haven’t even begun to 

comprehend that. 

There are some extraordinary examples in Alaska. The retreat of 

the Arctic ice cap has now moved sufficiently far off the Beaufort 

Sea shoreline. There is every reason to believe that the polar bear 

population will, in fact, diminish and that the only possibility for 

maintaining that population on some semblance of a land ice 

bridge is going to be in the ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, and we need serious attention to those issues. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Secretary, the structural changes that you would 

like to see, is that something that can be done internally or is it 

something that Congress needs to be engaged in, in order to provide the statutory authority or the mandate to do so? 

Mr. BABBITT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I spent the better part of 8 

years up here answering that question by saying, leave it to the bureaucrats, of which I am one. I return now as a private citizen and 

an environmentally concerned private citizen to say that a congressional mandate would be much the preferable way. This is a large 

issue, it is a systemic issue with catastrophic potential consequences that it should not be left to Mr. Hall, his successor, Secretary Kempthorne or his successor, whoever they might be. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. Before coming out here this morning to 

catch the flight, I was out observing the great migration that is 

taking place in the Upper Miss right now, and it is spectacular, 

and it is beautiful, but it is also daunting in regard to the management and the multiple uses of that vast area. And we have especially dealt with the difficulty of putting together a comprehensive 

conservation plan in light of the multiple uses for the Upper Miss, 

‘which has proven quite controversial, at least in the State of Wisconsin, when it comes to certain access issues and what type of access that you are talking about. 

Now, we are obviously behind the time line when it comes to the 

development of all the comprehensive plans throughout the Nation. 

Do you have any specific recommendations of what we need to do 

to try to streamline this process in order to get these plans done 

and up and going at a much quicker pace than what we have seen 

so far? 

14 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I believe the baseline issue is funding. I don’t think there are any significant shortcuts. I would be 

very skeptical of any response which says we will simply accelerate 

our effort and start cranking them out. They take time and resources, and they can’t be done on a refuge which has at most one 

or two personnel, where the visitor center isn’t open most of the 

time, where trash is piling up, invasive species are running wild, 

where there is not a semblance of the resources necessary to do 

their day jobs, much less undertake this kind of planning regime. 

The plans are good. They work. They are worth doing. The court 

decision in the Little Pend Oreille ought to be a reminder of the 

importance of this. 

Mr. KIND. It is mentioned in your testimony about some of the 

land use conflicts and how that might slow the process down a little bit. But, ultimately, at the end of the day, in order for the CCPs 

to work you got to have maximum buy-in not only from those in 

charge of putting the plans in place but the input from the community at large. Because a lot of this is going to be self-enforcing. We 

just won’t have the resources in order to go out there unless you 

have that buy-in from a larger community and the multiple uses 

of the refuge. 

Do you have anything in particular that you would recommend 

in order to deal with the land-use conflicts or the multiple-use conflicts that pop up from time to time without jeopardizing the consensus building that has to take place at the end of the day? 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I think the service has done a good 

job on the public involvement that is mandated by the Act. I think 

that what we ought to be working on is statutory ways to give incentives to State, county and municipal governments, not mandates. 

But there are a number of interesting examples—coastal zone 

management is one that I referred to—in which we look out across 

those boundaries and invite the State governments and the local 

governments. 

Another way that could be done would be to put some language 

into the wildlife action plans. It has been an enormously successful 

program. It has brought—I forget the exact name of it—it is a 

State grants program that has brought the States into—most all 

States into very high-quality wildlife analysis and mapping across 

the States. I think it would be perfectly logical to revisit that and 

say here is an extra add-on to the extent that you want to get into 

looking at land use in connection with the refuge managers. Just 

set up the process and give the incentives. 

Mr. KIND. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

My time is expired. We will turn it over to Mr. Young for any 

questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Kind. 

Mr. Secretary, you hit upon the funding and cooperation and suggested that Congress come forth with possibly the solutions of the 

bureaucrats. I might agree with that, but, knowing this Congress, 

we haven’t been able to do a whole lot in the last year and a half, 

and I don’t know how much more we are going to be doing, and 

this is realistic. And I don’t know whether we can solve the funding. 

15 

I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Secretary, we have 96 million 

acres in refuges; and it is my understanding we raise $75 million 

a year off the 96 million acres. Is there any way we can use the 

96 million acres to raise more money for the Refuge System? 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Young, I have always been an advocate of visiting and revisiting the issue of fees. I wouldn’t advocate fees for 

the Alaska refuges. It would cost more to collect them than they 

would be worth. 

If you go down to Sanibel Island during the winter season down 

there, I don’t know whether they are charging admission fees. It 

is not a total solution, but it has been helpful in my judgment in 

the National Park System, and I think it should be carefully examined here. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, going along those lines, though, if we have a 

refuge, just raising by fees, that is just a minor amount of money. 

If we have 11 million more visitors a year, you have to be charging 

something like a $100 fee or better for those that visit to raise the 

money. We are at about a $2.4 billion backlog, if I am not mistaken. 

What I am looking for, and I am not a pessimist, but I don’t see, 

other than this hearing, much enthusiasm for the Refuge System 

in the U.S. Congress. A little talk, a little bit of a discussion, but 

not much enthusiasm. 

As I mentioned, invasive species and everything else, and if we 

buy your concept of rising tide and we have to adjust the borders 

of the refuge to make sure they have enough space for the migratory birds and stuff, that is going to take money. And somehow we 

have to figure out how we are going to raise that money or raise 

the interest level higher to get it. 

I still think—what happens as far as duck stamp money? Where 

does that go? What does it go for? Does anybody know? 

Mr. BABBITT. It goes largely, in my understanding, for habitat acquisition in the Duck Factory. 

Mr. YOUNG. But not management of the refuge front. And we 

have increased like 96 million acres. We probably could get more. 

I would not support that, but say somebody else would. Because I 

believe if you have the inability to manage the property you have, 

then you shouldn’t be purchasing another house. You should take 

and make sure your house is being run correctly. 

So I have to figure out a way we can get the monies, other than 

direct appropriation. You can forget that. There is just not going 

to be $2.4 billion additional dollars for the backlog. So we have to 

figure out a way to raise those dollars. If anybody has any suggestions, and for those that are going to testify later on you better 

think about it, because I will probably ask the same question if I 

am here. Mr. Secretary, you are at a disadvantage now because no 

one has come to me with how we are going to raise those dollars. 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Young, I would only suggest that you might 

talk with I think the two most creative sort of indirect fund-raisers 

in or from the U.S. Congress, John Barrow and Mary Landrieu, 

who have in aid of coastal issues in Louisiana come up with imaginative proposals tapping everything that stands or moves within 

the jurisdiction of not just Louisiana but the entire United States. 

16 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I will be supportive, because that is oil and 

gas. I didn’t want to bring that subject up, but that is exactly 

where it is coming from. And if you remember the CARE Act, 

which I was a sponsor with Mr. Miller, that is what we were going 

to do to make sure those monies were permanently appropriated 

and not at the discretion of the appropriators for the Conservation 

Reinvestment Act. And of course it got over the Senate and died. 

By the way, we had 328 votes I believe for that Act; and that 

does show some imagination. But unless we see the interest, then 

I can’t get your side to even think about offshore drilling other 

than Louisiana. And we might want to start thinking about— 

maybe we think about, oh, God help us, oil and gas development, 

that a set portion of that money would go directly to the refuge improvement and maintenance of and the future development of supposedly global warming. You might want to think about that. That 

may be a little farfetched. 

Mr. Chairman, every time I mention that, you can’t do that. 

Those dirty old fossil fuels, we can’t develop it. But if we want to 

solve this problem of refuge which does exist today and if we are 

really interested in fish and wildlife and recreational purposes and 

touching nature, we better damn well accept that challenge. 

I am out of time. 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Young, may I offer a brief rejoinder and suggestion in the spirit of our earlier collaboration? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BABBITT. I believe were those concepts detached from all of 

the raging debates about where development should take place and 

that were cut adrift and you were just examining the issue of revenues as they may come under law, whatever that law may be, that 

would be an opportunity for you and me to go back to your office 

and write a bill. Unfortunately, I am no longer in power to do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Babbitt’s—Secretary Babbitt’s little story—and he may deny this—but when he 

was Secretary he came to my office again and asked for assistance 

to help rewrite the Endangered Species Act, and we were working 

on that and making progress. And, lo and behold, in 1994 we took 

over control of the Congress, and I tried to rewrite the Act, and all 

of a sudden I was a bad guy. No politics involved. But I just want 

to tell you what can happen in this business we are in. 

I would be willing to sit down and talk to anybody if we can find 

a way to find a permanent source of income so it doesn’t go through 

the appropriation process for the improvement and the management of our refuges, and I think that is what we ought to be doing. 

Mr. KIND. Well, thank you, Mr. Young. 

If it is OK with you, I would like to just follow up with a couple 

more questions, mainly on that line of thought. Because I have 

been talking to a lot of individuals, a lot of groups on this very 

point and try to see what creative minds exist out there to have 

this steady, dedicated source of income. 

You raised the duck stamp money that is raised every year, yet 

you are talking about a very limited universe there of duck hunters 

that are actually contributing to it, and there are a very small percentage of those who are actually going into the refuges to enjoy 

that hunting sport. I am one of them. And yet we have a lot of 

17 

birders going in, bird watchers, photographers going into our 

Refuge System that aren’t buying duck stamps at the same time. 

And the duck stamp money is mainly for wetlands preservation 

programs, both on public and private lands. So we do have to, I 

think, come up with a different funding source user fee. 

But this is also a question maybe the second panel, anyone on 

the second panel, might have some ideas or thoughts on, too, is 

how can we raise some additional revenue from a dedicated fee or 

source in order to deal with this backlog problem that we have 

right now in financing the Refuge System. 

I am glad to hear that your office is open, as mine is for you, Mr. 

Babbitt, or anyone else who has some ideas or thoughts on this 

very topic. But I would just disagree with you slightly, Mr. Young, 

in regard to a level of interest in the Refuge System in the Congress. With the bipartisan caucus that we formed, we do have 138 

members, so we are able to get out information into the offices. We 

just haven’t had your leadership on the caucus yet that we desperately need. 

Mr. YOUNG. A lot of time these caucuses, people get on it, because I am the head of the sportsmen’s caucus, or was. As you 

know, people get on and say they are on it, but they are really not 

there to do anything. And that frustrates me. 

Mr. KIND. Granted. But it is a truism in this place that there is 

virtually a refuge in every congressional district, or at least one 

within hiking distance of every congressional district. So it does affect us all, and I think we have to figure out a way of tapping into 

the interest that does exist in the Congress. 

But let me also ask you, Mr. Babbitt, another very important 

issue. We have had a hearing on this already, and that is the 

spread of invasive species. And obviously, global warming is going 

to bring a whole new dynamic to that. I have pending before this 

committee, and we hope to go to full committee markup H.R. 767 

called the Repair Act, which will provide Federal grants and in a 

partnership on the public and private level in order to deal with 

the spread of invasive species in and also in the surrounding area 

of our Refuge System. 

How big a threat is that? And do we need a statutory response 

to authorize the service in order to form these partnerships with 

the local entities in order to have a good comprehensive plan and 

also, hopefully, the funding to deal with the invasive problem that 

we have? 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Chairman, I think a statutory directive would 

be really useful. This is a new and again vast, poorly understood 

and hugely destructive problem that cannot be addressed just inside the boundaries of the refuge. And it is yet another example of 

how it is driven by all these forces. We need to find ways to sign 

up the surrounding jurisdictions, and I believe it would be really 

important to flag that as a statutory effort. 

Mr. KIND. I appreciate that, because we have received a lot of 

good advice from Mr. Hall and Mr. Haskett, the chief here, in regard to the spread of invasive species. And while they do have programs in place, it just seems to be out here rather than at a real 

focal point that I think we need and that is necessary. Of course, 

18 

we do get back into the funding issue, and all roads seem to head 

back to that poignant fact. 

But, again, I want to thank you for your insight and for your involvement and for the history that you bring to the Refuge System 

and to this committee. It has been a joy to have you here. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Secretary, put your mind to work and maybe we 

can arrive at some solution to a problem. Again, the finances are 

the hardest problem. Although we have 130 on this deal, I would 

be extremely surprised if we had more than a 10 percent increase 

in the refuge dollars directly appropriated. And that is where 

CARE came in where it was automatic and came of off of offshore 

drilling, and instead of where it goes now into the general Treasury 

to be spent on some other crazy program that never gets any results at all. And I am not casting dispersions on anybody, but in 

reality if we don’t do that, if we don’t take a resource and use it 

to develop and protect another resource, we are going to lose this 

battle eventually. 

Mr. BABBITT. Mr. Young, I suppose that means I ought to go 

start talking to Mr. Horn again. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Horn is not impossible. He is not. 

Mr. BABBITT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Now I would like to welcome our second panel up to the microphones. While they are finding their seats, let me quickly introduce 

them here this afternoon. 

Our second panel consists of The Honorable Carol Browner, 

Chairwoman of the Board of Directors for the National Audubon 

Society and former Administrator of the U.S. EPA during the 

Clinton Administration; The Honorable Dale Hall, Director of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior; Mr. Evan 

Hirsche, Executive Director, National Wildlife Refuge Association; 

Mr. John Frampton, Director of the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources—welcome. glad to have you—and also The Honorable William Horn, General Counsel of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, former Chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial 

Commission, and former Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

I would also, since I see him sitting in the audience, too, Chief 

Geoff Haskett of the Refuge System. Delighted to have him here 

this afternoon as well. 

So, Ms. Browner, we will turn it over to you. Thank you again 

for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL BROWNER, CHAIRWOMAN, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, AND 

FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Young, for the opportunity to be with you today. 

While I am the former administrator of the EPA, I appear today 

as Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society. 

My testimony is offered not just on behalf of the National Audubon 

19 

Society; it is also endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation, the 

Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. Together, our organizations represent more than 6 million members and supporters 

across the country dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation. 

You may be aware of this, but National Audubon has an extensive 

history working to protect America’s wildlife refuges, including 

from the very beginning, our members actually urged President 

Teddy Roosevelt to create the Refuge System and at the turn of the 

last century, helped to provide some of the first wardens to protect 

the refuge from the plume hunters. Audubon’s 24 State offices and 

more than 500 local chapters across the country continue to provide 

volunteer support to the refuges nationwide. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking you for your leadership of the Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus and all of the 

members of that caucus. The question that you asked today, and 

I think the point of this hearing is, quite simply, has the promise 

of the act been fulfilled? And I think, unfortunately, and you noted 

there has been some progress, but on balance the answer is: No, 

the promise has not been fulfilled. 

Ten years after passage of this landmark legislation, we find that 

there are implementation of several key requirements that have 

really not been fully realized, and that the result is that we are not 

living up sort of the hope and the intent of the legislation. 

We are particularly concerned with the low priority that has 

been given to implementing two of the key provisions. First, the 

mandate to direct strategic growth of the system to conserve the 

ecosystems of the United States. And, second, the mandate to 

maintain adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the 

mission of the system and the purposes of each refuge. 

We share the concern that you spoke about with Secretary Babbitt as to the funding crisis, I think we would call it. We believe 

that this funding crisis has slowed conservation planning, limited 

even the most basic monitoring of refuge resources, and severely 

limited the system’s response to the highest priority threat to habitat, which are invasive species. And we certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, with your observation that sooner rather than later we are 

going to need to begin to account for the realities of climate change 

and the consequences that the refuge will experience. 

A few thoughts as you go forward. First, Audubon strongly encourages further oversight from this committee. Now, that may 

sound a little odd from someone who spent 8 years subject to the 

oversight of Congress, but I would encourage you to use that oversight. It can be a real, I think, help to the agency when the Congress can engage in that sort of way. I think looking at the strategic growth of the system, efforts to maintain adequate water for 

the refuge, and efforts to complete comprehensive conservation 

plans in a manner consistent with the Act mandates would be particularly useful. 

We would also recommend that the committee consider passing 

legislation that would help the system to address the invasive species issues and the borderland conflicts. And in particular, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you as well as Congressman Saxton for 

your leadership in introducing the Repair Act, which we think 

would be extremely helpful in terms of answering the invasive speVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
20 

cies challenge. And I understand that the committee will look at 

that bill later this week, and we lend our support to the passage 

of that. 

Let me just say in closing how important we think your work is 

in looking at where we are and what the 10 years have wrought, 

and how much we are available to work with you as you move forward to address these concerns. 

On a personal note, I come from Florida; as many of you know, 

I served as Secretary of the environment in Florida and was part 

of an effort to expand the Big Cypress National Wildlife Refuge. It 

is an amazing place, and it meets a need of the public that sometimes our national parks don’t. And I think it is that uniqueness 

that we want to make sure we preserve going forward, but at the 

same time, on the same hand recognize that there are real challenges to preserving those opportunities that the refuge provide to 

people across this country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Browner follows:] 

Statement of Carol Browner, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors, 

National Audubon Society 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding implementation of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. I commend you for holding this 

important hearing. I speak to you today as both a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society. 

My testimony today is offered on behalf not only of National Audubon Society but 

also National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. Together, our organizations represent more than six million members and supporters across the country. 

Audubon’s mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on 

birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s 

biological diversity. Our national network of community-based nature centers and 

chapters, scientific and educational programs, and advocacy on behalf of areas sustaining important bird populations, engage millions of people of all ages and backgrounds in positive conservation experiences. 

The dedication of National Audubon Society to the protection of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System can be traced to its earliest history. At the urging of early 

Audubon societies, President Teddy Roosevelt, in one of America’s great acts on behalf of conservation, established 6-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the first federal 

wildlife refuge. Audubon and the federal government jointly financed the work of 

the first Refuge System’s first employee, a warden who guarded the birds of Pelican 

Island from plume hunters. Audubon continues to be a stalwart defender of wildlife 

refuges, with a deep appreciation and respect for the system’s value to the country 

as a national treasure, as well as its importance as a tool for bird and wildlife conservation and for protection of the ecosystems of the United States. 

Unfortunately, despite its value and importance, for decades the Refuge System 

has been under-appreciated, under-funded, and under-prioritized. Its tremendous 

potential, to be the bedrock of ecosystem protection in the country, and to be a driver of habitat protection in the larger landscape surrounding the refuges, has gone 

largely unrealized. In many ways, refuges have been passive recipients of a wide 

range of environmental threats, places where destructive activities were too often 

permitted, and where ecosystems were too often degraded by broader landscapelevel threats such as invasive species, limited water supplies, and pollution. 

In 1997, the Congress sent a strong signal that the era of under-appreciation, 

rampant unaddressed threats, and unrealized potential was coming to an end. The 

passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, with unanimous 

bipartisan support in the House and Senate, for the first time gave the Refuge System a clear mandate to promote wildlife conservation above other uses, widely 

known as the ‘‘wildlife first’’ mission of the system. The Improvement Act also gave 

refuges powerful tools to begin to tackle unaddressed threats and to manage the 

system with an ecosystem approach. 

21 

Ten years after passage of this landmark legislation, however, implementation of 

several key requirements is grossly inadequate. 

The Refuge Improvement Act is a Powerful Tool for Putting Wildlife First, 

but Many Conflicts are Still Unresolved 

The basic framework of the Refuge Improvement Act was very important. It established the ‘‘wildlife first’’ mission of the Refuge System and clearly prioritized 

wildlife-oriented recreation over commercial activities and other non-wildlife-oriented uses. The Fish and Wildlife Service has developed strong policies for compatibility ‘‘ensuring that uses are compatible with wildlife conservation before they can 

be permitted—and appropriateness—ensuring that uses are wildlife-oriented and 

appropriate for a wildlife refuge. 

According to refuge staff with whom we spoke, the appropriate use policy is used 

every day on wildlife refuges across the country to implement the ‘‘wildlife first’’ 

mission. When refuge managers receive calls requesting use of refuges for auto 

shows, weddings, and other non-wildlife oriented uses, the appropriate use policy 

makes it easier for refuge managers to refuse authorization for such activities. The 

appropriate use policy already has been used to exclude inappropriate helicopter use 

on a refuge, and is applicable to borderlands conflicts affecting refuges like Lower 

Rio Grande Valley. 

The strength of the Improvement Act as a tool for putting wildlife first also has 

been verified in court. For example, Little Pend Oreille is a small oasis of protected 

wildlife habitat in northeastern Washington that provides hunting, fishing and wildlife recreation opportunities. An attempt to reopen much of this fragile refuge to 

harmful cattle grazing was blocked by a federal district judge. The judge found that 

restricting grazing in the Little Pend Oreille under the Refuge Improvement Act 

was appropriate. 

This was an important decision for the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Improvement Act has helped this refuge to prioritize its fundamental mission to protect ‘‘wildlife first,’’ an encouraging sign that refuges across the country 

can be defended from incompatible and inappropriate uses that compromise wildlife 

protection. 

However, much more work remains to be done to eliminate destructive uses of 

wildlife refuges. In 2002, the Refuge System issued a data collection effort to identify threats and conflicts within wildlife refuges. This effort identified more than 

2,376 threats nationwide. The degree to which the Improvement Act has helped to 

address these threats in the past ten years is unclear. The last system-wide assessment of incompatible uses of the Refuge System through an independent investigation was completed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 1989. 

Audubon recommends that the committee request a new assessment of incompatible activities in the Refuge System by the GAO, including an assessment of the role 

of the Refuge Improvement Act in eliminating incompatible and inappropriate uses 

and if additional authorities are needed. 

Diluting the Promise: The Service Has Selectively Ignored or Given Very 

Low Priority to Key Provisions of the Improvement Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has accomplished very little in its implementation 

of the plain language and clear mandates of some of the key provisions in the 

Refuge Improvement Act. In particular, mandates to plan and direct the continued 

growth of the System to conserve the ecosystems of the United States (strategic 

growth) and to advocate for water rights and the protection of natural hydrological 

systems (water quantity and quality), largely have not been implemented. 

Strategic Growth 

The Improvement Act calls upon the Service to ‘‘plan and direct the continued 

growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission 

of the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United 

States, to complement the efforts of States and other Federal agencies to conserve 

fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from conservation partners and the public.’’ 

In an era of rampant population growth, intensification of agriculture, and 

sprawling development, the ‘‘continued growth of the system’’ as Congress directed, 

is of utmost importance to ‘‘contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the 

United States.’’ Yet, there are essentially no official national priorities to guide the 

creation of new refuges or the expansion of existing refuges. 

The Service has considered a Strategic Growth policy internally but never finalized it. At the same time, the Service has operated under an informal policy that 

guided new acquisitions solely to inholdings, a strategic growth policy that includes 

neither strategy nor growth. 

22 

This ‘‘inholdings only’’ policy is particularly shortsighted in light of the ongoing 

and intensifying threat of climate change. As wildlife habitats shift in response to 

climate change, the Fish and Wildlife Service will need to plan for strategic growth 

in a manner that allows the Refuge System to adapt to climate change. Under current policy, when planning the future of a refuge, it is virtually impossible to plan 

for climate change without considering the buffer areas, habitat connections, and 

redundancies in habitat areas that will be necessary to give wildlife a fighting 

chance to adapt to climate change. 

The Service is currently exploring a partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey 

regarding the use of a strategic, science-based process for habitat conservation at 

appropriate landscape scales. The system begins with assessments of species life 

histories and habitat requirements, then extends that to condition assessments of 

the needed habitat areas and identifies appropriate places for habitat acquisition 

and restoration. Such a strategic approach will be absolutely necessary to meet the 

mandate of the Improvement Act and to meet the challenge of climate change. 

Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to implement a 

strategic habitat conservation system in partnership with USGS and to promulgate 

a formal policy directing the System to ‘‘contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States’’ through strategic growth in a manner consistent with 

the Improvement Act. 

Water Quantity and Quality 

The refuge improvement act was firm and clear regarding water usage when it 

stated that ‘‘adequate water quantity and water quality’’ must be maintained to ‘‘fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each refuge.’’ To quote the Fish 

and Wildlife Service from Fulfilling the Promise, its 1999 strategy document for implementing the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act: ‘‘The Service 

needs to be a strong advocate for fish, wildlife, and plants in the adjudication and 

allocation of water rights and the protection of natural hydrological systems. A comprehensive assessment of the availability of water supply, projected water needs, 

and status of existing and needed water rights should be completed for each refuge.’’ 

The Service has made very little progress in implementing this key provision of the 

Improvement Act. 

While the Service has established ‘‘Promises Teams’’ to attempt to implement 

many of the recommendations in Fulfilling the Promise, no such team was ever 

formed to implement the water resources recommendations. Water needs are being 

identified at very few refuges. Water quality data are being collected in very few 

locations nationwide and little is being done to protect water quality on a landscape 

level. 

The effects are being felt on refuges across the country, but the effects are particularly acute in California. As Defenders of Wildlife has reported, increasing water 

demands from agricultural and urban development cause the San Luis National 

Wildlife Refuge in California to struggle to secure enough water to sustain its wetlands. The health of San Luis NWR, an anchor of habitat along the Pacific Flyway, 

depends on the availability of water, and in the 1997 law, Congress declared that 

refuge water quality and quantity must be protected. 

This problem will be exacerbated by climate change. The Refuge System should 

include assessments of the impacts of climate change on water availability in Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each refuge. 

Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to develop policy 

guidance for refuge managers to advocate for their legal right to secure adequate 

water for refuge lands. 

Audubon further recommends that the committee encourage the Service to complete a comprehensive assessment of water needs at each refuge, to prioritize water 

needs when developing Land and Water Conservation Fund priorities, and to include an assessment of the impacts of climate change on water availability in all 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 

Killing the Promise: Refuge Funding Crisis Kills Opportunities to 

Implement Core Requirements 

The Refuge System faces a crippling backlog of more than $3.75 billion in operations and maintenance projects, killing opportunities to implement basic requirements of the Improvement Act such as inventorying and monitoring wildlife and 

completing Comprehensive Conservation Plans in a timely manner. The funding crisis also cripples the ability of the Service to tackle the primary threat to refuge 

habitat—invasive species—in a manner consistent with Improvement Act mandates 

to protect the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the system. 

23 

As the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement has reported, the nationwide 

impact of funding shortfalls includes: A crippling 20 percent cut in national staffing 

levels, equivalent to a permanent loss of 565 essential staff positions; and more than 

300 refuges operating at a loss by Fiscal Year 2013, assuming current funding and 

staffing trends. 

Implementing state-of-the-art ecosystem management in a manner consistent 

with the Improvement Act is daunting in the face of diminishing resources that 

strain the ability of refuges to keep their doors open or to maintain existing programs such as environmental education. 

Audubon recommends that the committee continue its oversight of the challenges 

facing the Service due to the crippling operations and maintenance backlog. 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans are where the elements of the Improvement 

Act are brought together, where individual refuge units determine their highest and 

best use, plan appropriate public uses, and determine the compatibility of activities 

affecting refuge resources. 

The Refuge System is required by the Improvement Act to complete Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each of its refuges by 2012. As of early 2007, approximately 350 were unfinished or yet to be started. In the Pacific Islands Region of 

the Refuge System, home to Guam National Wildlife Refuge and 19 other refuges, 

only three CCPs have recently been released in draft form. That leaves 17 others, 

which contain much more daunting planning challenges, to be completed in the next 

five years in order to meet the statutory deadline. To date, each CCP has cost the System an average of $500,000, which does not 

include employee salaries to conduct the bulk of the work and research to write each 

CCP. Despite the significant cost and the Improvement Act’s approaching deadline, 

the planning budget for refuges in recent years has been flat or going down. 

Audubon cautions that the speed with which plans are completed should not be 

the sole focus of oversight from the committee regarding conservation planning. 

Frantic worry within the Refuge System regarding meeting CCP deadlines can be 

a distraction from the need for high quality plans that meet the best needs of the 

resources and provide solid guidance for management to meet those needs. There 

can be a tradeoff between the speed of completion and the quality and long-term 

usefulness of the plan. 

Audubon recommends that the committee request that the GAO initiate a thorough study of Comprehensive Conservation Plans, to assess the resources truly 

needed to complete remaining plans, to assess the extent to which they are reflective of the requirements of the Improvement Act, and to make recommendations regarding improvements that can be made to ensure the plans are consistent with 

principles of ecosystem management and include strategies to cope with the impacts 

of climate change. 

Basic Inventorying and Monitoring of Refuge Resources 

Fulfilling the Promise makes it clear that ‘‘Now and in the future, rigorous approaches to inventorying and monitoring wildlife resources are needed to provide 

the information critical to devise, evaluate, and refine refuge management strategies 

implemented to meet refuge goals and objectives.’’ Unfortunately, the refuge funding 

crisis has prevented the Service from making acquisition of this information a 

priority. 

Basic inventory and monitoring requirements are still not accomplished on many 

refuges, and comprehensive knowledge is lacking even of species on refuges that are 

federally-listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. 

Current approaches to inventory and monitoring of the plants, fish, wildlife and 

habitat within the Refuge System are also very inconsistent. According to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report completed in 2004, the 

Refuge System has surveyed all refuges about current wildlife and habitat monitoring procedures and how the data are collected, stored, and managed. Refuges 

used more than 180 different procedures. 

Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to give a high 

priority to completing consistent and comparable basic inventories of refuge resources that are essential to development of adequate Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans and to implementation of Improvement Act requirements. 

Invasive Species 

Invasive species are a top threat to refuges and a major cause of habitat loss 

throughout the country. More than 80 percent of refuges report problems with 

invasive species, and the problem now affects more than 8 million acres of refuge 

land. 

24 

The refuge funding crisis is crippling the response to this primary threat to the 

biological diversity and ecological integrity of refuges. More than $360 million of the 

$1.25 billion operations backlog is accounted for by invasive species control projects. 

In recent years, only $9 million has been allocated to addressing this $360 million 

problem. 

The Refuge System prepared a National Invasive Species Management Strategy 

for the first time in May 2004. However, most refuges have no detailed inventory 

or maps of invasive distributions and no means to create either. Most refuges have 

no means to identify potential incipient infestations of invasive populations. Although invasive species control projects are one of the fastest growing components 

of the operations and maintenance backlog, funding priorities are usually dominated 

by other System needs. 

This lack of funding is particularly disheartening in the face of evidence that 

refuge infestations of invasive species are a solvable problem that is ripe for more 

attention. For example, in partnership with the State of Washington, the Service 

has successfully eradicated an invasive weed, Spartina alterniflora, that threatened 

to take over the sensitive wetland habitat of Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. At 

its peak in 2003, the infestation covered approximately 15,000 acres of tidelands, 

and was projected to occupy 56,000 of the 80,000 acres at Willapa Bay if left uncontrolled. After a substantial federal and state investment, the infestation has been 

controlled and Willapa Bay has been saved. 

Audubon recommends that the committee pass H.R. 767, the Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and Immediate Response (REPAIR) Act, sponsored by Congressman Ron Kind and Congressman Jim Saxton. The bill encourages partnerships 

among the FWS, other federal agencies, states, and other interests to protect habitat within the Refuge System from invasive species and establish immediate response capability to combat incipient invasions. This legislation is needed to improve the Refuge System’s ability to address the primary threat to refuge habitat. 

New Issues Facing the Refuge System: Climate Change and Borderland 

Conflicts 

Climate Change 

Climate change is the greatest threat imperiling the National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole. The effects of global warming are already being seen on sensitive 

refuge habitats in Alaska and on hurricane-ravaged refuges along the Gulf Coast. 

Future threats from climate change, such as sea level rise, decreased water availability, rising sea temperatures, and ocean acidification, gravely jeopardize the ability of refuges to meet their conservation mission in the coming decades. 

More than 160 refuges sit in coastal areas sensitive to rising sea levels. Based 

on varying models of greenhouse gas emissions, scientific estimates range from 4 

inches to 3 feet of expected sea level rise over the next century, with a mean estimated rise of 20 inches. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that nationwide a two-foot rise in sea level could eliminate 17 to 43 percent of wetlands 

in the United States. Refuges such as Alligator River NWR in North Carolina, 

Blackwater NWR in Maryland, as well as various southeast and southwest Louisiana national wildlife refuges, are among the federal resources most vulnerable to 

sea level rise. 

Climate change impacts are potentially devastating in Hawaii, particularly for 

coral reefs protected by refuges such as Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, 

due to rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification that could cause widespread 

coral bleaching. 

Despite the potentially devastating impacts to refuge resources, over the past ten 

years the Service has not made climate change a priority, and the agency’s strategic 

plan does not specifically address climate change. Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans for individual refuge units include climate change considerations only sporadically. 

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that resource managers in the federal land management agencies have limited guidance about whether and how to address climate change and lack specific guidance for incorporating 

climate change into management actions and planning efforts. The GAO also found 

that resource managers tend to focus on near-term, required activities, leaving less 

time for addressing longer-term issues such as climate change. Resource managers 

told GAO that their agencies need an overall mandate and a coordinated approach 

to address the issue, and that it will take very strong direction from high-level officials to get agencies to address the effects of climate change. It also bears mentioning that the Administration has only recently made it clear that refuge staff can 

talk about climate change openly. 

25 

Audubon applauds the recent action by the Committee on Natural Resources to 

pass H.R. 2337, a comprehensive energy and global warming bill sponsored by 

Chairman Nick Rahall. This legislation includes the language of the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, sponsored by Congressman Norm Dicks, Congressman Jay 

Inslee, and Congressman Jim Saxton, which creates a comprehensive framework for 

a coordinated national approach to address the impacts of climate change on wildlife. The Survival Act will ensure that federal agencies, including the Department 

of the Interior, develop and implement plans to reduce the impact of global warming 

on wildlife and habitat. The bill was subsequently included in the multi-committee 

New Direction for Energy Independence Act (HR 3221) passed by the House. 

Audubon recommends that the committee encourage the Service to provide more 

affirmative direction to refuge managers regarding their duty to include climate 

change in Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 

Borderland Conflicts 

Nearly one-quarter of the 1,950 mile U.S.-Mexico border lies within public lands, 

including valuable wildlife habitat within the Refuge System. Borderland conflicts 

have become the primary threat to refuge resources for several refuges along the 

border including Lower Rio Grande Valley, Cabeza Prieta, and Buenos Aires. 

Illegal border crossings, enforcement activities along the border, and the doublelayer, reinforced wall authorized by the recently enacted Secure Fence Act all 

threaten to destroy or fragment many miles of refuge habitat, restrict access to 

refuges for tens of thousands of visitors, and block access to the Rio Grande River 

for wildlife. In short, the border wall gravely threatens the ecological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health of refuges that is safeguarded by the Improvement Act. 

Although the Improvement Act may provide support through the appropriate use 

and compatible use policies, more support is needed for refuges facing border conflicts. 

Audubon recommends that the committee pass H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act, sponsored by Congressman Rau ́l Grijalva, which would 

help alleviate the devastating impacts of illegal immigration and border enforcement activities on public lands, wildlife, and borderland communities, while providing the Department of Homeland Security with the flexibility it needs to effectively secure the borders. H.R. 2593 would require DHS to follow all laws intended 

to protect water, air, wildlife, and the health and safety of the people living in borderland communities 

Conclusion 

Ten years after passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

implementation of several key requirements is grossly inadequate. To answer the 

question posed by the title of this hearing, the promise has not been fulfilled. 

The strength of the Improvement Act is the clear mission that it gives to the 

Refuge System to protect wildlife first, and the clear priority it gives to wildlife-oriented uses over incompatible and inappropriate uses that harm refuge resources. 

However, in implementing the Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

failed to implement key provisions, including a mandate to direct strategic growth 

of the system to ‘‘conserve the ecosystems of the United States’’ and another to 

maintain adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each refuge. The refuge funding crisis, in the form of a crippling $3.75 billion backlog of unmet operations and maintenance needs, has slowed 

conservation planning, limited even the most basic monitoring of refuge resources, 

and severely limited the system’s response to the highest priority threat to habitat, 

invasive species. 

The Refuge System is the world’s premiere network of lands for wildlife conservation, and holds the potential to be a cornerstone of ecosystem protection in America. 

Our wildlife refuges deserve much, much better. The American people deserve to 

have the promise made to them kept, the promise to protect this unique heritage 

and national treasure for future generations. 

Audubon, and the other organizations that have endorsed this testimony, have 

made several recommendations for committee actions including new oversight and 

legislative actions. I urge you to give these recommendations your full consideration, 

to ensure the era of under-appreciation, rampant unaddressed threats, and unrealized potential for our wildlife refuges truly comes to an end. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

26 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Ms. Carol Browner, 

National Audubon Society 

Questions from Mr. Kind (D-WI) 

1. Ms. Browner, you mention in your testimony that the current strategic 

growth policy for the Refuge System includes neither strategy nor 

growth. In particular, you are concerned that the Service’s current 

‘‘inholdings only’’ acquisition policy is shortsighted and may threaten 

the long-term ecological integrity of the Refuge System, especially in the 

face of climate change. 

• What are the main shortcomings of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s strategic growth policy for the refuges and what should be done about it? 

The major shortcoming is that there is no strategic growth policy. The Service has 

considered one internally but never finalized it. In the meantime, the refuges have 

operated under an informal policy that prioritizes in holdings over all other new 

land acquisitions. As a result, the de-facto strategic growth policy does not consider 

refuge expansions or establishment of new refuges. 

The current approach to Strategic Growth within the Refuge System contradicts 

the Improvement Act, which says very clearly that the Service should plan and direct growth in a way that best accomplishes the conservation mission of the System 

and contributes to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States. 

The Service should continue to develop a partnership with USGS regarding the 

use of a strategic, science-based process for developing habitat conservation priorities. This process is long overdue and will be extremely helpful to the Service as 

they work to improve their implementation of the strategic growth directives in the 

Improvement Act and also as they respond to climate change. 

A formal policy on strategic growth that reflects and implements the Improvement 

Act also is long overdue. The Committee should consider encouraging the Service 

to promulgate such a policy. 

• Have you and other colleagues in the conservation community developed 

ideas on landscape principles that should guide that planning process? 

Does the Improvement Act need to be amended to provide more specific 

guidance? 

The process under development with USGS to arrive at habitat conservation priorities appears to be a sound one. The system begins with assessments of species 

life histories and habitat requirements, then assesses the needed habitat areas and 

identifies appropriate places for land acquisition and habitat restoration. A sciencebased, collaborative process for developing habitat priorities is needed, and the new 

system that is under development holds the potential to meet that need. 

However, the System still lacks clear, well-coordinated policies to guide future 

growth. There are no official priorities to guide the establishment of new refuges 

or expand existing ones, and no official policies for considering the implications of 

such growth for the operations and maintenance backlog. The Service’s Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) ranks approved projects based on biological value, but 

projects are not ranked by LAPS until approved by the Service Director, and not 

all acquisitions go through LAPS. 

At this time, Audubon recommends that the Committee focus on developing policies that implement the clear directives of the Improvement Act, rather than 

amending the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act has clear mandates on strategic growth and we believe there is great potential to move forward in a positive 

direction if a strong policy can be put in place. 

• In regard to climate change, what are the highest planning priorities to 

ensure the long-term ecological integrity, biological diversity and environmental health of the Refuge System? 

Any new Strategic Growth policy for the Refuge System must reflect the overwhelming importance of planning for climate change. Landscape scale adaptation 

strategies for the Refuge System should include: establishing and maintaining wildlife corridors; acquiring new refuges that are resistant to climate change effects and 

may provide more stable habitat for wildlife (e.g., they have lower probability of 

drastic change due to resistant vegetation types, resilient species, and other factors); 

eliminating barriers to dispersal of wildlife beyond refuge borders; improving the 

compatibility of neighboring lands through establishment of buffer zones, acquisitions, and other strategies; instituting an active ecosystem restoration program to 

repair wetlands damaged from sea level rise and other habitat impacts; improving 

water conservation in communities surrounding refuges; and installing levees, dikes, 

27 

and other structures to defend refuge habitats from sea level rise, storms, and other 

threats. 

2. Ms. Browner, you state in your testimony that the $3 billion funding 

backlog facing the Refuge System is crippling implementation of the Improvement Act. 

• What do you think is the most important impact of the lack of funding 

on implementation of the Act? 

The funding crisis is a pair of handcuffs on every refuge manager in the country. 

In particular, the lack of attention to the invasive species problem is disturbing. As 

I mentioned in my testimony, last year the Refuge System had a $9 million budget 

to address the problem nationwide, and this is a $360 million problem. Invasive species are broadly considered by refuge managers to be the number one threat to the 

resources they manage, and yet, with the backlog crippling their response, they 

have few resources with which to fight this threat. 

3. Judging from your statement, it would appear that the policies developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to make compatibility determinations have worked well and have ensured that proposed uses are both 

compatible and appropriate with the ‘‘wildlife first’’ mission of the 

Refuge System? 

• Is there anything to be gained by prohibiting outright certain activities 

at refuges or is it best left as a case-by-case determination? 

I think you raise an important question that deserves serious follow-up, certainly 

with a GAO request regarding incompatible uses and FWS authorities, and perhaps 

also with a hearing or series of hearings. As I mentioned in the testimony, Audubon 

would like to see a new request made for the GAO to assess incompatible activities 

in the Refuge System, defining the role of the Improvement Act in eliminating incompatible and inappropriate uses and determining whether additional authorities 

are needed. This request could set the stage for future hearings or oversight on this 

matter. 

As a general rule, we believe it is appropriate for each refuge to assess the compatibility and appropriateness of uses based on local conditions and considerations. 

However, it may prove useful to the Service to receive legal direction from the Congress regarding uses that are generally inappropriate and harmful and therefore 

should be banned. This may include certain non-wildlife-oriented recreational uses 

or commercial uses of refuges. Again, a GAO study would be useful in assessing the 

value of such an approach. 

4. When discussing the tardy schedule for the completion of comprehensive conservation plans, or CCPs, you note that it is important for the 

Service not to sacrifice quality in order to try and meet the statutory 

deadline. 

• In general, is the conservation community satisfied with the CCPs that 

have been completed to date? Are they solid documents? 

I will not speak for the entire conservation community, but the CCPs reviewed 

by Audubon staff have been solid documents, with two notable exceptions: many of 

the documents do not adequately reflect the priorities of the biological integrity policy, and many do not adequately address climate change. 

The problem is that many of the refuges with the most complicated planning 

issues have been put off until the end of the planning process, leaving little time 

to complete them. Larger refuges with complex planning issues sometimes take as 

long as eight years to complete their CCPs, but many refuge managers have expressed that these CCPs are among the most valuable for changing their strategic 

direction to comply with the Improvement Act. 

I recommended in my testimony that the Committee request a thorough GAO 

study of the CCPs. The study should assess the extent to which the CCPs reflect 

the Improvement Act requirements and should make recommendations for improving the plans so that they are consistent with principles of ecosystem management 

and so that they include strategies to cope with climate change. I hope the Committee will move forward with that recommendation. 

28 

5. Thank you for voicing the support of Audubon and other respected conservation organizations for my legislation, H.R. 767, the Refuge Ecology 

Protection and Immediate Response Act, or REPAIR Act. I share you 

view that our failure to address invasive species creates not only greater 

operating costs, but also diminishes quality opportunities for wildlifebased recreation. 

• Our failure to address this threat would also seem to violate the policies 

in the Improvement Act requiring the Service to protect the ecological 

integrity and biological diversity of refuges. Do you agree? 

Yes. The Improvement Act clearly directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure 

that the ‘‘biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health’’ of the System is 

maintained. The Service’s policy implementing this directive clearly emphasizes that 

refuge managers should manage toward ‘‘historic conditions’’ that are reflective of 

healthy ecosystem components, processes, and functioning. Invasive species rapidly 

drive ecosystems away from historic conditions, eliminate biodiversity, and compromise ecosystem functioning. Invasive plants, for example, often replace naturally 

functioning, biodiverse wetland systems with dense mats of invasive plants in a 

monoculture. Preventing invasions by nonnative species is one of the clearest ways 

the Fish and Wildlife Service could implement the Improvement Act mandate to 

protect ecological integrity. 

Questions from Mr. Young (R-AK) 

1. Please provide the Subcommittee with a complete list of the 2,376 what 

you call in your testimony ‘‘destructive uses of wildlife refuges’’? 

The 2,376 threats to the refuges I referenced in the testimony were identified 

from data gathered in 2002 by the Fish and Wildlife Service in an effort to create 

a nationwide Threats and Conflicts database for the National Wildlife Refuge System (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report, October 1, 2004, pp 4). 

It is my understanding that this database does not lend itself to descriptive summaries, nor can I provide a comprehensive list such as the one you requested. I 

would refer the Committee to the Fish and Wildlife Service for that information. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Ms. Browner. I have already spoken to Mr. 

Young and he is in agreement. But to accommodate your schedule, 

we will go with questions here and then allow you to take off. 

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you for your testimony and for your service to 

our Nation as well and for your insight on these issues. 

You mentioned a few proposals; increased oversight, invasive 

species, dealing with that adequately; any borderland conflicts that 

might exist. Help us try to prioritize a little bit. There is just a 

swamp of issues and challenges that we are facing within the 

refuge. Have you had a chance to look at this and kind of delineate 

where the priorities or focus need to be? 

Ms. BROWNER. I think I would have to agree with Mr. Babbitt: 

Money. If we could find some more resources, I think that could be 

very, very helpful. I mean, I trust that the personnel and the Department is doing what they can with the resources they have. But 

certainly, and Mr. Young and Mr. Babbitt discussed some ideas; it 

doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, and I speak here personally, that 

duck stamps, which I don’t think the price has changed in a long 

time, could be increased. I think they are $15 now. Something like 

$30. 

Whenever I used to set an environmental standard at EPA and 

someone would say, well, what is it going to cost a family? And 

then you try and figure it out. And you then you would compare 

it to, well, that is less than going to the movies with your family. 

That is less than having pizza or a coke on Friday night with your 

29 

family. And so the idea that we could charge a little more and see 

those resources brought to bear I think is well worth consideration. 

Mr. KIND. We were talking about the funding issue, too, with Mr. 

Babbitt. And we do have legislation pending that was started by 

Mark Kennedy and Mike Thompson in the last session that is carried over to actually increase the fees for the duck stamp. But, 

again, my concern is we are only talking about a very small percentage of the universe of users going into the Refuge System. And 

now in your position heading up the Audubon Society, and there 

are many members who constantly go in and enjoy the use of the 

Refuge System, do you have a sense within your own membership 

of what they would be supportive of in regard to new funding 

sources? That is one of the issues that I had raised, and I actually 

had conversations with, I think, Mr. Hall, with you and maybe 

some others, was the concept of a new refuge stamp. 

But I don’t want to do something that is going to cut into the 

uniqueness or value of the duck stamp at the same time. But something that I think bird watchers could also participate and start 

their own collection and purchase those if they knew that the funding was going to be dedicated for this very purpose. 

Ms. BROWNER. I think from Audubon’s perspective, we would be 

open to a conversation on that. It is a balance. You don’t want to 

discourage people from taking advantage of the resource, and so 

you want to be mindful of sort of what their economics are. On the 

other hand, these are people who care passionately about their 

morning bird walks and the opportunity to do that in these places. 

So we have found that when you can make a case to our membership about the benefits that will be derived from some sort of 

increased fee, they can be supportive of it. And finally, I have to 

say, I like your idea of something they can collect. Most birders 

have a life list. These are people who like to collect things and keep 

track of what is going on, and I think they could find it very attractive. But we would be happy, the Audubon staff, to work with you 

all and think about what our membership, which is quite large and 

is all across the United States, what they would be willing to support. 

Mr. KIND. I certainly think it might be wise for us to start conducting some surveys or some polls out there with a variety of 

groups, and I would like to work with Mr. Young on this, just to 

get some feedback from the general public of what they would find 

acceptable and willing to participate in as far as new revenue 

sources. And we might even throw in a question as far as offshore 

drilling is concerned, too. 

Ms. BROWNER. There, I would have to put on my Florida hat. We 

have a particular feeling about that in my home State. 

Mr. KIND. Exactly. 

Getting back to the strategic growth policy for the Refuge System 

that the Service is in charge of now as far as implementation of 

the Act. Do you see any shortcomings as far as the implementation, 

things that can be done better? 

Ms. BROWNER. I think it is important for any of these type efforts 

to sort of keep pace with the science and to keep pace with the 

times. So I think your comments about climate change are particularly relevant. As the system thinks about what has to happen 

30 

today to protect the system and to meet the commitment and the 

mission of the system to preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat, we 

are going to have to bring in the climate change issue. Because you 

could think of everything that has already been on the books and 

do a splendid job, only to discover 10, 15, 25 years from now it 

didn’t mean a lot. 

Mr. KIND. I think you are right. And I think this is where it gets 

particularly complicated or cumbersome, when you talk about climate change, is that when original refuges were established with 

certain habitat that supported certain species or wildlife, maybe 

undergoing great transformation and change may not support it 

now because of global warming and climate change. And what is 

this going to do to the boundaries of these refuges? Where it may 

have made sense 50 years ago, but may not make sense in the next 

50 years. 

Ms. BROWNER. I think you are exactly right. I know of your particular interest in invasive species. Climate change is going to do 

probably very little to help us solve the invasive species problem. 

In fact, it is probably going to make in most areas of the problem 

even more acute. So as we start to think about in the short term 

the invasive species issues, we just need to be mindful of what is 

coming at us down the road. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would like to get 

on H.R. 2735, it will be very helpful. This is a bill that raises 

money. And also, I don’t think just duck stamps are the solution 

to the problem, because the duck hunter is the one that created the 

fund to purchase the land. And I believe you may have 6 million 

in the Audubon Society, they ought to pay. Anybody who uses any 

refuge land ought to pay if they want to keep the refuge. And anybody that doesn’t want to pay, they are being outright selfish. Anybody who watches birds has got as much money as the duck hunters have. That is just a little comment. 

But I have one request, Ms. Browner. In your testimony you 

made a statement of, would you provide for me a complete list of 

the 2,376 what you call destructive uses of the wildlife refuges? 

Ms. BROWNER. We would be happy to. 

Mr. YOUNG. Good. Because I have talked to my refuge people 

themselves, and they don’t know what you are talking about. So I 

would like to find out what it is. 

Ms. BROWNER. Certainly. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Ms. Browner. I appreciate it. Thank you 

again for your testimony and for your time here today. 

Next, we will hear from Director Hall. Thank you, sir, for coming. And it has been a delight to be able to work with you on a 

variety of issues, and we look forward to your testimony. Thank 

you for being here. 

31 

STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you again. 

And Chairman Young, good to see you as well. 

I would like to thank you for having this hearing, but mostly I 

would like to start off thanking all of you for the Act. Many of you 

were really involved in this years ago, and Members of Congress 

really helped us get this sort of legislation. But we did it with 

friends as well. Members of the administration, members of the 

nongovernment organizations, et cetera. And on behalf of everyone 

in the Fish and Wildlife Service, I would just like to say thank you. 

You know, starting from our great president, Theodore Roosevelt, 

when he created Pelican Island in 1903, to where we are today 

with 548 National Wildlife Refuges encompassing over 96 million 

acres of land that perform a myriad of services to Fish and Wildlife 

and to nature, as well as over 280 endangered and threatened species, the system is a really good system. It is really important and 

it is unique in the world, and I think that we need to recognize 

that. I believe you do. But we need to keep reminding ourselves 

that nowhere else in the world is there anything like the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

But the Act helped us to understand that it is a system. It is not 

548 independent entities, but one system trying to have a system 

of lands and waters that help with the conservation of fish and 

wildlife resources. 

The Act envisions a collaborative approach, and I believe that we 

have tried to do that with over 250 friends groups and 38,000 volunteers every year working with our friends in the States and in 

the nongovernment organizations as well as other Federal agencies. And it also understood the importance of water. Carol Browner just mentioned water, and I will tell you that I believe that 

water is the issue of the 21st century for everyone, not just Fish 

and Wildlife resources. But if we don’t understand that Fish and 

Wildlife resources need a place at the table where water is being 

discussed, they won’t have one and they will be the losers. 

With our State agency partners, we have involved the public in 

CCPs. And in working together, State agencies are co-managers of 

Fish and Wildlife Resources in every State, and they have been tremendous partners. And I am sure you are going to hear from John 

Frampton in a few minutes on that. 

We have developed new policies in compliance with the Act, missions and goals of purposes, comprehensive conservation planning, 

appropriate uses, wildlife dependent recreation, habitat management planning and biological diversity integrity and environmental 

health are completed now, and we are continuing to work on the 

remaining policies that are left to be done. And what these policies 

do is provide a refuge manager with a consistent approach, whether you are in Chesapeake Bay or San Francisco Bay. And I think 

that is what we are after, is consistency in a true system of lands 

and waters. We have completed 254 CCPs, and we are well underway in completing, and I believe we will complete, all CCPs by the 

2012 deadline. 

As the Refuge System, though, has grown, so have the challenges. Climate change is real. It is something that is affecting our 

32 

refuges already, and it is something that we need to step up the 

pace in feeding the considerations into CCPs as we move forward. 

Invasive species. A decade ago when this law was being passed, I 

doubt that avian influenza was even on anybody’s mind as something that could affect the health of a refuge, but we have West 

Nile Virus, purple loosestrife, and a myriad of other invasive species that we need to work with. And climate change, again, may 

help speed that along and create a harder problem for us to deal 

with if we are not ready for it. 

Population growth has been on everyone’s mind, but for the National Wildlife Refuge System in particular along the southwest 

border it is a real issue, where illegal immigration is coming across 

the border and on our National Wildlife Refuges in one year we apprehended 100,000 people. That is apprehension. That is not the 

total number that went across; that is the number we caught. And 

the trashing of the environment that is taking place is something 

we have to address. And a lot of this is in designated wilderness 

area. 

The last thing I will say about future challenges is our own children. We have too many children that sit in front of the computers 

and play Game Boys and use iPods and believe that real nature is 

watching the Animal Channel, and we need to get them outside. 

We need to connect them with nature. And we believe that the National Wildlife Refuge System is a premier place to do that. 

The way that we look at strategic growth in the Service, we have 

developed a tool that we call strategic habitat conservation. It 

builds on the principles of ecological planning, management, and 

development, and it looks at the objectives we want to achieve, a 

design to achieve those objectives, then the implementation of 

those objectives, and then the monitoring and evaluation to see if 

we met those objectives and if we were correct, and make the adjustments. It is a very formal form of adaptive management, but 

it is an excellent tool using structured decision making as well to 

help us decide where the right places are. We are very good at creating wetlands and creating habitats. We are not very good at saying where and how much. And that is what strategic habitat conservation is going to try and help us do. 

We need to look at the entire Refuge System in the broader context of the landscape, especially in the lower 48. A refuge is not an 

island. It fits into the landscape ecology with State managed lands 

and with private lands. And if we are going to take care of the resources and fulfill the promise for the future, we need to leave 

more than just what is in public ownership. We are going to have 

to work with the private landowners who are very ready and willing but just need some incentives and need some help. And I believe that is just as important to the Refuge System as trying to 

understand what we need to do on our own lands, because we can’t 

be hypocrites and say we won’t do it but we want you to do it. So 

I think that we all need to be on the same page on what a landscape needs. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments and I 

look forward to the questions. And thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

33 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Director Hall. Thank you and also Mr. 

Haskett for your service and stewardship of our refuges in this 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

Statement of H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am H. Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I am here today to discuss 

implementation of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act), which became law ten years ago today. The tenth anniversary of this historic and visionary conservation law provides us with an opportunity to reflect on 

the progress we have made in the stewardship of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) and the challenges that remain before us. 

It is important to reflect on the history of America’s National Wildlife Refuge System in order to fully understand why there was such a need for the Improvement 

Act, how this new law improved administration of the Refuge System, and what the 

remaining challenges are as we continue to work together to realize the full potential of the greatest system of lands in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. 

The Early Years 

Our great conservationist President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge by Executive Order on March 14, 1903, setting aside Pelican 

Island as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds. 

Although Yellowstone had been established in 1872 as a national park, and the 

first national forest reservation was made in Wyoming in 1891, Roosevelt’s action 

in setting aside Pelican Island was a new kind of conservation undertaking. Pelican 

Island was small—only five acres—and was set aside as an inviolate sanctuary for 

birds. It was not protected for human use and enjoyment, nor for timber or other 

natural resource production. Pelican Island was home to bird species threatened by 

market shooters seeking plumes for women’s fashion, reducing populations of many 

bird species to alarming levels. In protecting the small area of Pelican Island, Roosevelt recognized that a small refuge for wildlife could have benefits far beyond its 

boundaries by serving as a safe haven for nesting and feeding. 

President Roosevelt went on to establish 53 other refuges, from Key West, Florida’s mangrove islands and sand flats to Flattery Rocks along the Washington 

Coast, where 150,000 pelagic birds nest and migrating birds sometimes swell the 

population to over one million. He included the Pribilof Islands in Alaska in 1909. 

Roosevelt established our nation’s first waterfowl refuge, Lower Klamath, in 1908. 

As an avid hunter, Roosevelt also ensured that the early Refuge System provide 

habitat and management for big game animals that had been depleted on public 

lands. From an estimated 60 million bison, no more than a thousand could be found 

on the Great Plains in 1900. Elk populations had also been greatly depleted across 

the country. Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, originally established as a forest reserve in 1901, became a refuge in 1905. Work began there to restore bison, elk, and 

turkey. The National Bison Range followed in 1909, and the National Elk Refuge 

was established in 1914. 

By the end of the fledgling system’s first decade, many of the foundations of today’s Refuge System were in place. The early Refuge System already included: 

• Inviolate sanctuaries for nesting birds, 

• Waterfowl refuges; 

• Refuges for ‘‘threatened’’ species; 

• Big game ranges withdrawn from the public domain; and 

• The first large refuge in Alaska. 

A major milestone that occurred around this time was the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918, which was first enacted to implement the 1916 convention between the 

United States and Great Britain for the protection of birds migrating between the 

U.S. and Canada. This law offered much-needed protection to many bird species 

during a time when commercial trade in birds and their feathers was popular. The 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 followed and established the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission to approve land acquisitions from the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for the National Wildlife Refuge System that are considered important to waterfowl. Since its inception, the commission has approved more than 

5.2 million acres of land acquisitions. 

34 

The ‘‘Dust Bowl’’ Years 

In 1929, there were 82 refuges and plans were being made to increase the number 

to 100-125. These plans were disrupted when the nation plunged into economic depression and was devastated by a gripping drought that turned much of the land 

into a ‘‘dust bowl.’’ Drought conditions severely impacted waterfowl populations and 

threatened other wildlife. Fortunately, the wildlife profession was beginning to 

emerge in concert with new scientific approaches to managing and restoring land 

for wildlife. Three individuals stand out in American history at this time: J. N. 

‘‘Ding’’ Darling, Ira Gabrielson, and J. Clark Salyer. In addition, Aldo Leopold published Game Management (1933), the first textbook on wildlife management. With 

their leadership, a cadre of wildlife professionals and citizens began to advance the 

cause of wildlife conservation in unprecedented ways. 

Ding Darling, ‘‘the man who saved ducks,’’ was Chief of the Bureau of Biological 

Survey in 1934 and 1935. Three million acres of land were set aside as wildlife 

refuges during his tenure. When the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act passed in 

1934, he designed the first stamp, which then sold for one dollar toward the purchase of refuges. Today, the sale of Federal Duck Stamps has raised some $500 million for more than five million acres of our best waterfowl habitat in the Refuge System. At the end of the 1930’s, there were 266 national wildlife refuges protecting 

13.5 million acres of habitat. 

Ira Gabrielson, Darling’s successor at the Bureau of Biological Survey and the 

first Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, known during his time as ‘‘Mr. Conservation,’’ ranks as one of the most noted conservationists of the 20th century. He 

exerted great influence at a critical time in American history, when evolving wildlife 

management practices and policies were being merged into our society and government. Among his many accomplishments, he was particularly proud of the expanding National Wildlife Refuge system, establishment of the Federal Aid to Wildlife 

Restoration and Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit programs, creation of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge, and organization of an impartial, highly successful 

wildlife law enforcement team. He assisted in planning the first North American 

Wildlife Conference, called by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. His wildlife 

philosophies are reflected in three major books written in the comparatively early 

years of the current conservation era: ‘‘Wildlife Conservation’’ (1941), ‘‘Wildlife 

Refuges’’ (1943), and ‘‘Wildlife Management’’ (1951). 

Finally, J. Clark Salyer was recruited by J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling in June 1934 to 

oversee the management of national wildlife refuges in the Biological Survey’s fledgling refuge program. Salyer was directed by Darling to develop a waterfowl management program using the conservation principles of wildlife management espoused by 

Aldo Leopold. Such a program, based on habitat needs of migratory bird species, 

had never before been attempted on a national scale. Shortly after coming to work 

for the Biological Survey in 1934, the government issued him a car to travel around 

the country visiting refuges. Salyer had a fear of flying, so this vehicle provided him 

with the means to visit refuges in far-flung locations. For his efforts as head of the 

Division of Wildlife Refuges, Salyer has become known as the ‘‘Father of the National Wildlife Refuge System.’’ Under his direction, the system rose in area from 

1.5 million acres in the mid-1930’s to nearly 29 million acres upon his retirement 

in 1961. He was the principle architect of President Franklin Roosevelt’s duck restoration program of 1934-36. 

Continuing Growth 

As the next decade unfolded, the nation’s attention turned to war. The Department of the Interior turned its headquarters building over to the War Department 

and the Service relocated to the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, Illinois. Even during 

these trying times, the Refuge System continued to grow. Kenai and Kodiak Refuges 

in Alaska were added in 1941, protecting their giant moose and brown bear populations. When Florida’s Chassahowitzka Refuge was added in 1943, no one could 

have imagined that one day it would be the winter habitat for endangered whooping 

cranes, which today migrate ‘ Refuge in Wisconsin. 

During the 1950s, 24 new refuges were added, including Loxahatchee in Florida. 

This great refuge secured the northern most part of the remaining Everglades and 

today it is a cornerstone in broader efforts to restore the Everglades ecosystem. 

One of our successful wildlife and wetland protection programs is the Small Wetlands Acquisition Program, which began in 1958 with an amendment to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. This program added a new dimension to the Refuge System: Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). WPAs are tracts 

of land that are generally smaller than refuges, and are acquired in Wetland Management Districts, primarily in the prairie pothole region in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana, but with other acquisitions occurring in Nebraska, 

35 

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. Today, in addition to the WPAs, wetland easements 

are taken on lands to prevent draining, burning, or filling of these lands. Nearly 

700,000 acres have been acquired in fee title, and about 2.5 million acres of wetland 

and grassland easements have been purchased to date. 

In the late 1950s, the Service’s Alaska Regional Director Clarence Rhode advocated adding to the Refuge System an entire watershed in a new refuge at Izembek, 

and a vast landscape as an Arctic Wildlife Range. Both areas were established as 

refuges in the closing days of the Eisenhower Administration in 1960. These two 

refuges added over nine million acres to the refuge system, essentially overnight. 

Across the country in New Jersey, local citizens were fighting hard to keep the 

Great Swamp from being drained and filled to build a jet port for New York City. 

Their treasure became a national wildlife refuge in 1960 and the site of the first 

Wilderness area in the Refuge System in 1968. 

The Modern Conservation Era 

The 1960s and the 1970s saw the enactment of many new laws aimed at protecting the nation’s environment and conserving natural resources. In 1966, Congress enacted Public Law 89-669, which included the Endangered Species Preservation Act. It authorized the Service to develop a list of imperiled species, fund studies, and acquire refuge lands using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under 

this authority we added more than 50 national wildlife refuges. In addition, Section 

4 and 5 of that 1966 law included the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the precursor of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

In December 1980, more than 53 million acres were added to the Refuge System 

with the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA), tripling the size of the refuge system. Today, sixteen refuges in Alaska 

protect 77 million acres of pristine habitat or roughly 80 percent of the total acreage 

in the Refuge System. Additionally, 18.7 million acres of refuge lands in Alaska are 

designated as Wilderness, roughly 90 percent of all wilderness lands in the system. 

The Alaska refuges also offer some of the best hunting and fishing in the world. 

ANILCA is also significant because it laid the ground work for important parts of 

the Refuge Improvement Act by identifying priority purposes and called for all Alaska refuges to develop comprehensive conservation plans. 

As the American population has grown, it has become increasingly important to 

protect wildlife in proximity to where people live. Refuges near urban areas, like 

Minnesota Valley in Minneapolis, San Francisco Bay, Tinicum in Philadelphia, 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Denver, and Bayou Sauvage in New Orleans provide 

city inhabitants and their children with an opportunity to experience and discover 

wildlife in close proximity to where they live. 

The 1985 Farm Bill conservation programs gave genesis to the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program. These conservation programs encouraged refuge 

managers to work with partners in the context of the greater surrounding ecosystem. 

By 1991, the Refuge System had experienced extraordinarily growth from the five 

acre Pelican Island in 1903 to 472 units and 90.4 million acres. Beyond a single inviolate sanctuary for native birds, the Refuge System had expanded to include: 

• A network of migratory bird habitats encompassing nesting, migration, and 

wintering habitats; 

• A growing number of refuges dedicated to the recovery of endangered species; 

• Big game ranges dedicated to a wide variety of large game mammals; 

• Sixteen large refuges in Alaska; and 

• A variety of unique ecosystems—barrier islands, bottomland hardwood forests, 

coral reefs—all protecting America’s wildlife heritage 

Becoming a ‘‘System’’ 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 provided guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, which it defined as including, ‘‘wildlife refuges, areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas.’’ Under the 1966 law, the Secretary is authorized to permit by regulation 

the use of any area within the system provided ‘‘such uses are compatible with the 

major purposes for which such areas were established.’’ 

The 1966 law defined what the Refuge System was, but lacked the findings, purposes and other clarifying language that are usually found in organic legislation. 

Most importantly, it did not provide effective guidance as to how the Refuge System 

was to be administered as a system. A wide variety of reviews, reports and lawsuits 

highlighted that the Refuge System was not being managed effectively as a system. 

36 

The most damning evidence came from the General Accounting Office in a 1989 report entitled, ‘‘Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action’’. 

The report found that 59% of refuges had harmful uses occurring on their land. 

Since GAO did not reference most of the ‘‘harmful’’ uses to specific refuges, and 

since that term had no legal or regulatory meaning, the Service conducted its own 

detailed, refuge-by-refuge survey in an effort to find, understand and correct these 

problems. We found that there were relatively few uses that violated the compatibility standard, and that many of the ‘‘harmful uses’’ cited by managers were the 

result of lack of authority, retained private rights, or were situations such the presence of debris or contaminants that were not actually ‘‘uses’’ of the refuge. While 

schedules were instituted to terminate the incompatible uses, the underlying findings of this survey further illustrated that existing regulations were not being consistently understood or interpreted, and that refuges were not being managed as a 

system. 

Around this time, efforts to enact organic legislation for the Refuge System were 

initiated by conservation organizations. The Service opposed this effort. At the time, 

concepts like refuge planning were believed to be an unnecessary burden for the 

agency. In addition, the Service was not entirely comfortable with the level of public 

involvement and partnership that is today recognized as required for effective conservation. Largely because of disagreement within the conservation community 

about what was needed to ‘‘fix’’ the Refuge System, organic legislation could not get 

any traction in Congress. 

In 1990, the Service began the process of writing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would guide the administration of the System. The draft EIS, entitled Refuges 2003, was never finalized. Absent clear Congressional guidance, the 

myriad of possible future directions for the Refuge System simply left too many options, complexities, and opinions for any consensus to be reached. While there were 

many questions about the future of the Refuge System, one central question needed 

an answer before any progress could be made: What was the role of wildlife dependent uses, including hunting and fishing, in the Refuge System? 

In 1996, Executive Order 12996 recognized wildlife dependent uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation as the priority public uses of the Refuge System. The Executive Order 

recognized both the importance of hunters and anglers to conservation and the 

growing importance of others who enjoy watching wildlife in wild places, while also 

making clear that all uses on refuges must first be compatible with the Refuge System’s primary mission: wildlife conservation. 

The Executive Order showed that compromise was possible, and what was needed 

was bipartisan leadership from Congress, the Executive Branch, and the conservation community. Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Congressional 

sponsors Don Young of Alaska and John Dingell of Michigan, and leaders of key 

sportsmen’s and environmental organizations joined forces to draft legislation to address the varying concerns and interests on management and public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Other Congressmen who were instrumental in building overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill were George Miller from California, 

John Tanner of Tennessee, Jim Saxton from New Jersey, and Neil Abercrombie of 

Hawaii. In the Senate, Senators John Chafee from Rhode Island, Dirk Kempthorne 

of Idaho, Bob Graham from Florida, and Max Baucus from Montana provided the 

essential leadership that pushed the legislation through Congress. 

All of these conservation leaders, plus a number of hard working, innovative staff 

working behind the scenes, stayed dedicated to finding a consensus for the future 

of the Refuge System. On October 9, 1997, they succeeded, and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act was signed into law. The Improvement Act provides guidance to the Secretary of the Interior for the overall management of the 

Refuge System. The Improvement Act’s primary components include: 

• A strong and singular Refuge System mission for the conservation, management 

and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans; 

• A requirement that the Secretary maintain the biological integrity, diversity 

and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

• A requirement to plan and direct the continued growth of the Refuge System 

to best accomplish the mission of the System and contribute to the conservation 

of the ecosystems of the United States, while complementing the efforts of 

States and other partners; 

• A new process for determining compatible uses of refuges; 

• A recognition that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
37 

terpretation, when determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate 

public uses of the Refuge System; • That these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System; • A requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs); • A direction to ensure effective coordination and cooperation with adjacent land 

owners, State fish and wildlife agencies, and other Federal agencies; and, • A responsibility to maintain adequate water quantity and water quality and acquire water rights that are needed. 

Many of the Improvement Act’s provisions were new and remain innovative in 

public lands law. The Service has worked hard with our State fish and wildlife 

agency partners to involve the public in developing policies to guide the implementation of the Improvement Act. We have met the Improvement Act’s requirements to 

develop implementing regulations on determining compatible uses. We have developed new policies on: the mission, goals, and purposes of the Refuge System; comprehensive conservation planning; appropriate refuge uses; wildlife dependent recreation; habitat management planning; and, the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of refuges. These policies are providing refuge managers with 

the consistent guidance needed to implement the Improvement Act and further the 

process of becoming a true system of lands that are managed in a consistent and 

coordinated manner. The Service has completed 254 CCPs and is well on its way 

to completing the required plans for all refuges by the 2012 statutory deadline. 

The Refuge System has embraced partnerships with all who share a concern for 

the future of America’s wildlife. Today, our over 38,000 volunteers and 250 Refuge 

Friends groups are essential contributors to every aspect of refuge management. 

Twenty-two diverse national conservation organizations have formed the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), and they have worked together for 

a decade to provide support for the System. 

Finally, as the Refuge System has evolved it has provided increasing opportunity 

to link with other protected area systems in the marine environment as called for 

in the President’s Ocean Action Plan. A good example is the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands Marine National Monument established by President Bush on June 15, 

2006, under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge are within this 

new monument. Also included in the monument are the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, administered by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Sanctuary Program, and the State 

of Hawaii’s Northwestern Hawaiian Islands State Marine Refuge and Kure Atoll 

Wildlife Sanctuary. 

Emerging Issues and Unseen Challenges 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is the most modern organic Act of any of the Federal land management agencies. It is forward looking and 

visionary in many respects. For example, its requirement to maintain biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health reflect a modern understanding of ecological principles. The Improvement Act envisions a collaborative approach to conservation, where partnerships with others are an essential ingredient in conservation success. It requires public involvement in conservation planning and compatibility determinations and recognized the growing critical importance of water quality and quantity in wildlife conservation. 

Recognizing water issues were perhaps the harbinger of an issue not well understood a decade ago: the effect of climate change on wildlife and their habitat. The 

Service is working hard to evaluate how climate change will affect the way refuges 

are managed as part of broader efforts to consider how climate change will affect 

wildlife conservation. Refuges will play important roles in monitoring wildlife, 

adapting management to changing conditions, restoring habitat that will sequester 

carbon, and reducing our own carbon footprint. We are just beginning our efforts 

to deal with what will likely be the largest conservation challenge of the century. 

The threat of invasive species was known a decade ago, yet it seems the problem 

grows more complex every day. We are making progress addressing invasive species 

on refuges, but not as quickly as is needed. The problem takes on an added dimension when we consider infectious diseases like West Nile virus, and their impact on 

wildlife populations. Avian influenza was not an issue that demanded attention ten 

years ago. 

Population growth and its effect on habitat were predictable a decade ago, but 

several aspects of that change have presented new challenges. Illegal immigration 

along the Southwest border has caused severe damage to border refuges and has 

taxed our law enforcement capabilities. At many refuges throughout the System, we 

38 

see areas that were once rural being encroached upon by more and more development. This is changing the nature of refuge law enforcement by bringing more 

urban crimes to refuges, from methamphetamine labs to assaults on refuge officers. 

These pressures from beyond our boundaries also bring environmental challenges as 

some refuges become isolated islands in a sea of development. 

The growth in population, changing demographics, and the accelerating dominance of technology in everyday life is also changing they way people interact with 

wildlife. As our population increases by roughly 10% for each of the next five decades, achieving the System’s mission will become more and more difficult. Census 

estimates indicate demographic subsets of our population will be growing at rates 

of up to more than 300%. To achieve our mission in the near future we need to start 

looking now at how to adapt the system to best benefit future generations, and especially these rapidly growing subsets. Hunters and anglers have always been a cornerstone of America conservation, but they represent a smaller percentage of the 

population every year. The latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation indicates that over the past decade that hunting has decreased by 10% and fishing has decreased by 15%. Wildlife watching, however, has 

increased by 13%. The Refuge System will have to change with the times to ensure 

it remains true to its mission to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant resources for 

present and future generations. Today, more children are living in urban areas and 

do not have the same outdoor experiences that were common with past generations. 

While the Refuge System continues to provide great hunting and fishing opportunities, the Service must recognize that digital cameras, iPods, and virtual geo-caching 

are tools that we can use to connect children with nature. Environmental education 

and interpretation are priority public uses of the Refuge System, and they need 

more emphasis now and in the future. 

Strategic Habitat Conservation 

Since passage of the Improvement Act, the Refuge System has met with both 

great accomplishments and increasing challenges. Tried and true concepts, like providing wildlife with the essentials of food, water, and cover, have been augmented 

with enhanced understanding of ecological processes. The Service has adopted a visionary framework for strategic habitat conservation that will guide our land management and conservation efforts in the future. 

Strategic habitat conservation begins with biological planning that identifies 

measurable, landscape level, outcome goals. With these goals in mind, staff designs 

conservation activities and programs. With respect to the Refuge System, this 

means that the Service must look at refuge lands in relation to a broader network 

of protected areas and other conservation efforts on private land. In other words, 

we must take a landscape-level approach. We must use principles of conservation 

biology and protected area design, incorporating ecological considerations such as: 

are refuges large enough to accomplish their purpose, are they connected with other 

protected areas and is there enough redundancy in the System to assure wildlife 

sustainability as conditions change? 

The Service has long been a leader and preeminent practitioner of land management for wildlife. We can intensively manage land when needed, or use a light hand 

where appropriate. We have a proven track record in restoring degraded habitats, 

using fire to reduce fuel build ups and improve wildlife habitat, managing water levels to insure productive wetlands meet the needs of wildlife, and a wide variety of 

other habitat management practices. 

Our strategic habitat conservation framework will require effective inventory and 

monitoring, so that we can continue to adapt and improve our management practices. These monitoring efforts on national wildlife refuges are evolving to meet the 

challenges. Our new biological monitoring team is working on multiple refuges in 

several regions to experiment with new protocols that will evaluate the effectiveness 

of our management strategies and allow us to adapt our practices to meet changing 

future conditions. Finally, strategic habitat conservation must be informed by continuing research to ensure that we apply the best science available, and that is the 

foundation of all our work. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for holding this oversight hearing and 

for your interest in the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The challenges of our changing world will require the Refuge System and the Service to be 

innovative and adaptive. 

Our roots are in the past, today’s challenges are new and vexing, and we all have 

some trepidation about an uncertain future. However, change is constant and managing it is always a challenge. What we need is the same open, honest, bipartisan 

39 

collaboration that we all found when we worked together to craft the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. If we can continue with that type of leadership, we will be successful in meeting the challenges of the years ahead. 

Madame Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of 

the Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. KIND. Next, we are going to turn to Evan Hirsche, Executive 

Director of National Wildlife Refuge Association. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EVAN HIRSCHE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the committee today. On behalf of the Refuge Association and our membership comprised of current and former refuge 

professionals, more than 140 Refuge Friends affiliate organizations 

and thousands of refuge supporters around the United States, we 

really do appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Refuge Improvement Act. And I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

leadership on the caucus. I think this is one of the most tremendous events that we have witnessed for refuges, in support of 

refuges recently, and it is growing and it is an exciting movement 

that we are pleased to help support. 

The Refuge Association strongly supports the Refuge Improvement Act and the intent of its authors to ensure the Refuge System 

is prepared to address conservation challenges in a consistent and 

comprehensive matter. Nevertheless, we are alarmed both by the 

lack of adequate funding to achieve even the most minimal guidance in the Act and the failure to implement key provisions by the 

secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, today we face perhaps the greatest challenges 

ever to the conservation of wildlife in America. Urban and suburban encroachment, invasive species, the rush to develop energy on 

public and private conservation areas, competition for water, and 

a public that is increasingly removed from the natural world all 

represent enormous challenges as we seek to protect the diversity 

of habitats and wildlife that make up America’s unique natural 

heritage. 

Added to these immediate threats is, of course, climate change, 

as we have discussed, which is projected to require a change in the 

way we think about sustaining species and managing habitat. 

In sum, the Refuge Improvement Act is an elegant and comprehensive tool with which to manage or respond to all these 

threats, including climate change. And we commend the authors 

for such a prescient piece of legislation. With the Act, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is provided a clear set of management priorities 

that go beyond simply managing lands and waters within refuge 

boundaries. Instead, it makes it clear the Secretary of Interior has 

an obligation seek comprehensive conservation strategies with private land owners, the States, and other Federal land holders, in effect, looking beyond refuge boundaries. This, all in an effort to secure the biological integrity of refuges and achieve the mission and 

purposes of each refuge in the system. 

Along those lines, the value of integrating objectives in the 

refuge comprehensive conservation plans, which, of course, are 

40 

mandated under the Improvement Act and State wildlife action 

plans can’t be overstated, specifically as we are looking to conserve 

ecosystems, which we understand to be more and more important. 

Yet, while these mandates are complete and surprisingly prescient 

and provide a valuable tool for refuge professionals, particularly in 

the areas of compatibility and appropriate use, a fundamental obstacle remains, and that is funding. And I won’t beat a dead horse 

here, but I think it is pretty clear that the Refuge System is in a 

state of crisis, and we need to figure out how refuges are going to 

be funded at a level that is going to allow them to achieve the guidance under the Refuge Improvement Act. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the cooperative lines for refuge enhancement has recommended $765 million in annual operations 

and maintenance funding as a minimum to get refuges on steady 

ground. We are grateful to the House for approving the record $451 

million for Fiscal Year 2008, and we are certainly appreciative of 

the members of the Subcommittee for supporting that number. But 

let me put a fine tooth on the crisis and talk about a few specific 

examples. 

Now, the Act requires refuges to be managed in a way that ensures their biological integrity. Yet, you look at the Potomac River 

Refuges just across the street. They are having a refuge week event 

on Saturday; I hope everyone will choose to attend. It is always a 

great event. But there, there are no wildlife surveys being conducted, no active habitat management. And the refuge manager, in 

his word, is hoping for the best for the eagles, herons, and hundreds of birds species that utilize the three refuge complex. Hoping 

for the best isn’t what the architects of the Refuge Improvement 

Act had intended. In fact, about half refuges in the system have no 

refuge biologists at all. 

The Act also mandates providing increased opportunities for 

wildlife dependent recreation. But if we go to Minnesota and the 

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, an urban refuge adjacent to the Mall of America in the Twin Cities, I am sure you are 

familiar with, funding shortfalls have limited their ability to reach 

out to tens of thousands of inner city school children, and as a result, they have witnessed a 13 percent drop in environmental education programs over the past year. 

Given the loss of vital refuge buffer habitat and corridors, there 

is an urgent need for both acquisition and cooperative agreements 

with private landowners. The State Wildlife Action Plans, I think, 

make it clear that there is an enormous need here. In fact, the Act 

requires that the Secretary plan and direct the continued growth 

of the system in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the 

mission of the system and contribute to the conservation of ecosystems in the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, no question this is a big mandate. But in our 

view, a whole lot more needs to be done to achieve that mandate. 

And, for instance, at the Department of Interior, internal decisions 

to centralize the real estate appraisal system has made the process 

so cumbersome that we have learned from some partners that they 

have lost acquisition prospects from willing sellers because of the 

bureaucratic red tape. That is just an example. 

41 

Looking at a stunning report by the GAO just released in September, they did an exhaustive study of the Prairie Pothole Region 

which provides breeding grounds for more than 60 percent of our 

Nation’s migratory bird species. It found, at the current rate of acquisition, it will take the Service 150 years to acquire the recommended 12 million additional acres. And that is not just acquiring. We are talking about agreements, easements with private 

landowners, and willing sellers, of course. 

Now, the Act also says the Secretary shall acquire, under State 

law, water rights that are needed for refuge purposes. We agree 

with Secretary Browner, and of course Former Administrator and 

Secretary Babbitt that that is a real need. And what we found is 

that in many instances, the Service simply hasn’t acquired the 

rights which are vital to achieving their mission. And, in fact, because of staffing shortages, water needs of refuges, particularly in 

the East, are unknown. In the words of one refuge professional, we 

are ‘‘looking at a slow motion car crash as portions of refuges are 

drying up and they don’t know why.’’ 

In the face of this, Mr. Chairman, we ask the committee to commission an independent evaluation of what is needed in terms of 

funding and actions by the Secretary to comply with the Refuge 

Improvement Act. 

Refuges are the cornerstone of conservation in America. If we are 

going to protect our Nations wildlife heritage for the benefit of future generations, then funding and political capital must be allocated to successfully carry out the Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsche follows:] 

Statement of Evan Hirsche, President, 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Evan Hirsche, President of the National Wildlife Refuge Association 

(NWRA). On behalf of the NWRA and its membership comprised of current and 

former refuge professionals, more than 140 refuge Friends organization affiliates 

and thousands of refuge supporters throughout the United States, thank you for the 

opportunity to offer comments about the implementation of the National Wildlife 

Refuge Improvement Act. 

The NWRA strongly supports the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and the intent 

of its authors to ensure that the Refuge System is prepared to address conservation 

challenges in a consistent and comprehensive manner. Nevertheless, we are 

alarmed both by the lack of adequate funding to achieve even the most minimal 

guidance in the Act, and the failure by the Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement key provisions. 

Background 

In 1997 Congress sought to resolve ongoing challenges facing refuges that 

stemmed from a lack of comprehensive organic legislation that would provide overarching and consistent guidance for refuge management. Indeed, leading up to passage of the Act it could be said that the Refuge System was really not managed as 

a system, but instead as set of disparate lands and waters with differing purposes 

and priorities. By requiring that refuges adhere—to the extent practicable—to both 

their establishing purposes and an overarching Refuge System mission, a necessary 

level of consistency was established. While there remain management inconsistencies from one FWS region to the next, we are certainly better off today from a 

management perspective than prior to the Act. 

The Act also established valuable mandates and guidance, including: 

• A clear standard for determining the compatibility of proposed and existing 

public and commercial uses; 

42 

• A requirement that the long-term integrity of refuges and the System be 

achieved through the strategic conservation of lands and waters, including securing adequate quantities of clean water, the lifeblood of refuges; 

• A requirement that the Refuge System ought to conserve a diversity of species 

and ensure the biological integrity of refuges; 

• Establishment of the ‘‘big six’’ priority public uses as a way of clarifying for 

refuge management and the public that other uses are considered secondary in 

developing and implementing management strategies; 

• A requirement that refuge managers coordinate closely with private landowners 

and states in conserving wildlife; 

• A mandate to monitor wildlife populations in an effort to better understand the 

habitat needs of wildlife; and 

• The requirement that all non-Alaskan refuges complete a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) within 15 years of enactment. 

In the following pages we will discuss how refuge management has benefited from 

the Act, specifically with respect to compatibility and appropriate use determinations and Comprehensive Conservation Plans. And we will discuss how funding 

shortfalls are limiting implementation of the Act and how a failure to implement 

portions of this statute will have long term ramifications for the future. 

How the Act has worked—Compatibility and Appropriate Use 

The Act itself has proven to be a valuable tool when it comes to establishing the 

compatibility and appropriateness of public and commercial uses on refuges. It gives 

refuge managers the ability to make a decision regarding actions or policies that 

have occurred on a refuge in the past, or are proposed to occur on a refuge in the 

future and deem them compatible or incompatible with the purpose of the refuge 

or the mission of the System, according to the manager’s ‘‘sound professional judgment.’’ 

An excellent recent example of how the Act has worked in this regard stems from 

a legal challenge to a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) completed by Little 

Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Northeastern Washington. In August 2007, the Refuge Improvement Act was upheld in a strong decision regarding 

the determination within the CCP that livestock grazing for economic interests was 

incompatible with the refuge’s mission. The final CCP concluded that the practice 

of granting grazing permits to ranchers was not a compatible use of the refuge. Because the permittees had grazed their cattle on the land for several decades, the 

refuge gave them five years to find alternative lands. When the time was up, the 

permittees filed a lawsuit arguing that the CCP process violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Refuge Improvement Act. 

The plaintiffs argued that when the FWS made this decision, they did not use 

‘‘sound professional judgment’’ as outlined in the Refuge Improvement Act when 

they determined that livestock grazing was largely incompatible with refuge purposes. In the court’s decision, dated August 20, 2007, Judge Edward Shea clearly 

agreed that the FWS complied with all aspects of the Refuge Improvement Act and 

that the manager had indeed, used sound professional judgment. 

Yet another strong example of how the compatibility standard has successfully 

thwarted harmful uses occurred at Sabine NWR in Louisiana. In this case, commercial alligator egg harvesters sought access to the refuge. Refuge managers argued 

that under the act commercial uses must contribute to the mission of the System, 

and that approving such a harvest would violate the law. Despite strong political 

pressure to allow the activity, refuge managers, backed by the regional office, were 

able to use the act to shield them from what they viewed as a harmful activity. 

Because the law is only ten years old, there is little case law interpreting its provisions, most notably the compatibility standard. Yet these decisions send a strong 

signal to refuge managers nationwide that they are on powerful legal grounds when 

making compatibility determinations. 

Much can also be said for the Appropriate Use policy that stems from the Act. 

In some cases, there are proposed activities are clearly not compatible with a 

refuge’s purpose and mission. In those cases, the Improvement Act allows that a 

manager to make a quick decision without having to conduct a compatibility determination. For instance, recently the refuge manager at the Minnesota Valley NWR 

was asked by a local minister to conduct Sunday services at the refuge’s Visitors 

Center. Because of this policy, the manger was able to make a quick determination 

that this action would not further the goals or mission of the refuge and deemed 

in an inappropriate use. 

43 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

One of the most far-reaching mandates in the Refuge Improvement Act was the 

call for the preparation a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for every refuge within 

15 years of the date of enactment. To date, more than 250 plans have been completed. This planning exercise identifies and defines the purposes for each refuge 

and gives a clear and concise plan as to how the refuge will be managed based on 

sound science and public input and review. Prior to the passage of the Improvement 

Act few refuges had plans on how they would manage their refuge. The few that 

did—fewer than 10%—created ‘‘Master Plans’’ that sought to establish a clear set 

of refuge objectives. However, because they were not bound by law to be followed 

by future managers, the succeeding refuge manager could reverse the decision and 

create their own master plan without consulting with the public or indeed other 

land managers. 

The Improvement Act does indeed allow for a plan to be changed or updated as 

needed, but it states that the ‘‘Secretary shall manage the refuge or planning unit 

in a manner consistent with the plans and shall revise the plan at any time if the 

Secretary determines that conditions that affect the refuge or planning unit have 

changed significantly.’’ The Act does not give a manager the latitude to alter the 

plan on a whim. 

The outline regarding how a CCP should be developed and what it should include 

is in itself a monumental piece of guidance. The Act clearly lays out what each 

refuge must have in its final plan including identifying and describing the following: 

the purposes of each refuge; the distribution, migration patterns and abundance of 

fish, wildlife and plant populations; the archaeological and cultural values; the significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems; 

and the opportunities for compatible wildlife ‘‘dependent recreational uses. This outline ensures all CCPs contain the same information creating system-wide consistency in planning. 

A particularly valuable aspect of this process calls requires proactively reaching 

out to the public. Specifically, ‘‘the Secretary shall develop and implement a process 

to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision of comprehensive conservation plans.’’ While the purpose of this language is to 

ensure adjacent landowners and the general public is allowed an opportunity to 

comment on CCPs, it has an added benefit of simply connecting refuges to their 

communities and providing an opportunity to articulate to the public the value of 

these special places. These public forums give the opportunity for refuge managers 

to explain not only the mission and purpose of their individual refuge, but to talk 

about the much broader conservation picture of the entire National Wildlife Refuge 

System and how this system fits into the nation’s land management complex. 

In some cases, these public forums are contentious and refuge managers face a 

difficult time explaining why certain uses are not compatible or able to continue on 

a refuge. For example, the CCP process at the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge represented an enormous challenge in terms of addressing the needs 

of countless interests. Refuge Project Leader Don Hultman and his team began outreach in 2002. Four years, 46 public meetings, 80 government get-togethers, one 

possible lawsuit and 800 pages later, the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge CCP is complete. And while not everyone who uses this vast 261- 

mile refuge, where 3.7 million people recreate annually, is happy with the result, 

everyone who wanted to voice their opinion was given the opportunity to do so, and 

the Act has been upheld. This is a far cry from an agency that could make decisions 

largely in a vacuum prior to the passage of the Improvement Act. In fact, the Act 

clearly stipulates that at a minimum, ‘‘the Secretary shall require that publication 

of any final plan shall include a summary of the comments made by States, owners 

of adjacent or potentially affected land, local governments, and any other affected 

persons, and a statement of the disposition of concerns expressed in those comments.’’ 

The Act also calls for the Director to ‘‘coordinate the development of the conservation plan or revision with relevant State conservation plans for fish and wildlife and 

their habitats.’’ Prior to 1997, there was some coordination between refuge managers and state agencies on management decisions; however, this was the exception, 

not the rule. Now, refuge mangers routinely consult with state wildlife agencies regarding management decisions, especially with the passage of the State Wildlife Action Plans in October of 2005. CCPs and these state plans are the basis for future 

management of the majority of America’s wildlife heritage. 

44 

Funding Shortfalls Undermine Implementation 

Without question, the Refuge Improvement Act has provided innumerable benefits 

to the Refuge System. Yet, without adequate funding to implement the sweeping 

mandates, the Act in our view is being seriously undermined and many key provisions are not being implemented as a result. 

Specifically, it is impossible to expect that the ‘‘biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the System are maintained,’’ when many refuges go 

unstaffed, an alarming number go without a biologist, and the FWS is effectively 

projecting a 20% decline in staffing under current funding projections. The reality 

is that human beings are what make conservation possible on refuges and without 

them, and in the face of myriad threats such as climate change, refuges simply can’t 

achieve their mission and purposes. A look at the recently released workforce management plans by each FWS region gives a glimpse of what biological programs are 

being lost simply because there are no funds available to maintain them. 

The threat of climate change means that every refuge in the nation should have 

at the least a wildlife biologist who can scientifically monitor trends and help establish adaptive regimes to ensure the long-term conservation of species. In essence, 

we have 548 natural laboratories where inventory and monitoring could actually 

yield quantifiable data in helping manage Refuge System resources. 

Yet, at the Wallkill NWR in New Jersey, an intern who is assisted by volunteers—namely the President of the Friends group and her 11-year-old daughter— 

does the only biological work on the refuge. While we are humbled by the commitment of volunteers at refuges, who currently contribute 20% of the System’s workload, it’s absurd to expect them to carry the water for refuges. 

Funding for the System did see gradual increases leading up to the Centennial 

of the system in 2003 ($391 million in FY2004) but since then has been flat or declining. In fact, the System needs at minimum an increase of $16 million annually 

just to keep pace with the rising costs of operations. To return to the levels appropriated in FY04, and give refuge managers a chance to actually implement some of 

the mandates in the Improvement Act, funding for FY08 would have to be $451 million—the amount passed in the FY08 House Interior Appropriations bill. To fully 

fund the System and allow managers the ability to actually implement all or most 

the mandates in the Act, the System would need at least $765 million annually by 

estimates developed by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. Given the 

scope of what was mandated in the Act under Section 5, the Administration of the 

System, the FWS is simply unable to comply with many important requirements. 

Failure to Connect to People 

The current funding crisis further exacerbates the FWS’ ability to provide ‘‘increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation’’ [Section (5)(a)(4)(K)] and opportunities to educate children and families about 

our natural world. At a time when people are becoming more urbanized and removed from natural ecosystems, the ability to give people meaningful experiences 

in nature must be made a higher priority. One of the most important ways FWS 

reaches out to families and local communities is through a dedicated Visitors Services staffer. Presently, these positions currently only account for about 5% of the 

overall workforce. 

Refuges are local, within an hour’s drive of every major metropolitan city. And 

because they are local, communities identify themselves with their refuge. Support 

groups, or Friends, exist at approximately 250 refuges nationwide and with the support of FWS, are conducting Environmental Education programs and outreach to 

local communities, fulfilling yet another mandate of the Improvement Act. However, 

with staffing slashed at most refuges and some going completely unstaffed, the ability for FWS or even Friends to reach out to their community has diminished and 

in some cases gone away entirely. 

Failure to Act 

Although funding shortfalls have limited the ability of the FWS to fully implement the Act, there has also been a failure on the part of the Department of the 

Interior and FWS to implement other aspects of the Refuge Improvement Act. Two 

of the most egregious examples relate to the mandates that call for strategic growth 

of the System and acquiring water rights. 

Under Section 5, the Administration of the System, the Act states that the Secretary shall, ‘‘plan and direct the continued growth of the System in a manner that 

is best designed to accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United State, to complement efforts of States and 

other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from conservation partners and the 

45 

public.’’ Since the passage of the Act, 39 refuges have been added to the System, 

mostly directed by Congress. However, vital habitats all over our nation, many within acquisition boundaries of refuges, have been lost to developers and other buyers 

before FWS has been able to acquire the land. 

Several factors are to blame that do not rest solely on the FWS or Secretary of 

Interior’s shoulders, including opposition to approving land acquisition dollars by 

previous Congressional leaders. Nevertheless, the Administration has failed to request adequate funding in recent years, and internal decisions to centralize the real 

estate appraisal system at the Interior Department has made the process so cumbersome, properties have been lost to bureaucratic red tape. This issue in itself 

could be the subject of an oversight hearing. 

And even though some could argue that the System has grown in recent years, 

we are only scratching at the surface of opportunity in terms of both purchasing 

lands from willing sellers and securing conservation easements through successful 

programs like Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the Duck Stamp. For instance, in 

September 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report 

showing that at the current pace of acquisitions, the FWS is unlikely to meet it’s 

habitat protection goals for migratory birds. The GAO did an exhaustive study of 

the 64-million acre Prairie Pothole Region which provides breeding grounds for over 

60% of migratory bird species in the United States. To sustain bird populations in 

the region, the FWS has a goal to protect an additional 12 million acres of ‘‘high 

priority’’ habitat—at risk lands which could support a high number of breeding duck 

pairs per square mile. At the current rate of acquisition, it will take the Service 150 

years to acquire this additional 12 million acres. 

Adding to the challenge, the FWS’s private lands programs, which are critical to 

the health of the System in terms of conserving important habitats beyond refuge 

boundaries, are managed by different divisions depending on the region. The National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) launched its ‘‘Beyond the Boundaries’’ 

initiative in 2005 having realized that most refuges outside Alaska face encroachment and loss of vital habitat on private lands proximate to refuges that jeopardize 

their conservation values. In order to secure the biological integrity of refuges, resources must be made available to work closely with private land-owners, the states 

and other federal agencies as we seek to conserve migratory wildlife and diverse 

habitat types. 

The Act also states the Secretary shall, ‘‘acquire, under State law, water rights 

that are needed for refuge purposes.’’ Unfortunately, in many instances the Service 

has not acquired these rights, which are vital to the mission of most National Wildlife Refuges. In fact, because of staffing shortages, water needs at many refuges, 

particularly in the East are unknown. In the words of one refuge professional, we 

are looking at a ‘‘slow motion car crash’’ as portions of refuges are drying up and 

they don’t know why. 

At Desert NWR, outside Las Vegas, NV, the refuge and its springs are dependent 

upon the aquifer that lies beneath the ground that is being siphoned of to support 

the rapidly growing city. A small water monitoring structure is all that exists to tell 

the Service if outside influences are sucking the aquifer dry. Unfortunately, scientists predict that by the time effects are measured, it will be impossible to reverse 

them in time to save the biota those springs have been supporting for about the last 

3 million years. 

Conclusion 

The National Wildlife Refuge Association strongly supports the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and the intent of its authors to ensure that the Refuge System 

is prepared to address conservation challenges in a consistent and comprehensive 

manner. Nevertheless, as outlined in our testimony we are alarmed both by the lack 

of adequate funding to achieve even the most minimal guidance in the Act, and the 

failure by the Secretary of the Interior to implement key provisions. 

Accordingly, we ask this Committee to commission an independent evaluation of 

what is needed in terms of funding to comply with the Refuge Improvement Act. 

By the estimates of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, based on information from the FWS, the National Wildlife Refuge System needs at minimum 

$765 annually to operate at full capacity. However, even this number may be too 

small. Refuges are a cornerstone of conservation in America; if we are to protect our 

nation’s wildlife heritage, funding must be allocated to successfully carry out Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Hirsche. Thank you for your testimony, insight, and your leadership on this issue. 

46 

Next, we are going to turn to John Frampton, Director of South 

Carolina DNR. And we are delighted we were able to find a spot 

in the panel for States’ perspective. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FRAMPTON, DIRECTOR, 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

share perspectives of the Association on the implementation of the 

Improvement Act. I am John Frampton, Director of the South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and also Chairman of 

the Executive Committee Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, all 50 States are members of the Association. 

In short, we conclude that, yes, the promise of the Act is well on 

the way to being fulfilled. The Act has truly met its goals as organic legislation for the Refuge System, directing the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to manage the system to ensure the sustainability 

of fish and wildlife and, where compatible, appropriately allow for 

the use and enjoyment of those resources by our citizens. 

While funding inadequacies constrain meeting the full potential 

of the Act, the Services’ commitment to its statutory obligations 

under the Act remain solid and unwavering. The State Fish and 

Wildlife agencies sincerely appreciate the Services’ engagement of 

our agencies in all aspects of the implementing the Act. 

The Association and the 50 individual State fish and wildlife 

agencies have a longstanding interest and involvement in the 

Refuge System and its contribution to fish, wildlife and habitat 

conservation. We were instrumental in deliberations leading to the 

passage of the Act and in assisting in the drafting of the implementing policies. 

Hunting, fishing, and other wildlife dependent recreational uses 

on National wildlife refuges are deeply valued by hunters, anglers, 

and outdoor enthusiasts because of the tremendous opportunities 

refuges provide, especially in areas where public lands are limited 

such as in South Carolina. 

As an example of the success on the ground, the Department and 

the Service have enjoyed a longstanding and successful relationship 

in managing wildlife resources and providing compatible wildlife 

dependent recreational programs that cross both State and Federal 

properties. This relationship began evolving decades ago, when 

both agencies realized that the management of wildlife resources 

needed to be addressed at an ecosystem level. 

An even stronger partnership developed in 1989 with the initiation of the ACE Basin Project, a cooperative habitat conservation 

project involving public, private, and corporate partners. This partnership quickly led to the establishment of the new National Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina, the ACE Basin. With the passage of 

the Improvement Act, the Department and the Service have 

worked cooperatively with nonprofit organizations in that project 

area to protect over 170,000 acres of coastal habitat through fee 

simple acquisition and donated conservation easements. And, as a 

result of the passage of the Act, we have strengthened cooperative 

agreements that allowed for equipment exchange and staff assistance on State and Federal properties. We now coordinate many 

47 

hunt schedules, particularly those that involve the mobility impaired and our youth. 

Department staff is actively participating in the development of 

the CCPs for all eight refuges in South Carolina, and we are extremely excited about the opportunity to partner with the Service 

on implementation of these plans to produce on-the-ground habitat 

improvements and enhance public recreation. We believe that by 

working cooperatively, sharing our resources and our talents, we 

can accomplish what no single entity could even envision. And it 

seems evident that the Fish and Wildlife Service has taken to heart 

Congress’s direction regarding cooperation with State fish and 

wildlife agencies in implementing the Act. The Service has comprehensively engaged State fish and wildlife agencies in the development and review of regulations implementing the Act. 

While the State agencies and Service have not always agreed on 

certain implementing policies, we have been able to arrive at consensus in a vast majority of circumstances. This benefits not only 

fish, wildlife, and habitat resources supported by the refuges, but 

also the public that we all strife to serve. 

Let me reflect just a bit on the development of the CCPs. As we 

advocated during the legislative drafting and as the law reflects, 

the Service should take maximum advantage of State developed 

plans and strategies for species and habitats throughout the development of the CCPs. The utility of this approach is even more evident with the recent completion by every State fish and wildlife 

agency of the State and wildlife action plan for species in need of 

conservation, and the initiation of the National Fish Habitat initiative. In addition to these strategies, the States have all developed 

statewide goals, plans, and objectives for many additional species 

and for wildlife dependent recreational opportunities. 

Continued close and meaningful cooperation between the Service 

and the State fish and wildlife agencies will ensure that the development of a CCP is the most thorough, efficient and effective way. 

With respect to the system maintenance and growth, in light of 

budget shortfalls, cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies 

can help budget shortfalls, but States need to be engaged at the 

early stage. A collective discussion between the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the State agency can reflect on what respective agencies have what capability and resources to continue effective administration of the individual refuge to meet both its mission and 

its contribution to the conservation objectives of the State fish and 

wildlife agency. 

Mr. Chairman, in South Carolina, we value our partnership with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service very highly, and we believe that 

we have accomplished a tremendous amount of success through 

that cooperative partnership and we look forward to that in the future as do all the States that are members of the Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agency. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Frampton, for your testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frampton follows:] 

Statement of John Frampton, Director, 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the perspectives of the 

50 State Fish and Wildlife agencies on the implementation of the National Wildlife 

48 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (NWRSIA or Improvement Act). I am John 

Frampton, Director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and 

Chair of the Executive Committee of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

As you know, all 50 states are members of the Association. 

In short, Mr. Chairman, we conclude that, yes, the promise of the Act has significantly been fulfilled. The Act has truly met its goals as organic legislation for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, directing the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage 

the System to ensure the sustainability of fish and wildlife, and where compatible, 

appropriately allow for the use and enjoyment of those resources by our citizens. 

While funding inadequacies constrain meeting the full potential of the Act, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service commitment to its statutory obligations under the Act remains solid and unwavering. The State Fish and Wildlife agencies sincerely appreciate the Services’ engagement of our agencies in all aspects of implementing the 

Act and are committed to working with the Service to identify the role of the System 

in addressing new challenges such as climate change. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies promotes and facilitates sound fish 

and wildlife management and conservation, and is the collective voice of North 

America’s fish and wildlife agencies. The Association provides its member agencies 

and their senior staff with coordination services that range from migratory birds, 

fish, habitat, and invasive species, to conservation education, leadership development, and international relations. The Association represents its state fish and wildlife agency members on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on key conservation and management policies, and works to ensure that all fish and wildlife entities 

work collaboratively on the most important issues. The Association also provides 

management and technical assistance to both new and current fish and wildlife 

leaders. 

The Association and the 50 individual State fish and wildlife agencies have a 

long-standing interest and involvement in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

its contribution to fish, wildlife and habitat conservation. We were instrumental in 

deliberations leading to the passage of the Improvement Act and in assisting in the 

drafting of its implementing policies. Hunting, fishing and other wildlife dependent 

recreational uses on National Wildlife Refuges are deeply valued by hunters, anglers 

and outdoor enthusiasts because of the tremendous opportunities refuges provide, 

especially in areas where public lands are limited. As you are aware, the sale of 

duck stamps, purchased by sportsmen and sportswomen, has historically provided 

the bulk of the funding for acquisition of refuges across the nation. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history of important contributions to the conservation of our nation’s fish and wildlife. 

The Refuge System has grown enormously over the past century and, today, our National Wildlife Refuges support some of the best fish and wildlife habitats in the 

country, as well as outstanding hunting and fishing opportunities. Refuges are important to local communities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Through the Improvement Act, Congress recognized that these recreational activities promote effective refuge management and help the American public develop an appreciation for 

fish and wildlife. The Association and State fish and wildlife agencies are strongly 

committed to working cooperatively with the Service on managing the Refuge System. 

In my state, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and 

the USFWS have enjoyed a long-standing and successful relationship in managing 

wildlife resources and providing compatible wildlife dependent recreational programs that cross both state and federal properties. This relationship began evolving 

decades ago when both agencies realized that the management of wildlife resources 

needed to be addressed at an ecosystem level. An even stronger partnership developed in 1989 with the initiation of the ACE Basin Focus Area Project, a cooperative 

habitat conservation project involving public, private and corporate partners. This 

partnership quickly led to the establishment of a new wildlife refuge in the ACE 

Basin Focus Area and is known today as the Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National 

Wildlife Refuge. With the passage of the Improvement Act, SCDNR and the USFWS 

have worked cooperatively with nonprofit organizations in the Focus Area to protect 

over 170,000 acres of coastal habitat through fee simple acquisition and donated 

conservation easements. And, as a result of the passage of the Improvement Act, 

we have strengthened cooperative agreements that allow for equipment exchange 

and staff assistance on management activities. We now coordinate many hunt 

schedules to prevent overlap of specialty hunts such as those conducted for the mobility impaired. Staff with the SCDNR is actively participating in the development 

of the Comprehensive Conservation Plans for all eight refuges in South Carolina 

and are extremely excited about the future opportunities to partner with the 

USFWS on implementation of these plans to produce on-the-ground habitat imVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

provements and enhanced public recreation. We believe that working cooperatively, 

sharing our resources and talents, we can accomplish what no single entity could 

even envision. 

The Improvement Act, completed after years of bipartisan discussion and deliberation, truly represents a benchmark in the history of the Refuge System. It established a statutory mission of the Refuge System to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish and wildlife and their habitats. With the Improvement Act, Congress 

reaffirmed that National Wildlife Refuges are for fish and wildlife conservation first, 

clearly setting them apart from other federal public lands. In addition, Congress directed the Service that compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management. No less important is Congress’ direction 

to the Service to effectively coordinate management of fish and wildlife within the 

Refuge System with the states. 

Mr. Chairman, the Improvement Act, and its legislative history, is replete with 

explicit Congressional direction to the Secretary of the Interior ( and thus the 

USFWS) regarding management of the System, its mission, appropriate public use, 

and coordination with the State fish and wildlife agencies. 

The mission of the NWR System is articulated in law as: 

‘‘The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans’’. 

The law goes on to further articulate that it is the policy of the United States 

that: 

(A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as 

the specific purposes for which that refuge was established; 

(B) compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System, directly related to the mission of the System 

and the purposes of many refuges, and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can develop an appreciation 

for fish and wildlife. 

(C) compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public 

uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning 

and management; and 

(D) when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.’’ 

The law defines ‘‘wildlife dependent recreation’’ and ‘‘wildlife dependent recreational use’’ to mean ‘‘...a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation’’. These activities have become popularly known in the jargon as ‘‘the big 6’’. Clearly Congress 

intended the Secretary to facilitate these ‘‘big 6’’ activities as long as they were compatible. As the Committee Report (House Report 105-106) further amplifies: 

‘‘The term ‘facilitated’ was deliberately chosen to represent a strong sense 

of encouragement, but not a requirement, that ways be sought to permit 

wildlife-dependent uses to occur if they are compatible. As Secretary Babbitt stated during the negotiations leading to H.R. 1420: ‘The law will be 

whispering in the manger’s ear that she or he should look for ways to permit the use if the compatibility requirement can be met.’ By the same 

token, however, the Committee recognizes that there will be occasions 

when, based on sound professional judgment, the manager will determine 

that such uses will be found to be incompatible and cannot be authorized.’’ 

And, with respect to the issue of budget shortfalls and facilitation of the ‘‘big 6’’ 

uses, the Committee Report contemplated this circumstance and provide this direction: 

‘‘New Section 5(3) defines the term ‘‘sound professional judgment’’ as the 

collection of findings, determinations and decisions that support compatibility determinations. Such determinations are inherently complex and will 

require the manager to consider principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and compliance with applicable laws. Implicit within this definition is that financial 

resources, personnel and infrastructure be available to manage permitted 

activities. The Committee expects the USFWS to be energetic and creative 

in seeking such resources, including partnerships with the States, local 

50 

communities and private and nonprofit groups. The Committee also expects 

the USFWS to make reasonable efforts to ensure that lack of funding is not 

an obstacle to permitting otherwise compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses.’’ 

The law further directs that the Secretary shall, in administering the System, 

‘‘...ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with ‘‘. the fish and 

wildlife agency of the State in which the units of the System are located.’’ And, Congress further directed that the Secretary, in preparing a comprehensive conservation 

plan for each refuge, do so not only consistent with the NWRSIA, but—‘‘to the extent practicable, consistent with fish and wildlife conservation plans of the state in 

which the refuge is located....’’ Finally, Congress exempted coordination with State 

Fish and Wildlife Agency personnel pursuant to the NWRSIA from the application 

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We conclude that this is very clear statutory 

direction that management of the System be done is close cooperation with the state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

Finally, I would direct your attention to USFWS Directors Order No. 148 (issued 

Dec. 23, 2002 and extended until July 1, 2009 entitled ‘‘Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System’’. It says, in part: 

‘‘Sec. 4 What is the Services policy on coordination with the States? 

(a) Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats depends on 

the professional relationship between managers at the State and Federal 

level. The Service acknowledges the unique expertise and role of State fish 

and wildlife agencies in the management of fish and wildlife. 

(b) Both the Service and the State fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and 

responsibilities for management of fish and wildlife on national wildlife 

refuges as described in 43 CFR 24. Consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, the Director of the Service will interact, coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate with the State fish and wildlife agencies 

in a timely and effective manner on the acquisition and management of national wildlife refuges. Under the Administration Act and 43 CFR 24, the Director as the Secretary’s designee will ensure that National Wildlife Refuge 

System regulations and management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans. We charge refuge 

managers, as the designated representatives of the Director at the local level, 

with carrying out these directives. We will provide State fish and wildlife 

agencies timely and meaningful opportunities to participate in the development and implementation of programs conducted under this policy. This opportunity will most commonly occur through State fish and wildlife agency 

representation on the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) planning teams; 

however, we will provide other opportunities for the State fish and wildlife 

agencies to participate in the development and implementation of program 

changes that would be made outside of the CCP process. Further, State fish 

and wildlife agencies will continue to be provided opportunities to discuss and, 

if necessary, elevate decisions within the hierarchy of the Service’’. 

It seems evident that the FWS has taken to heart Congress’ direction regarding 

this cooperation. The Service has comprehensively engaged the State fish and wildlife agencies in the development and review of regulations implementing the Improvement Act. While the state fish and wildlife agencies and the Service have not 

always agreed on certain implementing policy, we have been able to arrive at consensus in the majority of circumstances. This benefits not only the fish, wildlife and 

habitat resources supported by Refuges, but also the public that we all serve. 

Let me reflect a bit on the development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCPs) for the refuge lands in the System. As we advocated during the legislative 

drafting, and as the law reflects, the Service should take maximum advantage of 

state developed plans and strategies for species and habitats to inform the development of CCPs. The utility of this approach is even more evident with the recent 

completion by every state fish and wildlife agency of its State Wildlife Action plan 

for species in need of conservation; and the initiation of Joint Partnerships under 

the National Fish Habitat Initiative. In addition to these strategies, the states have 

all developed state-wide goals, plans and objectives for many additional species, and 

for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Refuges under the NWR System 

can and do play integral roles in meeting state-wide goals and objectives for species, 

habitats, and wildlife-dependent recreational use opportunities. Continued close and 

meaningful cooperation between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the respective 

state fish and wildlife agency will ensure the development of a CCP in the most 

thorough, efficient and effective way. 

51 

With respect to the System maintenance and growth in light of budget shortfalls, 

cooperation with the State fish and wildlife agencies can result in better ameliorating the results of budget shortfalls, but states need to be engaged early by the 

Service. Both the FWS and State fish and wildlife agencies have authorities and responsibilities for managing fish and wildlife on NWRs. A collective discussion between the FWS and the State fish and wildlife agency can reflect on which respective agencies have what capability and resources to continue effective administration of the individual refuge to meet both its mission and its contribution to the conservation objectives of the State fish and wildlife agency. State fish and wildlife 

agencies likely will want to assist (or continue to assist) in administration of certain 

programs as hunting and fishing but many will likely need some provision of federal 

funding or at least a cost-sharing of some type. Otherwise, this could become an unfunded mandate to the states. 

Second, we are concerned that the Service’s practice (in response to budget shortfalls) of putting Refuges into ‘‘preservation’’ status mean no public activities, including the ‘‘big 6’’ mandated by Congress, will be allowed. There needs to be clear direction from the USFWS Director that the provision of these 6 activities are priority 

public uses and all other uses are secondary to them. Let me reiterate again that 

we have no argument that the conservation mission of the System is pre-eminent 

and that the FWS, in cooperation with the State fish and wildlife agencies, is obligated to fulfill that mission. But, it is eminently clear that the ‘‘big 6’’ are the priority public uses and Congress has directed the Service to facilitate those uses. 

You asked for our perspectives on the issue of climate change and border security 

vis-a`-vis the Refuge System. We believe that response to climate change with respect to remediation of impacts to fish, wildlife and their habitats, needs to be applied comprehensively at the landscape level. The effects of climate change will obviously be pervasive across the landscape, and so must the response be comprehensive. The Refuge System, and all public lands, will be a key aspect of our response 

through their utility as habitat reservoirs and linkages, and should be incorporated 

into state adaptation strategies that are just now being developed by several states. 

It is clear that Congress will need to make significant additional funds available to 

both federal and state natural resource and land management agencies to respond 

to climate change. 

With respect to border security, the Association strongly suggests that funds be 

made available from the Department of Homeland Security to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to support its role in national security endeavors. While we acknowledge the role that Refuge staff can play in interdicting illegal entry into the 

country, the USFWS cannot and should not be burdened with the cost supporting 

that national security task. Additionally, Congress should appropriate to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service additional funds to protect the integrity of the habitat in those 

border NWRs where physical security improvements may affect those habitats. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and I would be pleased 

to address any questions. 

Mr. KIND. And finally, we turn to The Honorable William Horn, 

general counsel of the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance. Thank 

you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HORN, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is William Horn, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to appear today both on behalf of 

the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, and as a former Interior Department alum to discuss the landmark 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. 

Passage of that Act was a high priority of the Alliance 10 years 

ago, and we have maintained a keen interest in the Act, and of 

course, the Refuge System. I think, as all recognize, that system is 

an incomparable array of wildlife habits that provide unparalleled 

conservation benefits and opportunities for public use, especially 

hunting and fishing. I would like to briefly talk about where the 

1997 Act came from. Mr. Young and Mr. Babbitt made some references to it. 

52 

Controversy surrounded the system in the early 1990s. Animal 

rights radicals were ratcheting up their campaigns, political and 

legal, to exclude hunters and anglers from the system. Another 

refuge lawsuit was just settled at that point that threatened to impose additional obstacles to hunting and other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. Funding for the system was being curtailed, 

impacting both conservation management as well as public access. 

And, finally, earlier versions of refuge organic legislation or bills 

had been introduced which would have made it for difficult for the 

Service to maintain traditional hunting and fishing opportunities 

on the system. And from the perspective of the sporting and conservation community, that was a pretty grim period. 

In early 1995, our community approached the Congressional 

Sportsmen’s Caucus and the then new congressional leadership 

about comprehensive refuge legislation that would fix these problems, and the result was H.R. 1675 introduced in the 104th Congress. And its primary sponsors were Mr. Young, Representative 

John Dingell, and Representative Bill Brewster then from Oklahoma. Now, the effort didn’t succeed that Congress, but carried 

over into the next year new legislation was introduced, and as Secretary Babbitt indicated, concerted good faith negotiations with 

Secretary Babbitt, and I would say some of us thought he was the 

Darth Vader in the process rather than me, yielded H.R. 1420 that 

was introduced and ultimately passed and signed into law 10 years 

ago today. 

Now, a critical feature of that Act is its expressed recognition 

that hunting and fishing were and are important legitimate activities on refuge units. In addition, once determined to be compatible, 

the Service under the law is under a clear statutory duty to facilitate those activities, not just merely allow them. And these were 

designed to stop once and for all repeated litigation by animal 

rights radicals seeking to bar hunters and other users from the 

Refuge System. Unfortunately, such litigation continues today 

under different and new procedural guises. 

The Sportsmen’s Alliance considers the 1997 Act to be a success. 

Its focus on wildlife conservation and management is consistent 

with the principles articulated by President Roosevelt when he created the system in 1903, and this focus demonstrates that refuge 

are not mere sanctuaries to be set aside and left alone but to be 

actively managed, and that has resulted in hunters now having access to over 300 units of the system. 

In addition, the political unity forged during the 1995-1997 period translated into renewed emphasis on the system and increased 

funding for operations and maintenance, and these beneficial 

trends peaked in 2003 coincident with the System’s centennial. 

Unfortunately, there are a few skunks at the picnic. The animal 

rights interests, unwilling to accept the clear policies in the 1997 

Act, have continued to mount legal challenges. Three years ago, 

they sued to stop hunting on 36 refuge units, arguing that the Fish 

and Wildlife Service was obligated to prepare comprehensive environmental impact statements in addition to the CCPs. The USSA 

and others joined the suit with the Service, tried to argue that the 

CCPs and all the migratory bird analysis that is done were all fully 

sufficient to cover the bases. 

53 

Unfortunately, the court disagreed and has ordered the Service 

to prepare DISs which it is now doing, wasting finite dollars and 

wasting finite staff resources. And this is one issue where we think 

Congress needs to redress the matter to save the Service from all 

this useless paperwork to fulfill the purposes of the 1997 Act. 

Despite these types of problems and issues, I think the Alliance 

remains proud of its role in helping to enact the 1997 Act, and believe that the funding issues can be resolved and the promise of 

this landmark legislation can truly be fulfilled. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:] 

Statement of William P. Horn, Counsel, 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Madam Chair: My name is William Horn and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the purposes, history, and implementation 

of the landmark 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) 

(P.L. 105-57). Enactment of NWRSIA was a high priority of the U.S. Sportsmen’s 

Alliance (USSA) (then the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America) and we have maintained a keen interest in the Act and the Refuge system since then. In addition, 

my comments reflect the perspectives from my prior tenure as Assistant Secretary 

of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks under President Reagan and Chairman 

of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Commission. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is an incomparable array of wildlife habitats 

that provide unparalleled conservation benefits and opportunities for public use, especially hunting and fishing. The sporting community was instrumental in founding 

the System in 1903 and has strongly supported it ever since. This support is not 

merely rhetorical. Hunters have contributed millions of dollars to growth of our 

Refuges through the Duck Stamp program and other forms of tangible financial support. No others have come close to matching this level of genuine commitment. 

Controversy, however, surrounded the Refuge System in the early 1990’s. Animal 

rights radicals and anti-hunting interest were ratcheting up their campaigns to exclude hunters from the System and only recently had the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) beaten back lawsuits to bar hunting on Refuge units. The Clinton Administration had settled another Refuge lawsuit and was threatening to close units 

to hunting and other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. Funding for the System 

was being curtailed and this was not only thwarting wildlife conservation objectives 

but threatened to curtail public access to Refuge units. Finally, earlier versions of 

Refuge ‘‘organic’’ legislation were being advanced that would make it more difficult 

for FWS to maintain hunting and fishing on the System. From the sporting and conservation community’s perspective, these were grim times. 

In early 1995 key elements of the sporting/conservation community approached 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus the new Congressional leadership about Refuge 

legislation that would fix these problems and set forth a clear wildlife conservation 

mission for the System. The result was H.R. 1675 introduced in the 104th Congress 

primarily by Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rep. Bill Brewster (D-OK) and the House passed it by a lopsided bi-partisan margin of 287 to 138 

in April, 1996. The Senate, however, failed to take action. 

The effort to enact a Refuge bill carried over to the next Congress and early in 

1997 its backers introduced it in the 105th Congress as H.R. 511 (reflecting the 

number of Refuge units in 1997). Concerted good-faith negotiations with Interior 

Secretary Bruce Babbitt yielded H.R. 1420 that was introduced in April, 1997, ultimately passed by Congress and signed into law on Oct. 9, 1997 as NWRSIA. 

A critical feature of the bill was its express recognition that hunting and fishing 

were, and are, important and legitimate activities on Refuge units. Moreover, once 

determined to be ‘‘compatible’’ with Refuge purposes, FWS is under a clear statutory 

duty to ‘‘facilitate’’—not just allow—these uses. These provisions were designed to 

stop once and for all repeated litigation by animal rights/anti-hunting radicals seeking to bar hunters from the Refuge system. Unfortunately, as discussed below, such 

litigation continues under new procedural guises. 

We note that clear public policy support for hunting in System units is not only 

reflected in the 1997 Act but in Executive Orders issued by both President Bush 

and President Clinton. President Bush recently issued an Executive Order to assure 

continued access for hunting to our public land systems. In 1997, President Clinton 

54 

released an Executive Order for the Refuge System that recognized its value for 

hunting. We hope the radicals get the message. 

USSA considers the 1997 Act to be a success. Its focus on wildlife conservation 

and management is consistent with principles articulated by President Teddy Roosevelt when he created the system in 1903. This focus, codified in statute, demonstrates the Refuge units are not ‘‘sanctuaries’’ to be set aside and left alone. Furthermore, the political unity forged during the 1995-1997 period translated into a 

renewed emphasis on the Refuge system mirrored by increased funding for operations and maintenance of the System. These beneficial trends peaked coincident 

with the 2003-04 centennial. 

We have also been very pleased with the on-the-ground of the 1997 Act. Not only 

has the Refuge System grown to 548 units in the intervening decade, 317 units are 

now open to hunting. This compares to 283 10 years ago. The public is able to enjoy 

this incomparable public land system which translates directly into continued support for the System. Such support is crucial if the Refuge system is to be sustained 

so that a bicentennial can be celebrated by our great-great grandchildren. 

Unfortunately there are a few skunks at the picnic. Animal rights interests, unwilling to accept the clear policies articulated in the 1997 Act (and Executive Order), 

have mounted new legal challenges to hunting on Refuges. Three years ago the 

Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States and other ‘‘usual suspects’’ 

sued to stop hunting on 36 Refuge units. The argument was that FWS had not prepared comprehensive environmental impact statements (EISs) to justify the hunting. USSA and others joined the case with FWS and argued that full scale EISs 

were unnecessary because (1) FWS already prepares Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans for refuges per the 1997 Act and (2) as most of the hunting is for waterfowl, 

FWS already prepares comprehensive EISs as part of its comprehensive migratory 

bird management program. However, a federal judge ruled that new EISs are needed so FWS is in the process of spending money and finite staff resources to prepare 

the duplicative NEPA documents (and the animal rights plaintiffs are already complaining that these documents are not enough). Congress should redress this matter 

and make it clear that the CCPs, migratory bird EISs and other FWS documents 

are more than sufficient bases for opening refuge units to hunting per NWRSIA. 

This waste of finite dollars is made more acute by the funding crisis now afflicting 

the System. For a variety of reasons, Refuge funding is again shrinking with adverse consequences for wildlife and public users. Compared to National Parks, 

Refuges have always been the red-headed stepchild when it comes to funding. Even 

though the Park system is smaller, has fewer units, and is situated in fewer states, 

its funding outstrips that provided to the Refuges. Park operating budgets are nearing $1.5 billion while the Refuge system makes do on $382 million in Fiscal 

Year 2007. This gap is likely to grow now that a variety of bills propose hundreds 

of millions of extra dollars for Parks in anticipation of that system’s centennial in 

2016. 

Not all of the problems are external. FWS policies to implement the Act include 

restrictions not contemplated in 1997. For example, some parts of the Refuge system 

are also designated as Wilderness although the law specifies that wilderness purposes are merely ‘‘supplemental.’’ Courts have ruled that ‘‘supplemental’’ means secondary. Nonetheless FWS draft wilderness policies appear to allow ‘‘Wilderness’’ to 

trump wildlife conservation and impose undue restrictions on wildlife management 

practices. We are persuaded that the 1997 Act makes primary wildlife conservation, 

including management and use as expressly included in the law, and it takes priority over ‘‘supplemental’’ Wilderness purposes. 

Similar problems have been created by policies adopted at the end of 2000. A definition of ‘‘wildlife first’’ was added to these policies that fails to adequately recognize 

the use and enjoyment features of the 1997 Act. As referred to above, wildlife conservation is defined in the Act to include management and use yet these features 

are largely disregarded by the ‘‘wildlife first’’ definition. Other policies such as the 

‘‘biological integrity’’ guidance has similar flaws and do not accurately reflect the active wildlife and habitat management provisions in NWRSIA. 

Despite these issues, USSA remains proud of its role in helping to enact the 1997 

Act. We remain committed to enhancing this incomparable system of public lands 

to ensure conservation of our wildlife heritage and enabling public use and enjoyment of the System via wildlife dependent recreation. This will ensure continued 

public support necessary to sustain the health and vitality of our Refuge System. 

55 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Bill Horn, 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Questions from Mr. Kind (D-WI) 

1. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You noted in your statement 

that the Improvement Act codified into statute a policy of public use, 

and as you said, that ‘‘Refuge units are not ‘sanctuaries’ to be set aside 

and left alone.’’ 

• Do you agree that all public use, even priority public uses specified in 

the Act, are all subject to being found compatible with the purpose of the 

refuge and mission of the Refuge System? 

ANSWER: 

I agree that all public uses, including priority public uses, are subject to being 

found compatible with refuge purposes. That requirement is stated plainly in the 

1997 Act. To ensure, however, that this requirement did not become an unreasonable barrier to continued wildlife dependent recreation activities (including hunting) 

on refuge units, Congress made an express finding that these activities on refuges 

‘‘have been and are expected to be generally compatible uses.’’ (P.L. 105-57, § 2(6); 

16 USC § 668dd note). In addition, ‘‘compatible use’’ was defined as a wildlife dependent recreational use that ‘‘will not materially interfere with or detract’’ from 

refuge purposes. In the majority of refuge units, and on a vast percentage of refuge 

system lands, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has determined that traditional activities such as fishing and hunting do not interfere or detract from refuge 

purposes. Lastly, I would note that Congress further recognized the value of these 

activities by finding that allowing and facilitating such activities on refuges has contributed importantly to the refuge system’s conservation mission. 

2. You raised concerns about the establishment of wilderness areas in 

refuges and assert that the policies of the Improvement Act supersede 

the policies of the Wilderness Act. 

• On what legal basis to you base this opinion? 

ANSWER: 

The 1964 Wilderness Act clearly and unambiguously states that wilderness purposes are ‘‘supplemental to the purposes for which...national wildlife refuge systems 

are established and administered.’’ P.L. 88-577; 16 USC § 475. The term ‘‘supplemental’’ means secondary. In the case of the Refuge system, Congress spelled out 

its primary mission in the 1997 Act as ‘‘conservation, management, and where appropriate restoration of the fish, wildlife, plant resources and their habitats.’’ § 4; 16 

USC § 668dd(a). The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) is concerned that 

supplemental/ secondary Wilderness Act purposes are used to impose restrictions on 

‘‘conservation, management, and...restoration’’ activities for the benefit of wildlife 

and associated habitats. Where Wilderness designations have been made on refuge 

lands, FWS has an obligation to try to harmonize its activities with both the 1997 

Refuge Act and the 1964 Wilderness Act. However, USSA maintains the agency’s 

primary duty is to act consistent with its primary organic statute rather than the 

supplemental purposes of the 1964 Act. 

3. At present, wilderness areas are designated on other Federal lands, such 

as National Parks and National Forests, each with their own statutory 

mission. These wilderness areas are managed by the standards required 

under the Wilderness Act. 

• Why should refuge lands be treated differently? 

ANSWER: 

USSA submits that refuge lands are different than lands administered by the National Park Service and the Forest Service. Please note though that plain use of the 

term ‘‘supplemental’’ in the Wilderness Act also applies to both of these agencies so 

that the 1964 Act is not a mandate to either of those agencies to disregard their 

more fundamental mandates from Congress (e.g., 1916 National Parks Organic Act). 

The distinction is that the 1997 Refuge Act is more recent in time and has a very 

clear statutory mission spelled out—conserve, manage, and restore. This is a mandate for active management by FWS rather than a directive to treat refuge units 

as ‘‘biospheres under glass’’ to be set aside and left alone. Restrictions associated 

with the Wilderness Act cannot be disregarded but should not be used to bar FWS 

from fulfilling its primary mission as articulated by Congress. 

56 

Mr. KIND. I want to thank all our witnesses today for your testimony and your time. I also want to thank my colleagues who have 

joined us recently on the panel. Starting with Ranking Member 

Brown, thank you, sir, for coming, Mr. Kildee and Mr. 

Faleomavaega for being here. 

Let me start the round of questions by getting back to what I alluded to in my opening comment. And maybe, Mr. Hall, you can 

take it first. But I appreciate your opening statement in regard to 

some of the youth activities involved, because we do face I think 

a real serious crisis and challenge. Mr. Young and I were just chatting about it. And I brought with me an article that appeared in 

The Washington Post on June 19 of this year titled, Getting Lost 

in the Great Indoors, how kids are getting addicted to the TV, the 

computers, the Game Boys, what have you, and we are not getting 

them out and not getting them outside experiencing nature, let 

alone visiting some of these great public lands of ours. And I know 

you have been actively involved in trying to ramp up the youth 

education programs. And I think you wrote a nice article on the 

July/August Refuge Update Newsletter that you sent out talking 

about that. 

But if you could maybe talk a little bit more about what programs specifically we are doing to reach our children. Because if we 

can’t sustain this, and these public lands of ours, we are mere 

stewards of, we are to take care of them and pass them on to future generations. But if that future generation doesn’t have the 

same love or passion or interest in the outdoors or in the Refuge 

System, it is going to be awfully tough to sustain anything that we 

are talking about today. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for those 

comments. Because, as you and I have talked, this is really important. And I will start off by saying that none of what we are talking about today matters at all if we don’t recruit new conservationists for two or three generations from now, no one will care. And 

while we are very dedicated, all of the people probably in this room 

are dedicated to that, we need to understand that we have to actively recruit conservationists. Now, that doesn’t mean fish and 

wildlife biologists. That means getting conservation in the hearts 

of our citizenry. Because if conservation lives at all, it only lives in 

the hearts of the people. 

So what we have been trying to do is to understand that we 

missed a large gap in the system. Even people my age, and I grew 

up in the 1960s and I remember it, so I must have been square. 

But a lot of my age class people got accustomed to writing letters 

because these wonderful laws were passed, the Clean Water Act, 

the Clean Air Act, and began to think it is OK just to say go regulate it instead of go fix it. And the conservation mind is, if something is broken, go fix it. And we don’t have enough connection in 

our children to nature today. It is frightening to me that if we don’t 

get them connected, and it is part of their spirit they just don’t 

know it yet. And the literature tells us if we get them connected, 

that we have them for life. Then we will have those future generations. And if we don’t, we won’t. 

And the literature is also indicating in other fields, in the medical field and psychiatric field, that children, the early onset of juVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
57 

venile diabetes is taking on epidemic proportions. Why? It could be 

because children aren’t physically playing anymore. They are sitting still. Their thumb is the strongest thing they have. 

We also have seen the literature talk about the child psychology 

and medical treatment area and ADD. And we had a professor talk 

to us, a teacher that said, I can take a classroom full of ADD children and I cannot keep their attention for more than 5 or 10 minutes. But I can take them out on a field trip and let them play for 

an hour, unstructured, let them go discover, and bring them back 

in the classroom and I can keep their attention for an hour. 

So there is really something there that a lot of the other fields 

are feeling. And so we are going to do our part, Mr. Chairman. I 

am going to make very sure that refuges are a welcoming place for 

all. 

Mr. KIND. Let me follow up. Last week, and the other hat I wear 

around this place, at least in this session, is co-chairing the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. And we organized the first ever 

congressional sportsmen’s week here in Congress last week with 

resolutions that we passed and some briefings, the annual banquet 

that we have every year. But we also had a breakfast briefing last 

week, and we brought in people from Matthews Bow to talk about 

the archery in the schools program and the Kicking Bear Archery 

Camp that Gander Mountain has been supporting nationwide. And 

it is true that unless we do a better job and think creatively on how 

to get these kids connected to the outdoors and appreciation for our 

natural resources, we are going to be in trouble. 

As someone who grew up and loved to hunt and fish in Western 

Wisconsin, some of the greatest conservationists I know, and those 

who are quickest to open up their wallets, are those out there participating in hunting, fishing, or just getting outdoors and understanding the beauty and what needs to be preserved. And now, 

with childhood obesity, Type II juvenile diabetes, this all meshes. 

But we have to think of ways to make it interesting for kids, and 

what is interesting today is technology. And I am wondering if the 

Service is tapping into some programs that utilize technology in 

order to get the kids interested. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, we are. We have treasure hunts where they 

have to use GPS. They have to follow the instructions and a GPS 

program to reach the point where they can find the prize. We take 

them out, and let them do their own filming. We get cameras from 

Nikon and Kodak and they volunteer them, and we take kids out 

and let them take digital pictures, come back and put them on a 

screen and compare notes on how you took pictures. 

It is important not to leave their world behind but to use it as 

a bridge. So we are going to be trying that and a whole lot of other 

things to try and get them interested in the outdoors. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. And, Mr. Hall, I appreciate your statement. But I think to get everybody involved in conservation, there 

is so many different groups that have different interpretations. In 

this room we have probably PETA, we have Defenders of Wildlife. 

I can go on down the line. There is about 76 different organizations, and they don’t want to see the big picture. They have their 

58 

own little fiefdom that they can generate. I like to respect 

everybody’s beliefs and have them enjoy it collectively together on 

our refuge. The hunting and fishing and trapping to me is extremely important. The bird watching identification and the flora 

and everything else is extremely important. But there is a division 

within the organization. And you can take preservationists and 

take and drown them all, as far as I am concerned. Conservation 

is different. But, unfortunately, the movement has been taken over 

by the preservation groups and makes your jobs very difficult. 

Mr. Hirsche, I was interested that you wanted to purchase more 

land, 12 million more acres of land. How do you go about doing 

that when you have a $2.5 billion backlog in maintenance and 

$1.25 billion in operation backlog and $361 million in invasive 

backlog? Do you remember my statement, how are you going to go 

out and buy a new house when the plumbing doesn’t work in the 

one you have got? 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Mr. Young, that is an excellent question but I 

think there are a number of ways you need to look at the problem. 

First of all, there are the mandates in the Improvement Act. And 

I think fundamentally there is a pretty sweeping mandate to protect ecosystems as a way of ensuring the integrity of refuges. And 

within that, we recognize or the States recognize through the State 

wildlife action plans that there are enormous needs for conserving 

habitat. And we are not necessarily advocating for buying everything under the sun. We are talking about conserving. 

And the GAO report was looking, for instance, specifically at the 

fish and wildlife plans for the Prairie Pothole Region, and most of 

those were easements versus acquisition. 

Regardless, I couldn’t agree with you more. We need more money 

to protect habitat. And that means involving private landowners, 

that means involving the States, that means Federal dollars as 

well. 

I mean, there is the ongoing question of why do you go conserving more habitat when you can’t take care of what you already 

have, and that is a refrain we frequently hear. I think our response 

to that is, look, if lands are developed, for instance, there is a proposed subdivision adjacent to the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge 

down in Texas. All over the country you can see subdivisions cropping up on refuge boundaries, even remote refuges or reasonably 

remote refuges, like Tamarack in Minnesota. People want to live 

next to these conservation areas. And if we are going to respond 

to those things, we need to recognize what the values of these 

places are and act, take action proactively. 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t disagree. I am just suggesting that we have 

to take care of the house. To purchase more will not take care of 

it. With invasive species, et cetera, we are just not gaining anything. 

I have another question, Mr. Hirsche, that somewhat concerns 

me because I am directly related to this. On page 5 of your testimony you state: ‘‘human beings are what make conservation possible for refuges.’’ And I agree with that. Would you agree that the 

current projection of reducing the refuge workforce by 20 percent 

will undermine the mission of the Refuge System? 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Absolutely. 

59 

Mr. YOUNG. If that is the case, why has your organization, I specifically say your organization, along with PEAR, has consistently 

opposed to letting Native American tribes operate various functions 

through annual funding agreements on wildlife refuges located 

within the boundaries of their reservations? In your judgment, are 

the tribes competent? Are they charging too much? Or do you not 

agree with the fundamental goals of the Tribal Self-Governance 

Act? 

Mr. HIRSCHE. The answer to that is our organization actually 

supports strongly the involvement of tribes in working with fish 

and wildlife to manage refuges. You are probably speaking specifically about the situation at National Bison Range. 

Mr. YOUNG. If that is the case, why does your organization oppose the annual funding agreement for the Bison Range Refuge? 

Mr. HIRSCHE. The annual funding agreement that you are probably referring to there. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is the only one. 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Well, and that funding agreement was terminated 

by Fish and Wildlife Service. Structurally we thought it was deficient and didn’t work for a number of reasons. But that doesn’t 

mean we don’t support the tribes working closely with Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Indeed, I think they have to. If you read our column in our magazine a couple months ago, we talked about the 

need to engage diversity in this country, and this ties into the 

question of engaging a broader range of individuals in the Refuge 

System for conservation. 

Mr. YOUNG. My interest is not only the Bison, because the American Natives were managing bison longer than any white man has 

ever been on this continent. And they may not manage them to 

your satisfaction, but they did manage them. I am interested, because if I find your organization opposing my intent to get management of refuged lands from in the State of Alaska where it is possible, not just because everybody is sitting in Washington, D.C. in 

a nice office means that they know everything about managing 

wildlife refuges. It is a way to employ people and to do the job correctly. You can sign contracts for working with the Park Service 

with covenants that allow this to occur. 

And if I even get the inkling that they can’t do it or they are not 

competent, they are unprepared, and by the way that is racist, that 

is going to be a sad day for the agency and your organization also, 

because that is wrong. These are people that know the problems 

and can solve those problems. And I have sort of sensed that this 

is sort of creeping along through the agency itself, Mr. Hall, and 

Mr. Hirsche your program, too. So I just suggest be very, very careful. Just keep that in mind. 

I yield back. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

Mr. Kildee, thank you for joining us. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am blessed with the Shiawassee Wildlife Refuge in the State 

of Michigan. It is a wonderful place. And whenever I go there, I 

myself feel that it is understaffed. So let me ask these questions, 

Mr. Hirsche. I appreciate your comment regarding the damaging 

and negative effect that the annual budget shortfalls reflect upon 

60 

the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully implement the 

Improvement Act. The projected 20 percent decline in staffing levels is especially troubling to me. If these workforce management 

plans go into effect, is it possible for the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to fulfill its legal requirements under the Improvement Act? 

Mr. HIRSCHE. In our assessment, no. You have sweeping mandates in the Improvement Act. And the Act, again, we will reiterate, is a tremendously powerful and, I think, elegant piece of legislation that lays out a terrific set of guidelines for managing National Wildlife Refuges now and into the future. But without adequate funding, if we don’t have staff at refuges, you know, we are 

seeing vandalism at refuges across the country because we don’t 

have law enforcement. 

As an example, in the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge this past 

weekend, they were expecting 600 people to attend their refuge 

week event. They received 2,000 people. Were they staffed to handle this? No, they weren’t. Half the refuges across the country have 

no biologists. Many have no staff at all. 

I don’t understand how we are able to implement this Act fully 

unless we meet some of the fundamental funding needs for the 

Refuge System. 

Mr. KILDEE. In my experience at the Shiawassee Refuge in 

Michigan, these people are really hardworking people and are 

sometimes doing a job and a half for one salary. They are not 

shirking their responsibility. And the Improvement Act is a very 

important Act, but the Improvement Act is something like, use this 

analogy, a get-well card. It kind of indicates what we would want 

and how we would evaluate how we value these. And if I have a 

friend who is ill, I will send a get-well card. But what my friend 

really needs is a Blue Cross card, and that is the appropriations. 

And I think Congress very often is good at sending the get-well 

cards, but doesn’t send the Blue Cross card. 

Mr. HIRSCHE. I couldn’t agree more. And I also want to make a 

point of discussing the role of volunteers and friends at refuges 

around the country. Currently, friends and volunteers are contributing fully 20 percent of the workload on our National Wildlife 

Refuges. I am humbled by the commitment and the support, but 

I am appalled that we are relying so heavily on volunteers to do 

the work that many professionals should be tasked to do. 

And one other comment just related to the issue of reaching out 

to children and families. It is interesting, you look at the Refuge 

System compared to other Federal land entities. And while they 

may be, in the words of I think Secretary Babbitt, postage stamps 

on the landscape, at least in the lower 48, obviously not Alaska, 

these places provide the best opportunity, in our view, of any Federal entity to engage the public, particularly diverse communities, 

because so many of these refuges are located in coastal areas, they 

are near urban areas, and we have an opportunity to engage diverse communities of all kinds to get them excited about conservation. And I feel like that is an opportunity that we are missing, and 

we need to put real resources into it. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall, what is the status of the annual agreement for the 

Salishan-Kutenai tribes? We have been told by the tribes that DepVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
61 

uty Secretary Scarlett has ordered an agreement to be developed, 

but to date this has not occurred. Can you tell us why that has not 

occurred? 

Mr. HALL. We made a proposal for a funding agreement or for 

an agreement to the tribes a couple of months ago, and have not 

really had them reengage into the discussion negotiation process. 

Mr. KILDEE. I would encourage both sides, including yourselves 

especially, to reengage. I think this is a very important step, and 

I would encourage you to do that. 

Mr. HALL. I would like to follow up on something that Evan 

Hirsche said a moment ago. This really has nothing to do with 

whether or not we are working with tribes or with anyone else. 

That is not the issue. We think the tribes could be very valuable 

working with us on the refuge. But the previous funding agreement 

was, in my opinion, structured to fail. There were two complete pillars of authority. No one was totally in charge of the refuge. And 

you can’t run a refuge that way. Someone has to be in charge if 

they are accountable and there has to be one team that works together, not two that are just out there kind of working. So I have 

been suggesting very strongly that we have one team working together that is composed of tribal members and Fish and Wildlife 

Service members, but the refuge manager has to be in charge of 

the refuge. Somebody has to be accountable. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. 

It is now my pleasure to be able to recognize Ranking Member 

Brown for any comments or questions that he may have. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Kind. 

And thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I am particularly pleased 

to see my friend John Frampton from South Carolina who has 

DNR there. And not only does he have that responsibility, but he 

has been very active in setting aside lots of different lands for future enjoyment and prevent future development. John, I am glad 

to have you, and thank you for your service there. 

Mr. Hall, my question I guess is, I represent the coastal area of 

South Carolina which is the 21st largest congressional district now 

in the Nation because of all the growth, and I have 1,500 acres that 

join the Francis Marina National Forest. So we are grateful for the 

national forest and for the other reserves that we have set aside. 

But my concern is, and I think it was addressed earlier about what 

kind of use would the public be able to enjoy, whether it be used 

for fishing or hunting or hiking or some of the other areas? It 

seems like to me, when we propose a reserve, it almost becomes a 

wilderness area. We don’t want much activity. 

In fact, my major concern is along the strip in the Waccamaw 

Reserve, about 20 or 30 miles, John you can attest to this, with 

that growth in that area, they don’t want us to build highways, 

they don’t want us to build any kind of an infrastructure or utilities in these set-aside reserves. Could you give me some insight on 

that? It seems, though, the taxpayers, that all the taxpayers actually paid for that particular property, and they ought to have some 

enjoyment, particularly ought to have some community interest of 

use. 

62 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Brown. It is good to see you again. 

That is one of the dilemmas that we deal with. And you can say 

it is a good thing, you can say it is a bad thing. But when a refuge 

is established, there is a primary purpose for which it is established. It may be water fowl, it could be endangered species, a myriad of different reasons for establishing a National Wildlife Refuge. 

And then, after that, anything that happens on refuge lands must 

be found to be compatible with that primary purpose. 

And then, in addition to that, the Improvement Act identified 

priority uses, or priority appropriate uses, the hunting, the fishing, 

the photography and education and information, et cetera, those 

six. We call them the big six. I refer to them as the big seven, because it always starts with wildlife first. No matter, even if it is 

an appropriate and compatible use, you have to make sure it fits 

with the purposes of the refuge and for wildlife first. 

These lands are unique in being set aside for wildlife and for 

public’s use of wildlife. They are the only lands like them in the 

world, that I am aware of, from a Federal standpoint. And the law 

basically was negotiated through to say, we need to hold on to that. 

So roads going through a refuge typically causes a problem, because it is not one of those things that contributes to the purposes 

of the refuge. If there are emergency situations, I am sure that 

things can be discussed on an emergency basis. But we do face this. 

And the law is pretty clear, in my mind, as to what we are allowed 

to do and not allowed to do administratively. 

Mr. BROWN. I guess that brings, my major concern is that maybe 

we ought to be concerned then of where we actually establish these 

reserves. This particular one I am talking about, the Waccamaw, 

John is familiar with it, we have about a 30-mile stretch of land 

that you can’t get from the ocean to the mainland unless you cross 

part of that reserve. And I don’t think there was ever intent for the 

taxpayers to buy a piece of property that was going to fence the 

rest of the population from having a natural way to evacuate in 

case there is a national disaster, particularly a hurricane or some 

other, maybe tsunami or some other reason to move quickly across 

that area rather than having to circumvent some 30 miles of travel. 

I don’t think that was the intent when they established that particular parcel of land to make it so unique that only wildlife could 

survive and not the population. 

Mr. HALL. I can only tell you what we believe that the law directs us to do; and we believe that the law tells us that once the 

refuge is established, and maybe your point is well taken. If that 

is a consideration that needs to be looked at as we establish 

refuges, what might be the future needs out there, then that can 

be debated and talked about as we move forward. We have a very 

long process that we go through to establish a refuge. But once we 

do, in my opinion, the law guides us in how we are supposed to 

handle that refuge and what we are allowed to permit and what 

we are not. And roads have historically been a significant issue, especially since the passage of the Improvement Act. 

Mr. BROWN. Then maybe we ought to take and look at some special legislation to at least, maybe in case the population is endangered, we ought to be able to have some way to exclude that. Not 

on a regular type basis, but on special instances, we ought to have 

63 

some kind of an easy way to move through it, rather than upset 

the whole population that we are doing something to, I guess, damage a special piece of property that has been set aside. I don’t 

know, if the taxpayers involved, that all the taxpayers ought to 

have some benefit from it and maybe we ought to look in particular 

at that. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Frampton, did you have anything you wanted to 

add? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to respond 

to Congressman Brown. 

In that area, the State recently acquired some 32,000 acres of 

land under a deal with International Paper Company and some of 

our conservation partners, and we actually made some concessions 

on that prior to the time we acquired that property. There has been 

a tremendous amount of miscommunication in that Myrtle Beach 

area relative to some of these land acquisitions. 

I think, Congressman, most of the issues that you referencing, 

we have had an opportunity to sit down with the delegation in 

Horry County and I believe work through most of those issues. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, John. I appreciate your saying that. Because if there is some reason maybe we need to at least address 

it in legislation, and this may be something we need to address 

while we are looking at expanding the potential of creating what 

is 12 million more acres of this wildlife. I know you have been actively involved in the community for a long, long, time, and I am 

grateful that something has been worked out, because it is a major 

concern for the safety of those people living along the coast there. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. A lot of that was addressed on the I-73 corridor 

issue, and a lot of that debate was relative to the heritage preserve 

that is owned by DNR, not U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And we 

recently came to agreement with the Department of Transportation. So I think that situation is corrected. 

Mr. BROWN. Sandy Island was concluded? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Sandy Island is currently held by the Nature 

Conservancy. We were involved in that deal. I think ultimately you 

may see some of Sandy Island go under the Refuge System. As you 

know, some of our lands are actually in the Refuge System on an 

agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service where we actually allocated those lands for their management, where it is more compatible with the refuge than in our individual lands. But I don’t know 

of any issue associated with road construction that is an issue right 

now with Sandy Island. 

Mr. BROWN. It is not. I only mentioned Sandy Island because I 

knew it was part of the ongoing preservation there, to maybe include it into the reserve system. Thank you. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Brown, Mr. Frampton. 

Eni, thank you for joining us. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership, and certainly for the contributions that you have made not 

only for the conservation of our National Wildlife System. And I 

certainly appreciate having this hearing this afternoon. Also, our 

distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Brown for his leadership as well. 

64 

I was listening, and certainly want to express my appreciation to 

the statements that have been made before our Subcommittee. I 

am sorry, I did miss earlier the former Secretary of the Interior, 

Mr. Babbitt’s presence at these presentations. It is an unfortunate 

situation that we find ourselves as a country that it always seems 

that if you are a conservationist, you are a Democrat, and if you 

are a pro developer, you are a Republican. It is really unfortunate. 

I wish my good friend from Alaska was here, because I don’t think 

there is one member here that does not want to conserve the richness of our Nation’s wildlife system. And, ironically, too, it was a 

Republican president that initiated whole movement toward conservation of our wildlife system. 

So I don’t think it should ever be a Republican or a Democratic 

issue. It should be a national issue that should have the same common interests and intent on the part of the Members of Congress 

and as well as the administration and the public as well to do the 

conservation. 

And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Hall, you said there was something 

wrong with the current provisions of the Improvement Act, that 

they seem to be not working together. I was trying to catch what 

you meant by that. 

Mr. HALL. You mean, in my response to Mr. Brown? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, it was earlier. I think it was to either 

to Mr. Young’s or Mr. Kind’s question. You said something that 

there was something, two systems that seemed not to be working 

together. 

Mr. HALL. That was in relation to the Bison Range discussion on 

just an agreement. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You mentioned something that was not 

working together? Or was it because of the weakness of the current 

provisions of the Act? 

Mr. HALL. No. This has nothing to do with the Act. That didn’t. 

This had to do with an agreement with tribes to work with us on 

the refuge. So it really had nothing to do with the Act itself. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But you are satisfied with the way tribes 

are handling it, as opposed to the rest of us, as opposed to how the 

Federal Government is dealing with other issues, dealing with— 

you are saying, however the tribes are handling the situation. 

Mr. HALL. We are working with the tribes now to come up with 

an agreement that we think makes one team work on the refuge 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service who is responsible for the refuge 

in charge. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There seems to be consensus that obviously 

the funding seems to be the most troubling aspect of, however you 

call it. We can talk about all the good things that have been done. 

And I must say that I was very impressed. We are talking about 

some 95 million acres of lands that affects the wildlife system, the 

Refuge System, and some 547 refuges, 3,000 water fowl areas and 

the home of some 700 bird species and 220 mammals and 250 types 

of reptiles, and over 200 types of fish now. Fish is very important 

where I come from, obviously. 

But I just wanted to ask you, supposed within this 95 million 

acres of refuge land, whatever you want to call it, that we have a 

sufficient supply of oil and natural gas in there to make us indeVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38316.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
65 

pendent of any more oil from the Middle East or Saudi Arabia. 

What would be your recommendation for how we might strike a 

balance, as my good friend from Alaska has very well, and I must 

say, I, for one, am for development. There has got to be a balanced 

approach. Do you prefer that we disregard the Nation’s rich resources that we have that provides for our energy needs? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for putting me in this spot, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

In reality, we have literally hundreds, if not thousands, of oil and 

gas wells today on National wildlife refuges throughout the country. And I think that if you go to those areas, and Louisiana is a 

good test case because they have been there for a long time. You 

have the very old ones from the old operators, the very new ones 

from the new operators. The footprint is significantly different 

today, and you can just compare the wells. 

So I believe that if it is the will of the people to get the resource 

out, that it would be the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to figure out how to do that in a way that did not destroy 

the values of the refuge, or undermine them to a point that was 

not acceptable. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am planning to hold a hearing in the next 

2 weeks about global climate change as part of my committee jurisdiction. And I have always wondered, I know this had nothing to 

do with climate global warming, but I think it does have very serious implications in terms of how far and to what extent are we 

willing to conserve our Nation’s wildlife system as opposed to development. But I do want to raise the issue with you gentlemen, 

and Mr. Hirsche, I think you might have some comments on that. 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Yes, Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, it is an interesting question. I think as you are holding hearings and looking at 

climate change and energy development—— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. By the way, my friend says it is not global 

warming, it is global pollution. But there would probably be a better word that we could use to be realistic about climate change and 

why we need to address the issues of emissions and the pollution 

that we are producing in the air and our resources. I am sorry, I 

didn’t mean to interrupt. 

Mr. HIRSCHE. Absolutely. You know, in examining the challenge 

of energy production and conservation, I think an apt test case 

right now is North Dakota. As I think many Members here and 

people in this room know, North Dakota is what’s often termed a 

duck factory for America. You have something like 60 refuges up 

there, Prairie Potholes. It is tremendously important to nesting waterfowl and a whole range of other birds, grassland species, shore 

birds and others. 

Right now, because the price of oil, suddenly it has become a tremendous opportunity to drill for oil, certainly in Northwest North 

Dakota where you have several refuges including Lostwood and a 

couple others. But mostly easement lands, about 1-1/2 million acres 

of easement lands up there. And we have now have the technology, 

if you read the paper, the New York Times, this morning, they are 

drilling for oil and gas in the most remote places. 

The question is, do we now have the technology and the willpower to be able to place extraction facilities in places that are not 

66 

going to require filling potholes and other things. Because we have 

refuge managers right now that are going out on easement lands 

and asking, nicely, oil companies to please move their pads 100 

yards to the left because you are going to fill a prairie pothole. 

Now, it is not just oil and gas, it is also wind energy. We are 

looking at the prospect for somewhere in the area of 5,000 wind 

turbines in North Dakota, and these wind turbines are also being 

placed among potholes. And what are the ramifications for birds 

and other wildlife? And thus far, wind power has, in our view, gotten a pass on meeting the same standards of analysis and evaluation as oil and gas extraction. And we are facing a train wreck up 

there if we don’t approach both oil and gas and wind turbine development in a way that carefully assesses the impacts to wildlife 

while also addressing our energy needs in this country. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. KIND. It is my understanding that Ranking Member Brown 

would like consent to have a written statement submitted for the 

record. Without objection, it will be included. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican 

Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important oversight hearing. 

It is appropriate that we honor and celebrate the tenth anniversary of the enactment of the historic National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Ten years ago, the distinguished former Chairman of this Committee, The Honorable Don Young of Alaska, had a vision on how our refuge system should operate 

in the future. For nearly 100 years, this unique collection of federal lands had existed without any Organic Act, a definition of what was a ‘‘compatible’’ activity or 

even a ‘‘Mission Statement’’. 

As a result, you had confusion, inconsistent decisions and a growing frustration 

in the hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation community. Refuges are not federal 

parks, wilderness areas or national marine sanctuaries. Hunting and fishing has always occurred within the system and it is not an exaggeration to say that without 

the excise taxes and duck stamp fees paid by sportsmen, you would not have a 

refuge system. 

Today, we will examine the effectiveness of P. L. 105-97 and whether this law has 

met the expectations of providing a sound foundation for the refuge system. I find 

it interesting that in the decade since its enactment, Congress has not altered a single provision and there has been very little criticism of this law. In fact, the only 

voices of concern have come from individuals who believe the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is unfairly stopping or limiting other legitimate non wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

In my own Congressional District, I am honored to represent three vibrant national wildlife refuges which provide recreational and educational opportunities to 

thousands of South Carolinians each year. There is no question that the Refuge Improvement Act has been largely responsible for the success of these refuges. In fact, 

the Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in Georgetown, South 

Carolina, was the first refuge established after the enactment of this law. It will 

celebrate its tenth anniversary on December 1st. 

During the course of this hearing, I look forward to hearing whether the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has fully implemented the ‘‘Mission of the System’’, if recent funding shortfalls are denying visitors opportunities to enjoy wildlife dependent recreation, how existing activities are being evaluated prior to the acquisition of refuge 

lands, whether refuge managers are prohibiting legitimate recreational activities, a 

status update on the completion of Comprehensive Conservation Plans and whether 

there is a need to modify certain provisions within this landmark law. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing and I would again compliment the 

gentleman from Alaska for his leadership, lifelong dedication and vision in sponsoring this remarkable wildlife conservation law which passed both the House of 

67 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate with only one dissenting vote. It is truly a law 

that will withstand the test of time. 

Finally, I want to welcome Mr. John Frampton, who is the Director of the South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources. John, we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. 

Mr. Frampton, while I have you here, I just want to get your 

feedback on your perception on how the CCP process has been 

working in South Carolina with the multitude of refuges that you 

have in that State. Let me just preface it by saying that we face 

a unique situation in Wisconsin, given a right of access clause that 

actually exists in our State constitution, which created a very contentious issue now in the development of the CCP for the Upper 

Miss. The Service, based on scientific studies, wanted to establish 

a ladder approach to give migratory waterfowl a chance to rest 

without harassment, hunting, being bothered. But they were going 

to limit during certain times of the year certain right of access with 

certain things in order to prevent that disturbance. 

Air boats is one of the issues that is very contentious. And I am 

at a listening session one day and I have a bunch of duck hunters 

coming out screaming that, why is the Service prohibiting my use 

of the air boat in my favorite hunting grounds? The next day I am 

in another county, and I have a group of hunters coming out 

screaming at me saying, why are you allowing air boats to be blasting through my favorite hunting spot? So there is an inherent conflict there even within the same group of duck hunters. But it has 

created a very controversial and contentious issue, and I am wondering if you are experiencing anything at your State. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. We haven’t experienced those type of issues. We 

have a very unique partnership I think with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in South Carolina. It is longstanding, it is very 

close. Our staff work very close together, sometimes on a day-today basis. We have a situation with air boats, too, but we have prohibited the use of air boats in a good bit of our coast because of 

the disturbance on ducks. And that is our biggest issue in South 

Carolina. As you can imagine, duck getting to South Carolina, it 

has probably been harassed a little bit along the route from Canada. Our mallards will circle for 30 minutes before they land. 

But we have been able to bring consensus to, I think, our public. 

We have been able to do that by working hand in hand with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. We sit at the table with the Service. We 

have staff assigned to the CCPs. We have biologists, in some cases 

a number of biologists, assigned to work on those teams through 

one of our staff. So I think it is just a matter of communicating 

with the public and, as Dale referenced, creating a team approach 

where we have a common agenda and we try to put a common vision out there for the public to understand. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Frampton. 

Mr. Horn, let me first thank you for your very thoughtful comments and testimony here today. And you note in your statement 

that the Improvement Act codified in the statute a policy of public 

use. And, as you said, that, ‘‘refuge units are not sanctuaries’’ to 

be set aside and left alone. 

68 

By that statement, is it safe to assume that you and your organization support increases in the Refuge System budget to facilitate 

public use? 

Mr. HORN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I think we noted 

the problems that are now afflicting the system because of the 

funding reductions. Fortunately, dollars going in peak coincident 

with the centennial and there has been a pretty severe backslide. 

And I would just offer one sort of gratuitous comment here, and 

that is I note we focused heavily on the refuge centennial and I had 

the good fortune of chairing that commission, and we spent 2 years 

kind of congratulating ourselves and looking to the future. I note 

with some envy as a refuge advocate that the Park Service is beginning its centennial celebration 9 years early with hundreds of 

millions of dollars being proposed. And I was thinking, maybe we 

should go back and do this again and we should be a little more 

greedy than we were. No. But I think clearly the funding issue 

needs to be addressed. 

I would say at one point, just another note. The Refuge System 

has had user fee entrance fee authority since 1987. This was 

passed, we negotiated when I was assistant secretary. It has not 

been used very extensively because there is not a lot of units where 

it works. Like Sanibel Island, it works beautifully down there. But 

I think it is safe to say that the user community, whether it is 

hunters, anglers, or bird watchers, there is not enough blood in 

that stone to really make that the source of the solution. I think 

that, as Mr. Young talked about earlier, we are going to have to 

be a lot more creative in coming up with a high dollar source to 

get at fixing this problem over time. 

Mr. KIND. I think we are certainly interested, and this goes to 

everyone here in attendance. If you have some ideas, some creative 

solutions as far as a dedicated funding stream, let’s talk. We 

should. We see the ramp-up at the centennial for the National Park 

Service right now and what is being done there, but I think part 

of the problem is, at least with the Park Service, is you have some 

pretty clear boundaries and ranger stations and gates that you 

pass through. And you don’t have that with refuge, and that is 

what makes it so unique and special. A lot of people are visiting 

our refuges and they are not even aware that they are in a refuge 

from time to time. So that presents some unique challenges as well. 

But I thank you again for being here. 

Mr. Brown, do you have anything further. 

Mr. BROWN. Nothing further. This has been a great exchange, 

and I appreciate you all being part of it. I am sorry I was late, but 

you know how those airlines run. Thank you so much. 

Mr. KIND. Anything? Again, I want to thank you all. And as I 

stated in the past, that these refuges that we have and the National Park Service, too, are really monuments to civilization. They 

are our great walls, our pyramids, our Taj Mahals, and we have 

a great charge facing us here today and especially the obligation 

for future generations. And hopefully with more concentration, 

with the work the committee does, with the refuge caucus that has 

been created, we are going to be able to figure this out as we move 

forward. So, again, I want to thank you all for being here and for 

your participation. 

69 

Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in 

writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these 

responses. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairman again thanks everyone for your attendance and your testimony, and thanks the members for participating. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A letter submitted for the record by Paul Bishop, Founder, 

Friends of the National Bison Range, follows:] 

October 18, 2007 

Honorable Madeleine Bordallo, Chair 

House Subcommittee on Fisheries Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Representatives 

187 Ford House Office Building 

Washington DC 

Re: National Bison Range, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes 

Dear Representative Bordallo, 

It was gratifying to learn of your committee’s recent hearing which touched on 

the current status of the National Bison Range and the controversial role there of 

the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes. The ongoing discussion about what has 

happened in the past, and what might happen in the future, regarding the Tribes 

involvement at the range is of great importance to our 70 member organization. As 

a group, we support maintaining the National Bison Range as a premier wildlife 

refuge and we also support a full and meaningful role for the Tribes. 

I founded this organization last fall, immediately after Tribal employees were escorted from the Range by armed federal law enforcement officers. As a ten-year 

range volunteer, with a family history at the range spanning 10 years before that, 

I speak from a unique base of knowledge. I have been involved in a key role at the 

Bison Range annual roundup under both U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Tribal 

systems. My mother was an eleven-year Federal employee at the Range prior to her 

retirement. As a non-member, I can personally attest to the quality and depth of 

the Tribe’s work, in spite of the one-sided reports and press releases put forth by 

the Service. Due to the relatively closed nature of the refuge system, I am one of 

the only people not directly related to either the Tribes or the Service who can accurately speak out about what has really happened, and also about how that can help 

shape any future relationship. 

Dale Hall, the Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, recently told your committee that the original Bison Range AFA was ‘‘structured to fail’’ and I couldn’t 

agree more. However, I believe that it was the Service who engineered a one-sided 

and pre-determined assessment of the Tribe’s capabilities in a heavy-handed effort 

to prevent their success. My personal experience shows that the Tribes are fully capable of managing not only those aspects of the range operations granted to them 

in the original AFA, but that they are more than well qualified to take over the 

entire operation. Many reasonable people in this region, with close links to the 

Bison Range, agree. 

The crux of the current discussion appears to be the level at which the Tribes 

would participate. The Service has made their position well known, that they value 

Tribal involvement at the Range. However, when examined more closely, the offers 

are actually just for low level employment positions under direct control of the Service. The Tribes, with their skilled natural resources capabilities, proven business 

management history, and undeniable sovereignty, are naturally disinterested. 

And, unfortunately, this discussion cannot be complete without looking at the sad 

truth of institutional racism. For example, under the original AFA, the Service intentionally placed a Federal employee with a known background of many years of 

anti-tribal agitation in a direct working relationship with the Tribal staff. The Service also intentionally played up old racial stereotypes at every opportunity. When 

the smoke cleared a bit this winter, it became obvious that the Service had purposefully submarined the original AFA, gutted their own refuge of staff and resources, 

and attempted to cut the bison herd size by two thirds in what many independent 

70 

observers, including the editorial board of the largest newspaper in the region, 

called a ‘‘burn the village’’ mentality. 

What is needed, clearly, is a true government-to-government relationship, not a 

few positions held open for Tribal members in a make-work program which the 

Service can point to as evidence of progress. Congress opened the self-determination 

door which the Tribes are walking through. We owe them a fair and balanced 

chance to prove their abilities, on a level playing field and working under a legitimate agreement. Our group requests that you use your powerful committee to direct 

the Service to negotiate a new and well crafted AFA, on that essential governmentto-government basis, with the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes. 

Some in the Service have attempted to discredit our organization because we 

refuse to be a rubber stamp for their goals. In truth, we represent a balanced middle 

ground and we welcome the opportunity to bring forth a perspective that you perhaps have not yet heard. 

Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding this issue. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Paul Bishop, Founder, Friends of the National Bison Range 

[A statement submitted for the record by James Steele, Jr., 

Chairman, Tribal Council, The Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Pablo, Montana, follows:] 

Statement of James Steele, Jr., Chairman of the 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

During the October 9, 2007 oversight hearing held by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, there was some discussion 

about the status of a pending Tribal Self-Governance Annual Funding Agreement 

at the National Bison Range (NBR), which is located entirely within the Flathead 

Indian Reservation in western Montana. In response to a question from Mr. Kildee 

on the status of that Annual Funding Agreement (AFA), the Director of the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Dale Hall replied to the effect that the FWS had 

made a proposal for an ‘‘agreement’’ (rather than a Self-Governance Annual Funding 

Agreement) to the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes (CSKT or Tribes) a couple 

of months ago and further indicated that the Tribes had not really reengaged in the 

discussions and negotiation process. 

Nothing could be further from the truth and on behalf of CSKT, I would like the 

record to clearly reflect that FWS has repeatedly refused to even discuss a Tribal 

Self-Governance agreement since it abruptly terminated the FY 2005-06 AFA for the 

NBR (which had been extended into FY 2007) on the basis of allegations which had 

not been shared with CSKT and for which CSKT was not provided any opportunity 

to respond. CSKT would also like the record to reflect exactly what sort of new ‘‘cooperative agreement’’ FWS has recently proposed due to its refusal to discuss a 

Tribal Self-Governance agreement. 

By way of background, in 1994, the House Natural Resources Committee reported 

H.R. 3508 and H.R. 4842. After negotiations with the Senate, H.R. 4842 was 

signed into law on October 25, 1994 as PL 103-413. This is the legislation that permanently authorized the Tribal Self-Governance Act. Under Self-Governance an 

Indian Tribe can administer and manage programs, activities, functions and services previously managed by the federal agency in question. For Interior Department 

programs outside of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Tribal Self-Governance Act 

included language authorizing Self Governance Annual Funding Agreements (AFA) 

for programs, services, function and activities that are of special geographic, historical or cultural significance to a tribe requesting an agreement. Committee report 

language (see page 10 of H. Rept. 103-653) specifically references programs operated 

by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and goes on to state that any Interior program 

‘‘[c]arried out by the Secretary within the exterior boundaries of a reservation shall 

be presumptively eligible for inclusion in the Self-governance funding agreement.’’ 

[emphasis added] 

Immediately after President Clinton signed the Tribal Self-Governance Act into 

law, CSKT made known its interest in negotiating an AFA under that Act for contracting local management activities of the NBR. CSKT encountered resistance and 

years of dilatory tactics from FWS and was unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement until December 2004, when an FY 2005-06 Self-Governance AFA 

was signed involving limited contracting of biology, visitor service, maintenance and 

fire activities at the NBR. 

71 

While working alongside FWS staff under that AFA, CSKT continued to experience on-the-ground resistance from FWS staff and officials, mostly in the form of 

repeated lack of communication and cooperation. CSKT repeatedly raised these 

problems to FWS regional officials but the problems continued until December 11, 

2006, when FWS abruptly terminated the AFA, as well as negotiations for a successor AFA, on the basis of allegations which FWS had never shared with CSKT 

and to which CSKT was never provided an opportunity to respond. 

The same week this AFA was terminated by FWS, the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes were told by an Interior official that FWS Director Dale Hall had 

met with Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett and Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs Jim Cason and they all had agreed to ‘‘immediately’’ enter into a new SelfGovernance AFA with CSKT. That very week, at the Department’s request, CSKT 

submitted proposed changes for the new AFA. This agreement by the FWS Director 

and Interior officials was later memorialized in a memo from Deputy Secretary 

Scarlett dated December 29, 2006 [see Attachment #1 for copy of memo]. 

Following January 2007 meetings with Director Hall and other federal officials on 

the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana, CSKT contacted FWS to initiate negotiations for the new Self-Governance AFA. FWS refused to talk to CSKT about a 

new AFA and referred Tribal representatives instead to the Department of the Interior (DOI). CSKT was told to submit its proposed Self-Governance AFA directly to 

Interior officials, which it did on February 6, 2007. 

In the following weeks, CSKT Tribal Chairman James Steele, Jr. sent two letters 

to FWS Regional Director Mitch King, offering assistance at the NBR pending the 

effective date of a new Self-Governance agreement. The first letter was dated February 16, 2007 and, in addition to an offer of general assistance, it: 1) inquired 

about filling a vacant NBR biologist position through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment; and 2) requested to start work, jointly with FWS staff, 

on drafting a five year operations plan for the NBR per the direction laid out in 

Deputy Secretary Scarlett’s December 29, 2006 memo memorializing her agreement 

with FWS Director Dale Hall. 

The only response to the February 16, 2007 letter which CSKT received from FWS 

was a three-sentence letter dated March 14, 2007 in which FWS Regional Director 

Mitch King stated that FWS had decided to handle NBR biologist duties by using 

a biologist stationed in Bozeman, Montana (which is located four hours away from 

the NBR). The Regional Director’s letter did not respond to CSKT’s general offer of 

assistance pending a new Self-Governance AFA, nor did it respond to CSKT’s request to initiate the joint FWS-CSKT development of the five year operations plan 

for the NBR, per direction of Deputy Secretary Scarlett and FWS Director Hall. 

At this point, the Tribal Chairman sent a letter to Deputy Secretary Scarlett, 

dated March 19, 2007 which expressed concern over FWS resistance to: 1) a SelfGovernance AFA for the NBR; and 2) the policy of Tribal Self-Governance in general. The letter also requested a meeting with the Deputy Secretary. 

The Tribal Chairman’s second letter to the FWS Regional Director, dated 

March 26, 2007, expressed concern about FWS not stationing any biologist at the 

NBR itself. The Chairman reiterated CSKT’s prior offers to: 1) assist in any work 

needing to be done at the NBR pending a new Self-Governance AFA becoming effective; and 2) start the process of developing the joint five year NBR operations plan. 

Lastly, the March 26th letter expressed CSKT’s concern about the lack of response 

from FWS with respect to the FWS Director and Deputy Secretary’s agreement to 

enter into a new Tribal Self-Governance AFA at the NBR. CSKT received no response to this letter. 

The lack of response from FWS to these offers of assistance, combined with 

CSKT’s concerns for fire protection at the NBR, compelled CSKT to write an 

April 2, 2007 letter to Deputy Secretary Scarlett, copied to FWS and NBR officials. 

This letter expressed CSKT’s concern for fire preparedness and fire suppression at 

the NBR in 2007, and offered CSKT’s assistance on those specific issues. As a result 

of the letter, CSKT and FWS entered into a mutual aid assistance agreement for 

fire suppression at the NBR which went into effect prior to the start of the 2007 

fire season. 

In addition to the above-referenced letters, CSKT continued to communicate with 

various DOI officials as the Department considered the proposed Self-Governance 

AFA submitted by CSKT pursuant to Deputy Secretary Scarlett’s December 29th 

memo. On April 11, 2007, CSKT Tribal Chairman James Steele, Jr., met with Deputy Secretary Scarlett and other Interior officials in Washington, D.C. to discuss the 

pending AFA. At this meeting, Deputy Secretary Scarlett referenced the Tribal SelfGovernance Act and reiterated her commitment to completing a new Self-Governance AFA, as she and Dale Hall had agreed to do in December. She also stated that 

72 

she firmly believed that, if any non-BIA program was intended for tribal contracting 

by the Tribal Self-Governance process, it was the National Bison Range. 

Two days prior to that meeting (April 9th), while most of the CSKT delegation 

was in transit to Washington, D.C., a regional FWS official met with CSKT officials 

on the Flathead Indian Reservation and: 1) announced that FWS was reducing the 

NBR staff from approximately twenty (20) permanent positions down to seven (7) 

permanent positions (providing CSKT with a new, signed organizational chart); 2) 

announced that FWS would be reducing the NBR bison herd; and 3) offered CSKT 

an undefined ‘‘cooperative agreement’’ for work at the NBR and a very few positions. 

FWS presented a letter to this effect dated April 6, 2007. This letter did not respond to CSKT Tribal Chairman James Steele Jr.’s letters to FWS Regional Director 

Mitch King dated February 16, 2007 and March 26, 2007, in which CSKT had offered assistance at the NBR pending a new Self-Governance AFA and had requested 

to start some of the activities which Deputy Secretary Scarlett and FWS Director 

Dale Hall had agreed upon as a course of action towards a new Tribal Self-Governance agreement. When CSKT told Deputy Secretary Scarlett and the other Interior 

officials at the April 11th meeting about FWS’ April 9th offer of a cooperative 

agreement, none of them knew anything about it—including the acting Assistant 

Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

CSKT was perplexed at FWS’ offer for a lesser, competing, agreement to the SelfGovernance AFA which its parent department was in the process of evaluating due 

to FWS’ refusal to even discuss it. During the April 9th meeting, the CSKT Natural 

Resources Department Head asked the FWS regional official for a written description of the proposed cooperative agreement. By letter dated April 27, 2007, FWS responded. In that letter, FWS specifically acknowledged that CSKT continued to seek 

an Annual Funding Agreement to operate/manage the NBR as part of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. However, FWS said it was offering an ‘‘alternative partnership’’ in the form of a ‘‘cooperative agreement.’’ The letter ambiguously said that a 

cooperative agreement could provide ‘‘a role for CSKT’’ and went on to describe an 

arrangement wherein CSKT could provide a few staff to fill FWS positions at the 

NBR, but no contracting opportunities were identified. The FWS letter did not explain why FWS was offering a cooperative agreement instead of a Tribal Self-Governance AFA, nor did it explain why FWS would offer CSKT a loosely-defined cooperative agreement which involved no contracting of programs while the Interior Department was simultaneously considering, and committed to, a more substantial 

Self-Governance AFA for contracting of NBR programs, as agreed upon by the Deputy Secretary and the FWS Director. 

CSKT Natural Resource Department Head Clayton Matt sent FWS Regional 

Refuge Supervisor Dean Rundle a letter dated May 8, 2007 asking for an explanation of how FWS’ offer of a loosely-defined ‘‘cooperative agreement’’ related to the 

Self-Governance AFA which FWS Director Dale Hall had agreed to re-establish pursuant to his discussion with Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. This May 8th letter 

also asked how FWS’ cooperative agreement proposal related to FWS’ stated objective to enter into more Tribal Self-Governance agreements, as published in the 

March 23, 2007 Federal Register, pp.13820-22 [see Attachment #2 for copy of Federal Register notice]. In that Federal Register notice, FWS continues to list National 

Bison Range programs as being eligible for Tribal Self-Governance contracting and, 

under the heading ‘‘Programmatic Targets’’, FWS states unconditionally that ‘‘upon 

request of a self-governance tribe, the Fish and Wildlife Service will negotiate funding agreements for its eligible programs beyond those already negotiated.’’ Despite 

this, FWS again did not respond to CSKT’s letter and has never explained the conflict between what it published in the Federal Register and its ongoing refusal to 

discuss a Self-Governance agreement for the NBR. The Interior Department’s Tribal 

Self-Governance Policies are also noteworthy and should be juxtaposed with the positions taken by the FWS [see Attachment #3]. 

In July, FWS faxed CSKT a new two page description of its proposal for a cooperative agreement, this one accompanied by an unapproved, organizational chart for 

NBR staff which was different than what had been provided to CSKT during the 

April 9th meeting. On July 30, 2007, CSKT representatives met with FWS representatives to discuss the FWS proposal, and CSKT attempted to flesh out exactly 

what type of contracting the cooperative agreement proposal would involve. 

After this July 30th meeting, CSKT sent FWS an August 15, 2007 letter expressing concerns about the cooperative agreement proposal, pointing out that many 

boilerplate issues necessary to a successful agreement were already addressed in 

CSKT’s proposed Self-Governance AFA, as well as the parties’ FY 2005-06 Self-Governance AFA, and recommended the parties use that document as a basis for further negotiations. CSKT requested FWS to: 1) notify CSKT in writing of any reasons 

it may have for not considering a Tribal Self-Governance AFA; and 2) identify the 

73 

legal authorities which would govern FWS’ proposal for a cooperative agreement. 

CSKT also indicated its support for the DOI suggestion of facilitated negotiations 

for a new AFA, given the difficult history CSKT has had with FWS over the past 

13 years to secure a fair Tribal Self-Governance contracting agreement at the NBR. 

By letter dated August 21, 2007, FWS responded. Amongst other things, the FWS 

response: 

1) rejected the idea of facilitated negotiations for a new agreement; 

2) confirmed it would not contract any activities to CSKT, as authorized by the 

Tribal Self-Governance Act, but would only entertain IPA assignments for individuals to take direction from the FWS Refuge Manager; 

3) responded to CSKT’s questions about how FWS’ cooperative agreement proposal comports with the outstanding commitment by FWS and DOI to enter 

into a new Tribal Self-Governance AFA with CSKT for NBR programs. FWS 

responded by simply stating that ‘‘[r]egardless of any prior communication between various officials of our governments, the United States is not offering 

to use the CSKT’s proposed 2007 AFA as a basis for negotiation’’; and 

4) responded to CSKT’s request for any reasons FWS may have for not considering a Tribal Self-Governance agreement. FWS explicitly disparaged federal 

Tribal Self-Governance policies with the following blanket statements: 

[W]e believe that an AFA is the antithesis of partnership. The reason 

we will not consider a Tribal Self-Governance agreement is that we are 

absolutely convinced such an agreement is unworkable. The poorly written regulations for implementing an AFA, in themselves, create an adversarial condition that prevents partnership from occurring. The regulations do not provide an intelligent method to achieve land management objectives. 

Those statements attacking the concept of Tribal Self-Governance (and its own 

Department’s regulations) are ironic given the Interior Department’s successful history of implementing Tribal Self-Governance agreements. Hundreds of agreements 

have been signed and/or renewed over the last thirteen years since the program was 

made permanent. The above-referenced FWS views on Self-Governance are representative of the attitudes which CSKT has consistently encountered from local 

and regional FWS officials and staff since CSKT initiated efforts to secure a SelfGovernance agreement in 1994. 

It bears mentioning that, after CSKT staff had been ejected from the NBR (by 

armed FWS law enforcement agents) on December 12, 2006, the CSKT Tribal Council temporarily reassigned those workers and, at considerable expense, kept them 

on the tribal payroll pending the effective date of the new Self-Governance AFA to 

which the Department had committed. The salaries/wages for these employees were 

paid for by tribal, not federal, dollars. In August, when it became clear that FWS 

did not intend to honor its commitment to a new Self-Governance AFA, the Tribal 

Council informed these staffers that, after the end of FY 2007, it could no longer 

keep paying for their temporary duty stations out of tribal dollars, and urged that 

they look for permanent employment, either through directed reassignments within 

the Tribal government or elsewhere. 

CSKT remains willing to negotiate a new Tribal Self-Governance agreement for 

the National Bison Range, as the FWS Director and Interior Deputy Secretary had 

agreed to do last December. Under any Self-Governance AFA, the National Bison 

Range would remain a federally-owned National Wildlife Refuge subject to applicable federal laws and regulations. It would remain part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and would remain under the administration and oversight of the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, with only local operations contracted by CSKT under 

the authority of the Tribal Self-Governance Act. It would very much be a partnership between FWS and CSKT, with CSKT being responsible for local activities, 

while FWS would still provide direction and overall administration of the NBR as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This is a highly unique matter. CSKT is unaware of any other situation where 

a National Wildlife Refuge: 

1) is located wholly within an Indian reservation; 

2) includes ancillary National Wildlife Refuges which are located on triballyowned land (Ninepipe and Pablo National Wildlife Refuges); and 

3) includes animals which descend from herds that were originally maintained by 

tribal members at a time when those animals were faced with the threat of 

extinction. 

These characteristics all distinguish the National Bison Range situation from that 

of any other Refuge situation and are the primary reasons many people believe that 

NBR activities are precisely what was intended for tribal contracting under Section 

204 of the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. § 458cc(c)). As Montana’s 

74 

former Congressman, Pat Williams, stated in a May 20, 2007 editorial: ‘‘the Bison 

Range remains a prime candidate for collaborative operations between [FWS] and 

the Salish and Kootenai Tribes under the Tribal Self-Governance Act. That is precisely what we in the Congress intended.’’ 

On September 3, 2003, the New York Times published an editorial strongly endorsing tribal management of the NBR. Below are excerpted sections of that editorial. 

The National Bison Range 

[N]o one disputes the excellent management and conservation record of the Salish 

and Kootenai. 

The Salish and Kootenai have a deep historical connection with the particular 

bison herd on this refuge—quite apart from the conventional associations of Indians 

and buffalo—and a strong cultural or historical link is one of the legal conditions 

for enacting an agreement of this kind, which would basically employ the tribes to 

manage the federal program. The National Bison Range is wholly enclosed by the 

reservation the Salish and Kootenai live on, and the tribes would be obliged to manage the refuge according to plans established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The National Bison Range is an unusual case. It offers a rare convergence of public and tribal interests. If the Salish and Kootenai can reach an agreement with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, something will not have been taken from the public. Something will have been added to it. 

CSKT appreciates the support of the House Natural Resources Committee leadership, as evidenced by the May 15, 2007 letter from Chairman Nick Rahall and 

Ranking Minority Member Don Young to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne [see 

Attachment #4 for copy of letter]. In that letter, the Committee leadership made 

clear that a Self-Governance AFA at the National Bison Range is ‘‘a logical partnership under both the [National Wildlife Refuge] Administration Act and the Tribal 

Self-Governance Act.’’ 

CSKT further appreciates the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans’ 

interest in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, and the support its members have indicated for Tribal Self-Governance partnerships. CSKT hopes that this 

statement helps to clarify the status of a Tribal Self-Governance AFA at the National Bison Range in response to questions that were raised about the AFA at the 

hearing. 

A final thought we wish to share with the Committee is that we remain committed to working with the FWS to enter into a Self Governance AFA at the Bison 

Range. We believe such an agreement will benefit not only our Tribes but the Bison 

Range itself and public’s enjoyment and use of it. It is ironic that in the FWS’ zealous protection of their turf that they have lost sight of the benefits such a partnership could create. As the NY Times editorial so aptly points out, partnering with 

CSKT would not take something away from the NBR it would add something. Beyond bringing in the culture, history and innovation that CSKT would add is the 

fact that the Bison Range is underfunded and partnering with the CSKT would in 

fact open up avenues of supplemental funding. That the FWS would turn down that 

opportunity is perhaps the most classic example we have seen of cutting off one’s 

nose to spite one’s face. We hope a Self Governance AFA can still be reached. 

Attachments (4) 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Æ