NATIONAL WILDUFE REFUGFS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOl\iMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

\VILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMl\iiTTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE EXPANSION OF AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE EDWIN 

B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

H.R. 1112-A BILL TO TRANSFER MANAGEMENT OF THE 

TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN OKLAHOMA TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

H.R. 1675-A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966 TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

92-952cc • 

APRIL 22, 1995-BARNEGAT, NJ 

MAY 16, 25, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-21 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVER!'.'MEl'-.'T PRTh'TING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047662-3 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califurrua 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Califorrua 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, Califorrua 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi'l 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk I Administrator 

JOHN LA\VRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND 0CE&'<S 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

S&\1 FARR, California 

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director 

BONNIE BRUCE, Professional Staff 

CHRISTOPHER STER.'IS, Democratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

EDWIN B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Hearing held April 22, 1995, Barnegat, NJ ......................................................... .. Statement of Members: 

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans ........................... .. Statement of Witnesses: 

Casselman, Tracy, Manager of Forsythe Wildlife Preserve ........................ .. Connor, Donald, Chief, Division of Realty, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................... .. deCamp, William, Jr., President, Ocean County Izaak Walton League .... .. Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Front, Alan, Vice President, The Trust for Public Land .............................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Gormley, Tom, President, Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum ... . Howard, George, Executive Director, New Jersey State Federation of 

Sportsmen's Clubs ........................................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Koons, Joan, Vice President, Alliance for a Living Ocean .......................... .. McDowell, Robert, Director of Fish and Game, New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection ....................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . 

TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Hearing held May 16, 1995 ................................................................................... .. Text ofH.R. 1112 .................................................................................................... . Statement of Members: 

Brewster, Hon. Bill K., a U.S. Representative from Oklahoma .................. . Geren, Hon. Pete, a U.S. Representative from Texas ................................. .. Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans ........................... .. Studds, Hon. Gerry E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ........... . Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources ............................................................................ .. Statement of Witnesses: 

Beattie, Mollie, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................ .. Pr~ared statement ................................................................................. .. 

Duff~re;:~f~~f::!~~· .~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~: .. ~~.~~-~~~:~.~~-~~~~~~~~~ .. Kaufman, Nancy, Director, Southwestern Region, USFWS ....................... .. Merchant, Ginger, Executive Vice President, National Wildlife Refuge 

Association ................................................................................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Pennington, K.E., retired educator ............................................................... .. 

Ritt!.~D~~~<biu~~=~b~p~~~t·~r·wiidilr~·c~~~~~~;;i~~·:::::::::::::::::::::: 

shJ::E::e:r~~~~~hi~f,-ni~~i~~-~i&;r~i~~:·usFws··::::::::::::::::::::::::: Waltman, James, Wilderness Society ........................................................... .. 

(Ill) 

Page 

1 

2 

28 

23 

6 

43 

10 

47 

9 

4 

40 

8 

26 

50 

53 

83 

55 

58 

53 

54 

54 

62 

85 

75 

110 

62 

71 

97 

74 

109 

77 

110 

62 

72 
IV 

Statement of Witnesses-Continued 

Waltman, James, Wilderness Society-Continued 

Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Williamson, Lonnie L., Wildlife Management Institute (prepared statement) ............................................................................................................. . 

Add~~~~~a~SJ!lleus~~~~: ............................................................................... . 

~~~1!a;~~!ti~~e~~~~.::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Trotline mortality ..................................................................................... . Communications submitted: 

Lewis, Wilma A. (DOl): Memorandum with attachment of December 16, 

1994, to Tom Collier on inherently Federal functions ............................. .. Taylor, Dr. Connie (Oklahoma Academy of Science): Letter of May 8, 

1995, to Hon. Jim Saxton containing a resolution ................................... .. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT ACT 

Page 

103 

113 

69 

68 

67 

118 

116 

Hearings held: May 25, 1995, Washington, DC .................................................... 135 

Text ofH.R. 1675 and analysis .............................................................................. 173 

Statement of Members: 

C?oley, Hon. Wes, a U.S. Representative f~om Orego~ .. :.............................. 141 

Dmgell, Hon. John D., a U.S. Representative from M1ch1gan ...................... 196 

Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ..................... 138, 202 

Meehan, Hon. Martin T., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ......... 139 

Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., a U.S. Representative from California ................ 195 

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans . ............................ 135 

Studds, Hon. Gerry E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ............ 136 

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .............................................................................. 137 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ashe, William C., National Wildlife Refuge Association (prepared statement) ............................................................................................................. . Beattie, Mollie, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Bollman, D. Patrick, President, Safari Club International (prepared statement) ............................................................................................................. . Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (prepared statement) ................... .. Gottschalk, JohnS .......................................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . 

255 

143 

209 

225 

287 

166 

252 

Grandy, Dr. John W., on behalf of The Humane Society of the United 

H~.twrllf~!~d J:~:re~;> N'~t:i~~~i' Aif~i·~;'\v~~hi;;!it~;·~~~;~~Cwiid: 282 

life Legislative Fund of America ................................................................ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . In Defense of Animals (prepared statement) ............................................... .. Lamson, Susan, Director of Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources 

157 

222 

288 

Division, National Rifle Association ............................................................ 161 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 235 

Merchant, Ginger, Executive Vice President, National Wildlife Refuge 

Association ..................................................................................................... 167 

Parsons, Richard, counsel for government affairs, Safari Club International .......................................................................................................... 159 

Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International Association 

ofFish and Wildlife Agencies ..................................................................... . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Sparrowe, Rollin, President, Wildlife Management Institute ..................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Waltman, James R., Director of Refuges and Wildlife Program, The Wil162 

238 

164 

244 

derness Society .............................................................................................. 168 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 270 

Additional material supplied: Background on Leased Lands in Klamath Basin .......................................... 204 
v 

Additional material supplied-Continued Fish and Wildlife Service: Survey and evaluation of wetlands and wildlife 

habitat ........................................................................................................... . Communications submitted: 

Dewey, Robert (Defenders of Wildlife): Letter of June 23, 1995, to Hon. 

James Saxton .............................................................................................. .. Herbst, Robert L., and Nathaniel P. Reed: Letter of May 25, 1995, to 

M~;:~. DA~z~~n~. ··is~~··~f'·n~i~~~~~); .. ~;;f~~·~f':i~n; .. 2iCi'9'9'is'.'.~th attachments to Subcommittee ..................................................................... . Wildlife Legislative Fund of America: Letter of June 3, 1994, to Sen. 

Robert C. Byrd ............................................................................................. . 

Page 

293 

317 

292 

311 

306 

THE EDWIN B. FORSYTHE NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Barnegat, NJ. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., at the 

Barnegat Municipal Court Building, 900 West Bay Avenue, Municipal Courtroom, Barnegat, New Jersey, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SAXTON. Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone 

here, except that I am not really the person who should be doing 

the welcoming. The mayor is here with us, Vic DiGangi, and I 

would like to ask the mayor if he would like to start the meeting 

this morning for us with a few words of welcome or whatever he 

would like to say. 

Mr. DIGANGI. I would just like to welcome everyone to our lovely 

city of Barnegat. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and honor to 

introduce to you a congressman, the Honorable Jim Saxton, and his 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. 

So, without further ado, I will turn it over to you, Congressman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, mayor, thank you very much. It is a pleasure 

to be in your beautiful town once again. I guess it has been anumber of years since I have been in this building and in this room. 

I probably should not admit that, but it is always a pleasure to 

come here and to have taken part in a variety of programs over the 

years. 

Before we start, I just saw Mr. deCamp come into the room--

Ms. MILLER. And then he walked back out. 

Mr. SAXTON.-and then he went back out. OK. He will be back 

in a minute. And when he does, if somebody would just direct him 

to his seat, that would be wonderful. 

Let me first thank everyone for being here this morning. I would 

like to introduce the people on my left and on my right. 

Sharon McKenna is a staffer with me in Washington on the Fisheries, Wildlife and Ocean Subcommittee. She works directly with 

me. Sharon worked with me on my personal staff in Washington 

for four years. And, incidentally, her home town is Barnegat, New 

Jersey. So, she is right here where she should be. 

And John Rayfield is also chief counsel to the subcommittee. Is 

that your title? 

Mr. RAYFIELD. Counsel. 

(1) 
2 

Mr. SAXTON. Whatever. Counsel to the subcommittee, a real expert on issues that have to do with fish and wildlife and oceans. 

And we are very fortunate to have him on the subcommittee staff. 

And I am very pleased that he is here with me this morning to 

help me. 

STATEMENT OF RON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. I have a short statement that I would like to make 

to try to frame the issue that we are here to discuss this morning. 

The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans is a new committee. We are an offshoot of the Merchant Marine Committee and 

the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee that was there. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony regarding 

the expansion of and public access to the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. The subcommittee chose to meet in Barnegat because in 1984 the Barnegat and Brigantine National Wildlife Refuges were formally designated as the Edwin B. Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge in memory of the late congressman and 

my predecessor. 

The Forsythe Refuge has expanded greatly since this consolidation, acquiring refuge lands encompassing more than 40,000 acres 

of predominantly estuarine marsh habitat that grades into brackish and freshwater wetlands. 

The barrier islands ecosystem and upland forest and fields have 

increased the biodiversity of the refuge to a great extent. 

Our witnesses today will speak of the importance of open space 

in this densely populated area and of the recreational opportunities 

and ecological benefits of open space. 

Indeed, our witnesses are largely supportive of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's aggressive land acquisition strategy in Ocean 

County. In fact, many of them have worked together to make this 

refuge expansion a reality. 

But there are concerns about the issue of public access to recently acquired parcels of the refuge. And I believe it is safe to say 

that those concerns come from many individuals and from many directions. I would just like to take a couple of minutes to frame 

those issues for us this morning. 

The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act authorizes the 

Secretary to allow activities on refuges as long as those activities 

are compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. Obviously, everyone knows what the major purposes 

are and that is to preserve open space and to provide a home and 

a place for critters of various species to propagate. 

We set forth the laws and executive orders establishing individual refuges. Those purposes range from very narrow (for example, 

preserving and managing the habitat for a single species) to relatively broad issues (such as, conserving waterfowl). 

Currently, the law does not include a list of purposes for the Refuge System as a whole. At this time, hunting takes place on 272 

refuges and fishing on 254, including the opening of four refuges 

to hunting and one to fishing in 1994 alone. 
3 

There are also secondary uses. Refuge managers are responsible 

for determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether activities on refuges are compatible with the primary uses or the primary objectives. 

Accordingly, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual, an activity on a refuge" ... may be determined to be 

compatible if it will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the purposes[s] for which the refuge was established." 

Management of a refuge has been the focus of several studies in 

the last two decades, including two General Accounting Office reports, two reports of the advisory boards of the Interior Department and a report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These reports highlighted the fact that refuges are not managed as 

a national system because of the lack of centralized guidance to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and because of individual characteristics of individual refuges and need for them. 

In 1992, several environmental groups (including the Defenders 

of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society and the Wilderness Society) sued former Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan for authorizing 

and otherwise allowing secondary uses on refuges without ensuring 

that these uses were compatible with those refuges. 

In October, 1993, a settlement was reached with the National 

Audubon Society v. Babbitt, in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service agreed to expeditiously terminate many secondary uses 

within one year, unless the agency determined in writing that the 

use is compatible or was compatible with the primary purposes of 

the refuge on which it occurs. 

In addition, the settlement agreement requires the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to determine within one year whether funds are 

available for development and maintenance of recreational activities that are underway under their authority and that are not directly related to the primary purpose of the refuge. 

Upon completion of the one-year study, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it had found that there were about nine 

cases altogether of activities being incompatible with the fundamental purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

In no instance was it determined that hunting or fishing was not 

compatible. In fact, the biggest problem facing the Refuge System 

was not wildlife-dependent activities, but other human activities 

such as motorized devices and even foot traffic and jogging. 

And, so, we note these concerns. We also note that the wildlife 

expansion process is well underway and healthy in New Jersey because it enjoys broad citizen support. One of the things that is absolutely necessary for us to do is to continue to have that broad 

support. 

Just last week, we added some 350 acres near here to the Wildlife Refuge; cut the ribbon on it, with broad public support. We 

want to continue that support. 

And, so, one of the issues that we will look at closely today is 

the process under which and through which we determine what 

uses are compatible and, perhaps, which are not. 

So, without further comment, I will introduce our first panel 

today-people who have been involved in this issue for years and 

people with whom I have worked on many projects of like nature. 
4 

And, so, let me begin by introducing Mr. George Howard who 

goes back a long way with this issue and others like it. He is currently the executive director of the New Jersey State Federation of 

Sportsmen. 

And then we will hear from Mr. Willie deCamp who was and has 

been and will be most instrumental in the acquisition process with 

regard to the Forsythe. He is president of the Ocean County Izaak 

Walton League. 

And we will turn, then, to Ms. Joan Koons, the president of the 

Alliance for a Living Ocean, an extremely active group of environmentalist that have worked since 1987, I believe, with regard to issues that have to do with the coastal area. 

And then to Mr. Tom Gormley, one of my long-time friends and 

a very active guy in the southern part of Ocean County. He is 

president and co-founder of a new-well, I guess it is not new anymore, but it is still emerging-Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's 

Museum organization. 

And, then, a good friend, Alan Front who is vice president of The 

Trust for Public Land, also who has been extremely instrumental 

in the expansion of the preserve of the refuge. 

Let me just remind you that there is a little series of lights there 

in front of you. The red light will come on at the end of five minutes. That is just as a reminder, kind of a timer, to let you know 

where you are. 

We are not going to stop you at five minutes because we know 

that you have important testimony to be presented and we want 

to get the full benefit of it, but that will let you know that five minutes has gone by and that if you could conclude at some reasonable 

period after that, it would be great. 

So, Mr. Howard, welcome this morning and welcome to all of you. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HOWARD, EXECUTWE DIRECTOR, 

NEW JERSEY STATE FEDERATION OF SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Congressman. 

First of all, on behalf of the State Federation of Sportsmen, I 

would like to thank the Congressman and also the committee for 

bringing this hearing to Barnegat, especially since it is related to 

an issue that is of tremendous importance to all of us. 

The 150,000 member New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs appreciates the opportunity to address the subcommittee today relative to the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the future acquisition strategy for the southern expansion 

area. 

We are particularly interested in addressing public access to Forsythe and other New Jersey refuges for compatible wildlife-related 

activities such as fishing, hunting, birding, trapping, crabbing, 

clamming, et cetera. 

Over the years, sportsmen in New Jersey have experienced a 

deep frustration relative to the Service's recreational use policies 

on national wildlife refuges in our state. 

Instead of encouraging compatible wildlife-oriented recreation, 

many refuge managers in New Jersey and the northeast region 
5 

seem to have an "inviolate sanctuary" mentality when it comes to 

the public's use of "their" refuge. 

For example, in New Jersey no refuge permits small game hunting. Except for Lily Lake in Forsythe, no refuge in New Jersey permits freshwater fishing. Fall bow hunting is prohibited on all national wildlife refuge lands in New Jersey. Birding is prohibited on 

most refuge lands here. 

It is of interest to compare public access policies on State Fish 

and Game Division operated wildlife management areas which sit 

side-by-side with many national wildlife refuges in New Jersey. 

On the state wildlife areas, compatible wildlife-related recreation 

uses are encouraged and permitted from the day the areas are acquired, unless a problem is identified. 

On the adjoining national wildlife refuge lands, no wildlife-related uses are permitted until the use in question can be documented 

to be compatible in a process that takes years, if not decades, to 

accomplish. This negative approach to compatible public use certainly does not represent encouragement. 

In 1971, the Service began acquiring Supawna National Wildlife 

Refuge in Salem County, New Jersey. At about the same time, the 

nearby Mad Horse Creek State Wildlife Management Area was 

being acquired. 

Some 20-plus years later, Supawna is just opening its first waterfowl season on a mere 4.5 percent of the refuge. Birders a.nd 

small game hunters are still considered non-entities. 

In the same time period on the nearby Mad Horse Wildlife Management Area, literally tens of thousands of people days of waterfowl hunting, birding and small game hunting have been enjoyed 

by the New Jersey public over most of the tract. 

In light of this, sportsmen have concerns as to why these two 

agencies are managing similar lands so differently. 

To have the national wildlife refuge lands closed to public use for 

years and even decades because no one has bothered or has the 

wherewithal to complete the necessary management plans opens the Service to charges of being unsympathetic to the needs of today's recreational users and erodes support for the entire National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Because of its negative approach to wildlife-related recreational 

users, the Service is losing the support of its formerly most ardent 

advocates. 

In conclusion, I would like to state that New Jersey sportsmen 

see the National Wildlife Refuge System as a potentially tremendous asset to the wildlife resources of our state, as well as to the 

future recreational users of these resources, if they are properly 

managed. 

We have been encouraged by the recent changes that we see in 

recreational use policies being developed for some national wildlife 

refuge areas. 

In particular, we applaud the efforts of Service personnel at the 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge which has resulted in a public 

access policy for deer hunting which accommodates compatible recreational activities at Cape May. 

We trust that the Cape May deer-hunting policy will prove to be 

a model for public access plans for other New Jersey wildlife ref-
6 

uges, rather than the "exception to the rule" which it now represents. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is far too important to the 

future of our wildlife, as well as to the quality of life of our citizens, 

to be the recipient of anything less than our best effort relative to 

the planning for its future. 

A big part of its future in New Jersey should be to encourage and 

to maximize where possible compatible-and I emphasize "compatible"-wildlife-related recreational activities for New Jersey citizens on National Wildlife Refuge System lands. 

With proper planning and management, the New Jersey National Wildlife Refuge System of the future should prove to be at 

least as important to our citizens as it is to our wildlife. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Howard may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We want to thank you very much, Mr. Howard. 

Mr. deCamp? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DECAMP, JR., PRESIDENT, OCEAN 

COUNTY IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE 

Mr. DECAMP. Good morning and thank you, Congressman Saxton 

for calling this hearing. You have been a great friend to the Forsythe Refuge. 

And I understand that one of the purposes of this hearing is to 

explore problems or reservations that people may have about the 

acquisition process. I think it is really healthy and a very good 

thing to air those problems, to try to talk them through. 

The expansion of the refuge has tremendous popular support, as 

you mentioned, but the most useful thing we can do today, I think, 

is to talk about those legitimate concerns that some people have 

that the whole growth of the refuge has raised. 

I have submitted written testimony-which, I assume, you 

have-but I would rather speak extemporaneously. 

Mr. SAXTON. We will include your entire statement in the record 

as submitted. 

Mr. DECAMP. Right. It may be slightly more fluent than what I 

have to say, but I hope to get my point across. 

When I look at the refuge process and the acquisition process 

overall, I keep three key concepts in mind. 

One is that I think it is appropriate to have a heavy emphasis 

on acquisition. And I will elaborate on that point in just a minute. 

The second sort of touchstone for me is that I believe that formulas do have to be worked out so that there is greater flexibility 

of the question of access. 

Mr. Howard has just made a plea, I think, for that type of thing. 

And I am sure that others will. I know that Mr. Gormley will. 

And we favor that. The Izaak Walton League favors exploring 

ways that there can be greater access. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. deCamp, can I ask you to pull that set of microphones toward you? I think that the bottom one is so that the public that is here can hear what you are saying. 

Mr. DECAMP. OK. 

Mr. SAXTON. And the top microphone is for the stenographer. 

Mr. DECA.\.fP. If you cannot hear .me in the back, give a shout, 

please. OK? 
7 

Mr. SAXTON. Sometimes you have to get real close to those microphones. Mr. DECAMP. OK. So, a second point is that we favor greater access. 

And a third point is that we would like to see greater funding 

for the management of the refuge. I know that these are tight fiscal 

times and that that is a difficulty, but it really, I think, is necessary and would tend to reduce conflicts. There could be more people working for the Service to do the job. 

In relation to acquisition, a central point that I think everyone 

should keep in mind in thinking about the refuge is how much land 

there is along the shoreline of Barnegat Bay that is under threat 

of development. 

As I look at the acquisition boundary of lands that have not been 

acquired and go down Barnegat Bay on the west side-say, from 

north to south-I look at Reedy Creek and there are properties 

there which are definitely under threat of development. 

At Tilton Point, which is the area that is south of Cattus Island 

County Park, there is Seward Road that goes through the woods 

which certainly represents a development threat. 

In Bayville, in Berkeley Township inside of Good Luck Point, 

there is a huge 800-or-so housing development proposed in lands 

that are in the acquisition boundary for the Forsythe Refuge. 

And one can go down the Bay and continue with that story. 

Along Maple Creek in Bayville also, the Finninger Farm, across 

from the nuclear power plant, certainly has a look of an area that 

is high and dry and could one day be developed. 

The airport tract in Lacy is an area that could be developed if 

it does not come into the ownership of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

And along Oyster Creek there are other lands. And a further example is the Lighthouse Camp in Waretown. 

So, what I think we need to be doing is to be aggressively pursuing acquisition opportunities as they come along and willing sellers 

are what we are looking for. So, we, overall-the government and 

the environmental community-tend to lack control over the timing 

with which various opportunities will arise. 

I think that we need to look at what future generations might 

ask of us. And what they really want is-or will want, I think, in 

looking back-that we should have saved as much habitat as we 

can. 

Now, I am just asking that those who have the difficulties with 

the access problems continue-as, I believe, they have-not to denigrate the idea of increasing the refuge, but, rather, to try to promote fairer access policies. 

One subject that has come up often is what happens to land 

when it comes into the ownership of the refuge, but a management 

plan has not yet been drawn up. 

And it would be useful, I think, to look at that and see if the use 

could be allowed to continue as it was until a management plan is 

drawn up, rather than cutting the land off from public use and 

waiting for a management plan; leaving everyone out of the property until a management plan comes along. 
8 

I also think that the boundary of the refuge should be a sort of 

a flexible thing and it should have a different meaning in different 

places: where there is endangered species, where there is sensitive 

habitat-it is very appropriate to keep people entirely out, but that 

is far from everywhere. 

And I think that popular support is an integral part of the health 

of a refuge. So, I believe that there should be places where people 

can take a walk and not have to get a permit and can hunt and 

can fish and do all those things that are tradition in our area. 

And as I am sitting here, I am looking at the town seal of the 

Township of Barnegat which has symbols of all of the things that 

we are speaking of. 

My red light has been on for a while, so I will not continue much 

longer, but I feel it so important that we meet the test of saving 

the habitat, which is the one thing that can be done in our era and 

that ought to be done. 

To do that, we should galvanize public support. To do that, we 

should accept that the land may be undermanaged for a while because we will be acquiring so much of it. And we should work for 

formulas to increase public access. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. deCamp may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. All right, thank you, Mr. deCamp, for a very 

thoughtful and, I believe, balanced statement. 

Ms. Joan Koons, president of the Alliance for a Living Ocean. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN KOONS, VICE PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE 

FOR A LIVING OCEAN 

Ms. KoONS. Congressman Saxton, I thank you for the invitation 

and the many years of support of environmental issues. 

I do stand to correct you. I am vice president now of the Alliance, 

but, at the present time, working as an administrator. 

I think--

Mr. SAXTON. Excuse me. 

Ms. KooNs.-Mr. DeCamp has taken part of my thunder--

Mr. SAXTON. Joan, excuse me. We are going to have to get so 

that the public can hear you, too. You need to pull that real closecloser than it probably feels comfortable. 

Ms. KoONS. I am going to read my testimony and embroider on 

it as I go along. 

"We stood in the hushed stillness of the woods. Water trickled 

softly over a beaver dam and sunlight flickered gently through the 

intricate pattern of branches overhead. We stood at a site once destined to become another housing development." 

This direct quotation was written by an ALO member who attended the dedication of the Waterford Property on April 13, 1995. 

It is an indication of where the Alliance stands in relationship to 

the Forsythe Refuges. 

Many of our over 1,000 members have homes in a shore community. We recognize the desire to live here. However, common sense 

tells us that we must leave room for natural habitats and coastal 

wetlands. 
9 

For the last few years, the Alliance for a Living Ocean has had 

the honor of being a facilitator for the Edwin B. Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge, Bonnet Island Unit. 

We have taken schools and organizations such as Ocean Nature 

into the site using designated pathways. We point out indigenous 

flora, fauna and birds that either nest or stop over as they use the 

major flyway on the east coast. 

We proceed to the small bay beach where waters lap from Barnegat Bay. Here we explain the importantance of water quality, 

showing the contents of our Barnegat Bay Watch monitors' water 

testing buckets. 

We speak repeatedly of nonpoint source pollution and the important role that citizens play in its alleviation. Most of these pollutants have come from developed areas. 

As we stand in the quiet refuge, looking across the bay to Long 

Beach Island-now almost totally developed-we have a visceral 

feeling that these refuge areas must be preserved. 

Their significance to maintaining clean aquifers and protecting 

nurseries for the inhabitants of aquatic ecosystems cannot be overstated. In order to endure the stress of modern lifestyles, however, 

one periodically needs to commune with nature. 

Before leaving the area, we clean everywhere we have been using 

Adopt-A-Beach methods. ALO runs a spring clean up of the total 

Bonnet Island refuge as a way of thanking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for respectfully giving us access. 

All of this is done by volunteers. The relationship between the 

Alliance for a Living Ocean and the Edwin B. Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge has been broadcasted to the public during our ecotour of a Barrier Island, bringing questions and interest about the 

Refuge System. 

At this point, I would like to stop and tell you what the Alliance 

believes in. The Alliance believes that each refuge system should 

be looked over for its size and its relationship to the endangered 

species. 

We feel that if you find an area that is a home to these species, 

definitely they would need to be closed for a period of time. 

However, if they is a very small area such as Bonnet Island, 

their value as an educational site cannot be overstated. If people 

use the areas respectfully-and this includes hunters and fishermen-the magic word to us is "respectfully", then, yes, they should 

be given access to certain areas in the system. 

When citizens have a limited controlled access to wildlife lands, 

they begin to feel an almost spiritual tie to these very special properties. 

I thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Joan. 

I am going to have some questions for each of you in just a few 

minutes, but we will continue with our testimony with Mr. 

Gormley from the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum. 

STATEMENT OF TOM GORMLEY, PRESIDENT, BARNEGAT BAY 

DECOY AND BAYMEN'S MUSEUM 

Mr. GORMLEY. Thank you, Congressman. 
10 

I think that everybody so far has spoken pretty much about the 

things that we believe in. And I will just make mine real short. 

Mr. SAXTON. May I ask you to pull that microphone a little closer 

to you? 

Mr. GORMLEY. I am a life-long resident of southern Ocean County and president of the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum 

whose goal is to preserve the rich heritage and traditions cf the 

Baymen of the Jersey shore. 

Our concern is access to the properties that are being bought by 

the refuge. The best way to teach people today and in the future 

is through hands-on education. But by denying act;ess, we are not 

allowed to teach future generations about these traditions and environmental education. 

We are not opposed to the acquisitions, but there should be considerations given to the people who have made a living from these 

areas and to the many organizations that are trying to teach the 

future generations about the environment and how to respect and 

utilize these natural resources. 

I know there should be some control during certain seasons and 

in critical areas, but there should be representatives from the communities and organizations of the areas on an advisory board to 

help make these decisions. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

And we will move now quickly to Alan Front, vice president of 

The Trust for Public Land, and, obviously, an active partner in this 

acquisition process. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, VICE PRESIDENT, THE TRUST 

FOR PUBLIC LAND 

Mr. FRONT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks more to 

you and other members of the subcommittee for your demonstrated 

personal commitment to the appropriate preservation of critical 

fish and wildlife habitat here in New Jersey and elsewhere across 

the nation. 

Like my friends here at the table, I have also submitted a written statement and ask that it be included in the record today. 

And beyond that, I just wanted to share a couple of brief observations that might provide some additional context as the subcommittee looks at the acquisition program at the Forsythe. 

First, by way of introduction, I am here this morning representing The Trust for Public Land which, as you know, is a national 

non-profit land conservation organization that works with government agencies and their constituencies to assist in acquiring and 

protecting threatened open space lands of particular significance to 

natural communities and human ones. 

And in this capacity-and I will be very brief and try to beat the 

red light-we have invested substantial energy and, at least for our 

non-profit organization, substantial resources over the last six or 

seven years in the effort to protect the Barnegat Bay ecosystem 

which, as you mentioned, is a fairly remarkable partnership. 

Others have talked about-and, I believe, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service which is well qualified to do so, probably will be talking 

about-the specific benefits to wildlife of these refuge lands; 35 percent of the black ducks of the Atlantic Flyway depend on this area 
11 

for their survival in winter habitat; 70 percent of the brants on the 

Atlantic Flyway do the same. I will not go on about that, but it is 

an astoundingly important habitat. 

As an organization that focuses on the acquisition side of the 

equation, I would like to speak for a few moments about the specific threats that these lands face and the response to those threats 

and the partnership that has helped in that response. 

Driving to this hearing, I was struck-as Willie deCamp mentioned as well-by the number of new home and under construction 

signs that lie on the highway on the way in here. And New Jersey 

is America's most urbanized and increasingly urbanizing state. Development is dense. Development threats are nothing, if not increasing. 

And that picture has been made somewhat of more concern by 

what we have recognized, which is that funding-whether it is 

local, state or Federal funding-has become less and less available 

nationally for the protection of resources that are more and more 

threatened. 

In a buy now and save climate, it is getting harder to buy now. 

And that sounds fairly dire and I know that today, one of the focuses at this hearing are management questions that at least pose 

some challenges to the partnership that has kept this effort alive 

for so long, but I feel like Mark Twain who, when asked about the 

music of Wagner, said, "It is not as bad as it sounds". 

I do not think it is as bad as it sounds. And, in fact, I would like 

to bring to your attention-which, Mr. Chairman, you already 

know-two vibrant elements that have kept this project going and 

that I hope will keep it going. 

One of them is that there has been an astounding partnership 

that, together-with the support of Congress; with the support of 

the State of New Jersey, local jurisdictions-has protected, over the 

last five years, during the course of two expansions of the Forsythe 

Refuge, something on the order of $25 million worth of critical 

habitat in this area. 

It is an astounding statistic. And my organization is pleased to 

have had a part in some of those acquisitions which have taken 

place in those two expansions, as well as in the core area of the 

original Barnegat and Brigantine Refuges, which were combined to 

form the Forsythe some years ago. 

The other critical element is that partnership itself. And I am at 

least hopeful, listening to some of the testimony of my fellow 

tablemates this morning, that there is a spirit of commitment to 

this refuge and to the protection of this open space and habitat 

lands which form an important thread in the fabric of the communities that host the Forsythe. 

That spirit certainly suggests that the management issues of 

today can be appropriately resolved and we are certainly hopeful 

that they will be resolved in a way that allows us to deal with the 

opportunities to come. Those opportunities are out there. 

Mr. Chairman, you testified before the Interior Appropriations 

Subcommittee about some opportunities, some of which are currently available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

There are a number of others that I believe the Fish and Wildlife 

Service will be discussing this morning within the refuge. And 
12 

these are properties that, if not acquired in short order, will certainly be lost irretrievably. 

And, so, I would like to commend you for your commitment to 

this program. I would commend everybody else who is sitting here 

for their individual local commitment to this program. 

And we are very hopeful that this partnership can stay together 

and can keep on doing the good work that it has done. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Front may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Front. 

Let me, before I ask specific questions, just note that from wall 

to wall on this panel, there has been expressed here this morning 

great support for the Forsythe Refuge, of the general concept of 

preserving land for wildlife habitat. And, in general, support for 

the program. 

And I think that is very, very healthy and I thank all of you for 

those expressions of support. 

As I indicated earlier and it has been indicated by several of you, 

however, there are some management questions which we, perhaps, need to address. 

One is whether or not we need more dollars to go into management so that we can do a more effective job. 

Another has to do with a short-term issue which specifically is 

what should the process be in developing the management plan 

and what should the situation relative to access be during that period of time. 

And then the third is the issue of access or the lack of it to all 

of or a part of the refuge-or the various refuges around the country-on a longer-term basis. 

So, let me ask this question first to whoever would like to respond to it. Under current law, properties such as the Waterfordwhich was just dedicated-are immediately closed to all historic 

uses as soon as the deed goes across the table to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

That, of course, is the technical explanation. That does not always ring exactly true because there are shortages of manpower to 

make that happen, but, legally and technically, that is the situation as I understand it. 

On the other hand, I intended to include in the re-authorization 

bill a proposal and language that would say that the properties acquired would continue to be available to historic uses until a management plan is developed and adopted which determines that perhaps certain historic uses are incompatible with the primary purposes of the refuge. 

I am interested to know how you each respond to how we should 

proceed on this issue. Let me just bring it--

I thought Joan Koons was going to do this. She almost did. She 

was talking about the day late last week when we cut the ribbon 

on the Waterford property. We stood in front of the most beautiful 

sights that anyone can imagine: a little beaver pond with rippling 

water and cedar trees and birds singing in the trees and a motorcycle roaring in back of me when I was trying to talk about this 

issue. 
13 

Now, I suppose, in a sense, a motorcycle has been there historically. I do not think that that is quite what we are talking about 

in terms of historic use. 

So, I guess my question is twofold. One, what should the process 

be in terms of determining human use of property in the shortterm during this period of time. And, two, how do we define what 

a historic use is. 

Mr. HOWARD. I think what I referred to in my statement was 

compatible wildlife-related uses. I think somewhat following the 

pattern of how the state Fish and Game and Wildlife division, their 

management policy on those state areas is related to what we are 

talking about. 

I think there has to be some way, rather than the way the procedure is now-as soon as these areas are, as you say, acquired, they 

are closed. And this is getting to be more and more a negative as 

far as support goes. 

As far as the Federation of Sportsmen, we would actively support 

anything that was said here today relative to the need for public 

ownership and the support for the refuge 100 percent. 

I think your legislation would go a long way. I think it should 

be wildlife related, rather than just historical. Now, that was my 

bias, I guess, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. 

Certainly, the way it is now, is causing us a great problem because, as you stated, Supawna has been 20 years and we have gotten nowhere. So, there has to be some changes in the overall system approach. And maybe throughout the system, to come up with 

some kind of a secondary purpose which could be compatible wildlife-related uses. That might be it. 

So, that wildlife-related recreation is recognized as a use of the 

refuge, rather than the old intent for which it was purchased because some of these refuges have been around 100 years and the 

intent, which was very good at the time of purchase, is not maybe 

relevant right now. 

Mr. SAXTON. Willie? 

Mr. DECAMP. I have. one or two thoughts on this question and 

one is I am not an expert. I do not really know the structure of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the hierarchy and how rules come 

down, but the subject that we are raising in relation to lands that 

are newly acquired would seem to me to be one where it could be 

different for each property what was appropriate. 

And it could be a situation in which you want there to be the 

ability for discretion on the part of the local Fish and Wildlife Service managers. 

And I am under the impression-and maybe it is a false impression because my knowledge is not in-depth-that there are situations where local managers do not have that much discretion. 

They are looking at rules that come down from Washington and, 

for all I know, they may be the same for every refuge whether it 

is in Alaska (where it is a place where there are hardly any human 

beings) to New Jersey (where you have a highly suburban environment). 

So, I will make a plea for allowing local managers to determine 

what is appropriate and what is not, rather than having the higher 

authority take a one-size-fits-all attitude. 
14 

I think it is safe to say that the Waterford site, part of the rationale for conserving it is that there is an endangered species 

there: swamp pink. It might be appropriate for refuge managers to 

want to make sure right away that nothing is happening to that. 

So, they might want to do something there. 

On the other hand, I support the idea of people being able to 

walk there, a bird watcher or whatever. 

So, my thought is that every site is different. How do you account 

for the fact that every site is different. Perhaps it is to give local 

managers more discretion immediately. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, to emphasize your point even further, even 

within a refuge, different parts of the refuge are obviously different. 

We have a certain set of issues to deal with on Holgate Beach 

in, what I refer to, as the heart of the wildlife refuge which is down 

at the old place called Brigantine. I have driven on those dikes and 

looked at the white swans and the snow geese and the Canada 

geese and the other waterfowl that are there. That is a situation 

that is still different from the Waterford property. 

And, so, there are issues to be dealt with on a broader basis. 

How do you feel about what George Howard mentioned: small 

game hunting, deer hunting, bow hunting and those issues. How 

would you deal with them in terms of what is an historic use? 

Mr. DECAMP. Well, I think in relation to newly-acquired property, 

historic is what has been happening there. 

At Reedy Creek-just to take an area that I sort of know like the 

back of my hand-there are no deer at all. So, I assume, you know, 

that that place has been hunted out and is regularly hunted out. 

And I do not really see a problem with that, unless-! mean, I 

do not think that situations exist in which hunters are blasting 

species into extinction that would require immediate changes. 

So, I would tend to think that you would just allow the pre-existing use to continue. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Joan? 

Ms. KOONS. Building on Willie's last comments and Mr. Howard's, I think that "historic" is a very poor word to use. 

A historic use of Bonnet Island was as a party island. For many, 

many, many years it was a place for young people to party and in 

their wake, left massive pollution. 

Mr. SAXTON. Is that wild life? 

Ms. KOONS. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. KOONS. It is wild life, but there are other places for us to 

have parties beside a wildlife refuge. 

I feel respectful-again, I keep coming back to that word-respectful use. If a hunter goes on to the land and packs in and packs 

out in back of himself, to me that is a very respectful use of the 

land. The same with the fisherman. 

I come from an area originally in Pennsylvania that had a gorgeous lake, a large lake. And only sailing and boating were allowed 

on the lake without motorized craft, but you were allowed to fish 

around the edge of the lake. 
15 

And I could not share with you the trash and pollution that was 

left around the edge of the lake. Now, I know it was not all from 

fishermen, but a great deal of it was. 

And I think, again, that the managers of the area should have 

some kind of an out if they are finding that a special use of that 

land was leaving large problems in its wake. 

Mr. SAXTON. So, once again, an issue of flexibility for the managers--

Ms. KOONS. Definitely. 

Mr. SAXTON.-is important. Tom? 

Mr. GORMLEY. Congressman, I am not so sure of the local refuge 

manager having the whole say in everything. I mean, I think you 

know with a previous refuge manager of this area, a lot of the concerns there. 

I think that there should be input from the local people of those 

areas that are using it from the traditional uses that are going on. 

And it is nothing against that refuge manager, but a lot of them 

do not know this area. They come in here for a job and then they 

are trying to read on to regulations that are in place. And I do not 

think that that is fair to somebody who has lived here, has made 

a living from that part of the area and then is denied access to 

that. 

Just one example is, growing up, I was going perch fishing with 

my dad as being six- or seven-years-old to a fish--

Mr. SAXTON. Perch? 

Mr. G0&\1LEY. Perch fishing on a refuge at a place where the refuge has now bought that now we are not allowed to walk on. 

We cannot go there, so I cannot take my son to that area. No one 

knew we were there. We did not bother anybody. We brought in 

what we took out. 

Yes, there are bad apples in every bunch, but I think that as the 

local groups were all involved here today, working together with 

that refuge area, coming up with a compromise. 

Yes, there has got to be places that access is denied. We all understand that, but I think that we have to work together at that. 

And the sportsmen are a big part of the conservation effort 

throughout the whole country. And they are upset because of all of 

the development that is going on. Those properties are being taken 

away. And then the properties that are going into public use are 

being taken away from them. 

When properties are being acquired and are being looked at to 

be added to the refuge, there is an environmental impact statement 

done or being done on that piece of property, but then when they 

purchase it, they decide to do another one. 

Why cannot that same one be used when the properties are being 

purchased the day that the deed is signed over? We already would 

know-with the help of this advisory panel-what should not be 

there and what should be. 

Using that Waterford site, Mr. Spatafore was talking a lot about 

the knowledge that he knows of that area, but, by rights, he is not 

allowed back in there anymore to take his daughter or his family 

to walk and see the beautiful wildlife. 

It is a touchy situation, but I think something we should really 

look at as a group-as a country, that we have got to look at. 
16 

How can you teach the future if we cannot show them? And that 

is what we are all about, is trying to do that. And I think everybody else that is here is looking to do the same thing. 

I know that Joan has had some problems in the beginning of trying to get Cedar Bonnet Island to be used for that environmental 

educational center. And it is the ideal location for it. 

I know that a lot of the property that is bought, there is a percentage that is supposed to be kept open for traditional uses, but 

where a lot of those problems are is that those areas are far away 

where people cannot always get to and they have to go by boat. 

And that is a concern when a lot of people are trying to use that 

area and are not familiar with the bays to go out into a small craft. 

I think in the past few years that we have noticed a lot of crafts 

overturning. And when someone does not have knowledge of the 

area, we are looking at some problems there. 

So, that is our concern. And I think if we just work together and 

have input from the local people who use it in different areas, I 

think that is the best. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Tom. 

Alan, did you want to make a comment? 

Mr. FRONT. I would actually just like to borrow one of Joan's 

words and respectfully sidestep the question to some extent. 

Just because, as you know, The Trust for Public Lands focus has 

tended to be very much on reaching accommodations between different interests at the time before the land is transferred to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and our focus then ends there and we 

leave it to public processes such as this one to determine what happens next. 

I will say, though, that recognizing the proximity and the importance for environmental education, and another reason is the importance of local communities of historic uses, I am certainly personally sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed here. 

I am equally sensitive to the Fish and Wildlife Service's historic 

and current concerns, I believe, based on their own authorizing enabling legislation, based on their mandate to preserve habitat. 

And, again, I would just say that issues arise such as this one, 

but it certainly sounds, in this atmosphere and at this refuge, that 

there is room to accommodate all interests and to keep a good program going. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, thank you. 

Tom Gormley started to bridge into the second part of my question and that is this is a long-term management question rather 

than a short-term management question. Obviously, there are 

going to be decisions made that are not going to be of the nature 

that they make everyone happy from time to time in terms of the 

long-range management of a particular refuge. 

And that is the case with this refuge, for sure. There are areas 

which were acquired and a management plan was developed. And 

the local refuge manager was given discretion to put certain pieces 

of the refuge off limits for certain uses: crabbing, duck hunting, 

fishing, perch fishing. 

Do you have any comments as to how we can work through this 

process together and how these decisions can be made? 
17 

While everybody is not going to end up happy, maybe people will 

have input and we can talk about how these things happen before 

they are just imposed on someone. George? 

Mr. HOWARD. I think that you have to get around the regulations 

that are in place right now which I think your suggestion is attempting to do. 

Some of the regulations are so inflexible that the refuge manager 

has little opportunity to do what he would like to do anyway. 

I think there is a real need for public input from local citizens, 

local users and that type of thing. 

Mr. SAXTON. I do not know the answer to this and I should. Is 

there a formal process for community input? 

Here we are adding 8,000 acres to a 40,000-acre parcel that we 

already own in the refuge and we end up with almost 50,000 acres. 

Is there a formal public comment participation program? 

Mr. HOWARD. I cannot answer that. I think you would have to 

ask--

Mr. GORMLEY. Yes, there is. 

Mr. SAXTON. There is supposed to be. 

Mr. GORMLEY. There is a comment period, but the problem is is 

that the comments do not go anywhere. Do not get me wrong. Some 

of them do, but a lot of them do not. And that is the problem. 

We brought up an access issue a couple of years ago. A whole 

bunch of different organizations got together to come up with a 

plan to use. And the previous refuge manager, we had given him 

all the ideas. The ideas were great. Nothing was ever implemented. 

And I think the people that we have there now are fantastic people. They are very understanding and are willing to listen, but 

their hands are tied. 

Mr. SAXTON. By what? 

Mr. GoRMLEY. By the regulations that are in place. They cannot 

allow different uses to certain areas. And it takes forever to move 

an area from one place to another. They are willing to work with 

the people, but it is just getting that process done. 

And I think it needs more of an input. And I think you said the 

perfect word that not everybody is going to be happy and we understand that, but I think if you get everybody's input from both sides 

of the view before something is put in place, then it is more understandable and it is more well received. And that is the problem, is 

communication. 

Mr. HOWARD. I think there is also a need for some direction from 

the top to say that this is important. And I think that that has 

been lacking over the years and the refuge manager that wanted 

to accommodate some of these uses sort of found himself out by 

himself. 

And the direction from the top was not to say to accommodate 

compatible-! keep using "compatible"-wildlife-related public use 

and that type of thing. So, that would certainly help. 

One thing that I would like to throw out while I have the opportunity-! think Alan brought it up-was the word "partnership". I 

think he put this out there. 

We are involved throughout the state in various coalitions relative to National Wildlife Refuge, relative to the Highlands, relative to the Maurice River and everywhere else. 
18 

And the most successful are partnerships between public, Federal, private and whatever. And I think that this is really the only 

way that we are going to reach the goal of preserving the habitat 

and the environment that we want. 

Some of that could be accommodated in some of these acquisition 

plans for something like Forsythe, when you get a refuge as large 

as this. Or Maurice River is a good example, where there is a proposal down there relative to 93,000 acres. And there is a lot of nature conservancy, fish and wildlife, farmland preservation and 

whatever involvement. And I think that that is something that we 

could look at. 

Mr. SAXTON. Are there any other comments on this long-term 

question? 

Let me go to a couple of specific things, then. Willie, you mentioned-as the mayor did earlier, by the way-that there is significant growth in New Jersey and that there is even significant 

growth in this area in spite of state and Federal statutes that were 

intended to inhibit that growth. 

And in this town, west of the Parkway, in the last decade the 

population has increased by about 10,000. 

Mr. DIGANGI. No, in this decade's growth. 

Mr. SAXTON. In 1994? In the 1990's? 

Mr. DIGANGI. In the 1990's, we should, yes. We have already approved approximately 3,000 senior homes, but there is 5,000 altogether that can be built west of the Parkway. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK. So, we are in the Pinelands, which is a state 

and Federal partnership. And during the decade of the 1990's, the 

mayor projects that the population west of the Parkway-which is 

the Pinelands-will grow by 10,000. 

We also have the CAFRA regulations that are very controversial. 

And they pertain to the land east of the Parkway. And, essentially, 

east of the Parkway is where we have been doing the acquisitions. 

What is it about the state and Federal laws that are intended to 

inhibit growth that are making it necessary for us to do these acquisitions and actually spend these much needed dollars on acquisitions where these other laws which are intended to apparently 

accomplish much of the same thing? 

Mr. DECAMP. Well, that is sort of a question that is a big one. 

And I think that maybe the nub of an answer would be that the 

laws such as CAFRA and the Waterfront Development Act and the 

Primelands Commission tend not to be prohibitions. 

I do not think the word "prohibition" comes up that often. And 

for a variety of reasons. One of them is that people just do not like 

to have things prohibited. 

So, that is a reason why, even though you have the entire coast 

covered by CAFRA, you have the entire coast under development 

pressure. 

And the sort of definitive solution to protect against development 

pressure is Federal acquisition or any form of acquisition. 

So, that is the short answer. And a further sort of motivation, 

I think, that we all have to see acquisition and go forward, is the 

changes contemplated in Congress with relation to wetlands laws 

and takings issues because there will be, I think, substantial difficulty in protecting against development if the definitions of wet-
19 

lands is drastically cut back as may be contemplated under the 

Clean Water Act. 

Or if takings legislation requires compensation of property owners, we will be in a situation in which just in the real world, whatever we think of the merits of that law, in the real world there will 

not be enough money to acquire all this land. 

So, you will end up with wetlands laws that are not enforced 

with some dire consequences, perhaps, that sportsmen are well 

aware of with water quality and habitat concerns. 

So, the world of regulatory environmental protection is on shaky 

ground right now, politically. I am sorry that it is, but it is a fact 

that it is. 

And that makes acquisition look like all the more rational and 

workable a strategy. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Alan, I am going to let you comment briefly, but before I do, 

Joan, I know that you have a schedule problem and if you need to 

excuse yourself at any point, just do so. 

I have one more question for you, if you could stay for just a 

minute. 

Ms. KOONS. All right. 

Mr. SAXTON. Alan? 

Mr. FRONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on what 

Willie was saying. 

There are obviously two major approaches to environmental protection; one of them being regulatory and one of them, at times, 

called incentive based, at other times, in this case clearly acquisition and compensation based. 

And there are a few reasons why those two approaches need to 

be woven together in places like Forsythe--even if no regulatory 

changes were to occur; even if everything were to continue just as 

it is today. 

One of those reasons is that unless regulations completely eliminate the prospect of development, even small scale development 

can take its toll on the sensitive upland buffers and wetland habitat that sits next to it. 

Additionally, there is no shortage of discussion and it makes a 

good deal of sense that if enough of a property's value is regulated 

away, that the best thing to do with that property-if it is that important for public reasons-is to purchase it. 

And that before the current discussion of regulatory reform, that, 

in fact, has been a cornerstone of government land acquisition for 

some time. If a property is important enough for public purposes, 

it ought to be purchased. 

There are fairness issues to landowners and that is a realm in 

which we dwell, trying to appropriately accommodate the financial 

needs of landowners whose properties are that important. 

And, so, regulatory approach aside, there are some properties 

that are developable and that are important enough to go ahead 

and acquire. 

Additionally, Willie talked about Reedy Creek. And there are 

management questions that arise as well, even on undevelopable 

properties. 
20 

At Reedy Creek, the focus of the acquisition program-which has 

been very successful and is well on the way to a completion-the 

acquisition program has focused in the past few years initially on 

the properties that were the most developable, the most threatened 

by imminent development. 

And once those properties had been taken care of, the focus was 

allowed to shift to the inner-connecting wetlands area that could 

not be developed, but along with those developable uplands would 

form the fabric of a manageable habitat area and a habitat area 

that would provide both wetland feeding areas and upland nesting 

cover and travel corridors and the other things for which the upland plus wetland buffers are needed. 

So, one reason to acquire properties certainly is that it is developable and either it will be developed or potentially it may be regulated to the point that it ought to be acquired just to meet some 

basic fairness issues, but then, additionally, there are other properties that, for management reasons, need to be acquired. 

And, so, from our perspective as a national organization, there 

are a few places-apart from Forsythe-where it is more critical to 

follow that acquisition side. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

Joan, would you take just a minute to describe for us your vision 

for Bonnet Island? 

And for those of you who are not familiar with Bonnet Island-

! guess maybe everybody is-Bonnet Island is a relatively small island consisting of-how many acres? 

Ms. KooNS. A hundred and twenty-four, I believe. 

Mr. SAXTON. A hundred and twenty-four acres. 

Ms. KOONS. Now, I just closed the book on that. 

Mr. SAXTON. And, incidentally, an artificial island, if I am not 

mistaken, was created--

Ms. KOONS. A hundred and thirty-four. 

Mr. SAXTON. A hundred and thirty-four acres of artificial island. 

Right? 

Ms. KOONS. Some of it has been made. Some is natural and some 

was filled. 

Mr. SAXTON. It was determined to be a critical habitat and was 

acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was closed to, 

I think, all historic uses. 

And Joan's vision has to do with an environmental education opportunity that exists. 

Ms. KOONS. I would like to give you my vision with Bonnet Island included. 

My vision would start where we were last week. If public access-particularly for educational purposes-is given, we could take 

a group onto the Waterford property and show them the head waters of the watershed. 

And we could take them to Manahawkin Lake. And we could 

stop at Bonnet Island. And possibly on Bonnet Island, in the future, I would like to see the pathways respected and used; maybe 

ending at or on the Little Beach or somewhere in the refuge area, 

a platform with binoculars that the public could view the Barnegat 

Bay itself. 
21 

Spend a little time at Bonnet Island and then take them onto 

Long Beach Island, ending at Holgate, the spot that you are able 

to have access to. 

In all of thebe areas, we would discuss water from the very moment it came from the clouds as a raindrop. And when you do that 

with the public, we have seen it in the Alliance's volunteers, over 

and over and over, you will get someone in a crowd or in a group 

with you; they will be very defensive. This land should be open; we 

should be able to do everything to it. 

By the time you are finished educating a little bit and they are 

standing there and seeing for themselves the importance of the 

whole cycle to the watershed, you have an interested citizen that 

wants to be a partner. 

And I think Mr. Howard is on the right track. Partnership is the 

word, along with respectful. We want to be partners as a group and 

I certainly want to be partners in this process as a citizen of southern Ocean County. Mr. SAXTON. When you say "environmental education", you are 

thinking about leaving the island in as pristine a condition as possible using the paths that already exist and maybe one small deck 

facility--

Ms. KOONS. Yes. 

Mr. SAXTON.-porch type--

Ms. KOONS. Very unsophisticated, but, still, gwmg people a 

chance to feel it. When you feel it and see it and see the perspective of the development from that area, sometimes you can be there 

in the heat of the summer when it is wall-to-wall cars coming onto 

the island. 

And while the wild grasses and bushes in that area shield you 

from the sound, you do not even know that 72 is to your back. 

People that live here do not know that there are areas like that 

still left. And that is what we would like it used for, as a group. 

Mr. SAXTON. Environmental education is something that, obviously, I am not sure whether it was a stated goal of the Refuge 

System, but it certainly is an opportunity to use the Refuge System. 

And I guess it was the day before yesterday, we were talking 

about another partnership between the Barnegat Bay Decoy and 

Baymen's Museum developing with the refuge and with--

Mr. GORMLEY. Rutgers. 

Mr. SAXTON.-and with Rutgers University. 

Tom, would you just describe for a moment your organization's 

goals in tenns of environmental education and how you would use 

the facilities that you proposed in Tuckerton to carry out that partnership? 

Mr. GORMLEY. I will try to sum it up pretty quick for you. 

It is a 16-acre site right at the head of Tuckerton Creek which 

was the third port of entry into the United States. 

There is going to be one main building that is going to be specifically for the valuable artifacts. And the other buildings will be for 

demonstrations of traditional activities and environmental education. 

Mr. SAXTON. How many buildings all together? 
22 

Mr. GORMLEY. A total of 23. It is about a $6.5 million project. We 

have raised $1.3 million since we started. 

There are over 1,000 members now. It was all volunteers. We 

now have three full time and one part-time person. 

What our goal is is now that we have the Refuge System-we 

have a statewide management area right there; there is an estuary 

program that is coming in place; we are setting a coastal heritage 

trail through the Federal Government-is having a visitor's center 

as one of the buildings where someone can walk in and can see all 

these different aspects of the area; all the wetlands. 

They can come in and learn about, just briefly, the environmental education part of it, the traditional uses that have gone on. 

Rutgers University wants to be a part of this project. What is 

going to happen is that they are talking about an underwater laboratory six miles off the shore-! think it is six miles off-and 

tieing in with fiber optics. We would like to be a host to that. 

We have talked with Joan about Alliance for a Living Ocean 

being a part of that. 

And the best thing is to educate people. And like what Joan said, 

people live right here and they do not even realize some of the natural beauties that we have here. 

But also we have got to have respect for the tradition uses that 

have occurred. And I know that we could work together and that 

is the partnership that we are trying to do. The Refuge System now 

has a lot of different little small visitor centers. 

If we could have one at this major attraction that we are proposing, to cover all those different aspects of the refuge-the fish and 

wildlife area and the things that I have mentioned-we think that 

it will highly educate the people that are coming to the area and 

to respect what is there. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much. And I think that we 

have almost run out of time. Willie has got one more comment. 

And we are going to hear from Willie and as soon as we do, I 

am going to dismiss this panel and we are going to take a fiveminute break and then the next and final panel will come in. 

Willie, go ahead. 

Mr. DECAMP. As I was listening to Joan describe her vision of 

Bonnet Island and other places, I was trying to sort of get eyes in 

the back of my head and was wondering, you know, what the refuge managers might be thinking of Joan's vision. 

And in my way of thinking of it-and I would be interested to 

know how people who would manage the refuge think-that the 

picture that Joan has drawn really would not burden refuge managers. 

If Alliance for a Living Ocean brought people in, you could be 

sure that there would be less trash there when they left than they 

found when they got there. And they would have their own people 

who can educate everyone. 

And I see it as a way to increase popular support without creating management difficulties. If I am wrong, I would be interested 

to learn why. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you all very much. This has been very 

helpful, very productive and very informative and educational. 
23 

Thank you for being with us this morning. We could probably sit 

and talk about these issues for much longer than the hour-and-15-

minutes that we have been here. And, obviously, we will be doing 

that with you on a one-on-one basis. 

We appreciate your being here this morning. Thank you very 

much. And we are going to take a five-minute break. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SAXTON. We are going to begin. So, if everyone would take 

their places. 

We are going to begin our second panel of witnesses which is 

made up of professionals who have careers that are related to the 

Refuge System. 

Mr. Don Conner is the chief of the Division of Realty for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the Region 5 office. And, obviously, 

when it comes to acquisition, Mr. Conner has a great deal to do 

with it. 

We are also going to hear from an old friend, Robert McDowell, 

who is the director of the Fish and Game for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

And we will also be joined by Tracy Casselman who is the manager of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. 

So, once again, just let me remind you that that little red light 

when it comes on in front of you is just a reminder. If you talk on 

past it for a while, that is fine because we are very much interested 

in your points of view on these issues. 

So, Mr. Conner, if you would begin, please. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD CONNER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF 

REALTY, REGION 5, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. CONNER. All right. Good morning, Congressman Saxton and 

thank you for allowing us to be here. 

Mr. SAXTON. You are going to have to pull those microphones 

closer. I know it is sometimes uncomfortable to have them too 

close, but that is the way that they work best. 

Mr. CONNER. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you 

today and the future land acquisition strategy for the southern 

Ocean County expansion area of the Edwin B. Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

I am accompanied by Mr. Tracy Casselman, the acting refuge 

manager. 

I will be addressing the areas of land acquisition, management 

and access and the public use of newly-acquired lands. 

The refuge consists of approximately 40,000 acres of coastal 

saltmeadow, upland fields, woodland, open bays and channels, and 

barrier beach. The complex is made up of two divisions-Brigantine 

and Barnegat. 

The management focus is to preserve and manage the wetland 

habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds and other wildlife as productive 

migration and wintering habitat. 

Regarding land acquisition. In 1994, the service released the 

Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on approximately 7,730 acres expansion of the refuge. This action was taken to provide long-term protection to important coastal 

wetlands, forested freshwater wetland and upland habitat. The 
24 

purpose of the refuge and this addition is to protect and enhance 

waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat; to protect and restore 

wetlands; to protect habitat for endangered and threatened wildlife; to promote and to preserve biodiversity; and to provide wildlife-oriented recreation and education. 

This is the third such expansion of the refuge boundary in seven 

years-9,827 acres in 1987 and approximately 2,400 acres of Reedy 

Creek and Herring Point in 1990-which indicate the service's commitment to habitat preservation and protection of the Ocean County/Barnegat Bay area. 

The service has been working actively with The Trust for Public 

Land and other partners to develop plans for acquisition of the 

habitat identified in the most recent EA. These lands are potentially useful additions to this refuge, but in the ranking of the overall needs of the Refuge System, do not always rank among the 

service's highest priority acquisitions for which we are requesting 

funds in fiscal year 1996. 

Budget priorities may change in future years. The Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission might also provide funding. 

Chairman Saxton identified four areas for future acquisition totaling approximately 369 acres in his March 2, 1995, testimony to 

the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, regarding the 

Interior Appropriation Requests. 

In addition, the service places a very high priority on future acquisition of the following eight areas in Burlington and Ocean 

Counties. These areas include Humus Land Corporation in Stafford 

Township, 539 acres; Stouts Creek/Murray Grove in Lacey Township, 450 acres; Forked River Natural Area in Lacey Township, 426 

acres; Lake Manahawkin in Stafford Township, 43 acres; Cedar 

Run Creek in Stafford Township, 756 acres; Barnegat Beach in 

Ocean County for 140 acres. 

In Burlington County, we have two areas identified: Bass River 

Associates in Ocean Township of 140 acres and the Werbler Tract 

in Little Egg Harbor for 235 acres. 

The service has every intention of continuing its cooperative land 

protection efforts with The Trust for Public Land, the Izaak Walton 

League, local, county and state governments and their agencies and 

other groups working for the same goal in the Barnegat Bay area. 

The second part of my testimony deals with management and access. First I would like to state the brief purpose of the refuge. The 

refuge has multiple purposes as a result of employing different acquisition authorities to purchase lands. The refuge was established 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act: "For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose for migratory 

birds." 

Lands acquired under the Fish and Wildlife Act are: "For the development, advancement, management, conservation and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources . . . for the benefit of the service in 

performing its activities and services ... " 

Lands purchased using the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

are for: "The conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order 

to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill 

international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conservation." 
25 

Dealing with the management of refuge, the refuge provides access to nearly 250,000 visitors who observe and photograph wildlife, hunt, fish, crab and harvest clams from the bay. The refuge 

also hosts 5,000 students who participate in research and educational programs. 

The major attraction of the refuge is the eight mile auto-tour 

loop and two walking trails located at the Brigantine Division. This 

area accounts for 80 percent of the refuge's visitation because it 

provide a unique opportunity to view a wide variety of waterbirds 

up close, and often in spectacular numbers. 

Portions of the refuge are open to public hunting. In 1994, an environmental assessment was written to include newly-acquired 

lands into the waterfowl hunt units. This action expanded the area 

available for waterfowl hunting to 16,000 acres or 40 percent of the 

total refuge area. 

The refuge provides deer hunting opportunities in cooperation 

with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Game. Currently, 3,000 

acres or 75 percent of the upland in the refuge are open to deer 

hunting. The division administers three special hunt zones which 

may be accessed during the shotgun, muzzle loader and archery 

seasons. 

The recreational fishing and crabbing opportunities are available 

throughout the waters of the refuge. The refuge provides bank access to three tidal creeks and special use permits are available to 

individuals who wish to fish for white perch in other tidal streams. 

Surf fishing is available at Holgate from September to April. However, vehicles must travel below mean high tide. Lily Lake offers 

freshwater fishing opportunities. 

There are also six trapping units totally 11,000 acres available 

for bid by trappers. Trappers regularly take muskrats, raccoons 

and fox on the refuge. 

Now, get to an issue that seems to be the focus for today: compatibility. As a result of a compatibility lawsuit settlement in October of 1993, the refuge conducted a review of secondary activities 

occurring on the refuge and prepared compatibility determinations 

for those uses. Twenty-three activities were reviewed and all were 

deemed compatible. 

Public use of newly-acquired lands. Your letter of invitation also 

ask that we address the issue of public use of newly-acquired 

lands. As was stated earlier, under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, all Refuge System lands are closed to 

public use unless and until the service determines that a proposed 

use is compatible with refuge purposes and meets various other requirements. 

In the past, we have not evaluated the appropriateness of public 

use for individual tracts of land until after they were acquired. As 

a result, traditional uses of newly-acquired lands have been halted 

for a year or more while the service engaged in the required planning, review and public involvement processes needed to determine 

whether the uses are appropriate and compatible. 

We recognize that this has created problems here at Forsythe 

and elsewhere, and the issue is actively under review in the Washington office. However, at this time, the service does not have any 
26 

new policy to announce. We will, however, keep the subcommittee 

fully advised of our intentions on this matter. 

This concludes my prepared statement. Mr. Casselman and I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have 

later. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 

Conner. 

Bob McDowell. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT McDOWELL, DIRECTOR OF FISH AND 

GAME, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

Mr. McDOWELL. Yes, I want to thank the Congressman and the 

committee for giving us the opportunity to comment on this. I am 

the director of the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. 

And I am also representing the executive committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We also represent Mexico and Canada and all 50 states are members of this 

association. 

I think one thing that we have learned in our 100 years of managing fish and wildlife in the State of New Jersey is that protecting 

the habitat is not a nice thing to do; it is a necessary thing to do. 

And whether you are interested in harvesting clams commercially 

or fishing off our coastal waters, what we do to the upland and 

what we do to the coastal marshes has a demonstratable effect. 

These are the breeding grounds, the nursery grounds, for all of 

the fish that live off the continental coast-either themselves of 

something they eat. 

So, the interest is broad. New Jersey happens to be in a very interesting place. We are in the migratory route-both off the coast 

for pelagic species and inshore fish-and we are also the migratory 

stop-off place for many species of waterfowl and other types of 

birds. 

We have always been and will continue to be a partner of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, our relationship goes beyond partnership. We are more closely related than just a looselyknit partnership. 

We do many things with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We 

protect large tracts of land in partnerships, which is going on in 

the Maurice River and in the Salem River. The state non-governmental organizations and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

working very hard to protect these pristine habitats. 

Barnegat Bay is a good example of how because you moved here, 

if you liked those living resources that attracted you here, you had 

better be concerned about the uplands and the wetlands associated 

to the bay. 

We are very happy in the state of New Jersey that we have five 

refuges in this state. We have refuges all the way from Sussex 

County to Cape May County, on the Delaware Bay shore and on 

the Atlantic coast. Having said that, though, I think we have some 

concerns and some of these concerns have been expressed by others 

here. 

We are concerned about how the .Refuge System is managed. We 

are concerned that the refuges are purchased because of those val-
27 

ues you see out there. If people were not clamming, hunting, fishing, birding-all the things they are doing on the land now, then 

we would not think it so valuable. And, yet, when we purchase a 

refuge, the first thing we do is shut it down to those uses. 

This is not only a recreational problem, it is an economic problem. In New Jersey, the Fish and Wildlife Service shows that just 

the recreational value of this resource statewide is $2.65 billion for 

the recreational, nature, tourism and the small businesses that 

represent the bait shop, the party boat, the waterfowl hunting 

guide. And their employees are benefited, too. 

The government is benefited by the sales tax and income taxes 

we collect off of these incomes. 

So, it seems rather strange that the first thing we do is when we 

purchase this land that has all these recreational values, all these 

economic values already, we shut it down. 

I might point out that this is not the case throughout the country. And interpretation by local refuge managers does play a role 

in whether the refuge can be shut down or not, as to whether what 

is a manageable unit; how much land is necessary to acquire. 

Before you make that determination that it is a manageable unit, 

you shut it down and then you go through the process to open it 

up again. I think we need to reverse this process. You leave it 

open, make the studies, defend why it should be shut down and 

leave it open in the meanwhile. 

Refuge managers shy away from making these decisions on opening it up because they perceive that opening it up requires a tremendous amount of management; an awful lot of study. And I 

think, in some cases, over-management. We manage 220,000 acres 

in the State of New Jersey. Some of it is adjacent to some refuges 

that have been shut down. 

The bald eagles, the black rails, the terns, the striped bass are 

doing well on our wildlife management areas on the coast and they 

have not been shut down. My feeling is that there is legislation needed to allow the service to take the position which will support 

traditional wildlife-related uses. If a compatibility problem arises, 

then the uses can be determined to be inappropriate and curtailed. 

This not only sends a positive message to the users, but cuts 

down tremendously in the administrative workload on the hardpressed refuge managers. The service's "Refuges are for people" slogan would not ring so hollowly in New Jersey if that were the case. 

The positive approach works. And we have many examples of this. 

Earlier, George Howard referenced Mad Horse Creek. We have 

sensitive critters there and yet they are doing well. And as soon as 

we bought it, about the same time, the Supawna Refuge was 

bought. We left it open. Supawna has been closed. 

At Supawna, all recreational use has been excluded for the last 

24 years, with the exception of hunts that control deer which are 

not recreational in nature; waterfowl hunting on 4.5 percent of the 

refuge and guided tours of a lighthouse on the third Sunday of 

every month. This is the kind of use there. 

We certainly do not want this dichotomy to exist in the lands 

that we manage here on the East coast and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lands. And, quite frankly, Brigantine-as it was called before-has done a reasonable job in most areas. Areas have been 
28 

bought, held, compatibility studies have been made in the past. 

And the amount of time it was shut down was very, very short, but 

we are concerned about the extension in terms of its impacts in 

that manner. 

We have seen improvements in these situations in recent years 

like the opening of the Cape May Refuge and recreational deer 

hunting, but this took almost six years to do. Now, you are going 

to be able this year, to bird watch and deer hunt according to the 

state laws as far as deer hunting is concerned. 

Legislation is sorely needed to rectify this needless and irretrievable loss of recreation and economic values. Additionally, any new 

legislation should re-affirm the state's position in this. 

The state has regulatory authority over many of these uses. 

These are not uses that are going on before they purchase them for 

a refuge. Without regulation, it is not a free-for-all as far as the 

wildlife-related recreational uses are concerned. So, greater coordination and cooperation with state agencies should be a part of any 

change in the law. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System represents a key link in our 

efforts to preserve a place for wildlife in our nation's most densely 

populated state. We have a tremendous contrast in the State of 

New Jersey. We truly are the Garden State when it comes to wildlife. We have a very dense and very diverse population of wildlife. 

I will just point out one fact. This year we shot 51,462 deer in 

the State of New Jersey. That is more than the entire New England states, with the exception of New York. That reflects the productivity of this environment. And that is true of many other species in this state, whether migratory or resident. 

I think that moving ahead with this opening of the refuge prior 

or leaving it open prior to closing it down or having the necessary 

public hearings and whatever, doing the studies, whatever needs to 

be done---ean also bring to a feel good approach to the users who 

want these areas to be open, who want the benefit of the recreational and economic values that they have. 

So, I think that legislation needs to be formed to make this a 

rule by which everybody follows when managing the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's Refuge System. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. McDowell may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. 

Tracy, do you have anything to offer at this point or would you 

just prefer to answer questions as they come along? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. I have a list of notes. 

Mr. SAXTON. It is up to you. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. I think I will refer to individual questions and 

then if there is anything burning deep down inside, I will use that 

as a wrap up. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, great. Thank you. 

Let me start with the same kinds of two questions that we started with regard to the attitudes and the beliefs and the desires of 

the first panel. 

The first addresses the issue that we have called "closed until 

open" or shall we reverse it and have "open until closed". 
29 

And I would be interested in-I do not know whether there is an 

official position of the service or whether you have a personal opinion that you would like to offer. 

And if you would proceed to address that issue as specifically as 

you can in terms of what your position is on that. 

Mr. CONNER. As specifically as I am able to, the position of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, as I believe at this time, is that the 

"closed until open" policy that they have is legislated to us. We do 

not have a choice in that manner. 

Individual refuge managers do have input into some areas, 

but--

Mr. SAXTON. But if you all had a choice, what would you tell us 

to do? 

Mr. CONNER. My personal opinion-and I do not speak for the 

service-is that I think the issue should be taken under advisement as it is and that if an improvement would require legislation, 

then I believe that is what should be done, but that determination 

is going to have to be made on the part of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service as to how they wish to proceed. 

Mr. SAXTON. Right. I appreciate that. Let me ask this question. 

In the acquisition process, there is an environmental assessment 

that is carried out prior to acquisition. Is that correct? 

Mr. CONNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SAXTON. And in that environmental assessment, are such 

things as endangered species on the site noted? Are threatened 

species on the site noted? And various environmental characteristics that need to be preserved, are they noted? 

Mr. CONNER. Yes, they are, Mr. Chairman. I have the final environmental assessment for this last expansion. And I would be glad 

to let anyone look through it, but all of those issues are addressed 

in it, along with public uses. They have bird species, highlights of 

botanical survey, reptiles and mammals, endangered and threatened species; all of those issues are addressed in the EA. 

And those do go out to the public for comments. And those comments do come into the office and these documents are prepared by 

people on my staff and they are considered and they are included 

in revisions that are made between the preliminary and the final 

EA. 

All of those are addressed, as well as for the broad goals of the 

National Wildlife System and the mission and goals-the purposes 

for which the acquisition is being proposed. 

And one of the ones that the National Wildlife Refuge System is: 

"To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife 

ecology an:d man's role in the environment and to provide refuge 

visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife qualified to the extent that these activities are compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established." 

So, we do address public use and endangered and threatened 

species, habitat, potential threats to the property in these documents. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me suggest a "what if'. On the Holgate Beach 

there is an endangered species which is recovering and it is recovering because the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as members of 
30 

the environmental community and other users of beaches up and 

down the East Coast have cooperated together to help bring the 

piping plover back from very few nesting pairs-! understand 

now-to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,200 or it may be a little better. And that we think we need to get to 2,000. 

When the Environmental Assessment was done-and I assume it 

was done when that acquisition was made years ago. 

Mr. CoNNER. Yes, there was. 

Mr. SAXTON. Maybe there is a different--

Mr. CONNER. Tracy? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. Holgate Beach was donated to us prior to the 

piping plover being listed. 

Mr. SAXTON. I see. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. So, there was no mechanism for addressing 

many of these issues. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, then, my "what if' has to be a hypothetical 

"what if'. 

Mr. CASSELMA.l\l. OK. 

Mr. SAXTON. In that case, if the piping plover were designated 

on the endangered species list, and we were to acquire the Holgate 

Beach today, and we knew that the piping plover was endangered 

and we also knew that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had responsibility to help propagate more piping plovers, what if there 

were the situation? Now, you have done the Environmental Assessment, and you know that there are plovers there initially. While 

the management plan is being implemented, a reasonable person 

would not say, "Let the beach buggies go run over the piping plovers when they are nesting." That is not what a reasonable personfisherman or anybody else-would want to do, I do not think. 

So, what if there were a provision that said that pursuant to 

your Environmental Assessment which you do prior to an acquisition, that we were to include an interim list of opened and closed 

areas and permitted and non-permitted uses as has eventually 

evolved anyway for the Holgate Beach. 

What has evolved is a common sense evolution for Holgate and 

with a long, painful process which maybe is not over yet. 

But could that not be done based on an Environmental Assessment? We make the acquisition and we say, Look, we have got this 

problem from April 15th to August 15th rather than--

Mr. CASSELMAN. I think what--

Mr. SAXTON.-just do the closure? Period. Slam door. Put up 

fence. Finished. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. You are using a hypothetical situation to reference back the question you had asked the earlier panel. 

And I think that is could we possibly use the acquisition EA 

process to look into public uses on individual parcels of property. 

That is a potential possibility. I see some flaws in that. And 

when I look at the acquisition EAs that Don has and that we have 

used before, we have three of them current now. We have not acquired all of the property from the EA that was done; two before 

the one that we are working on now. 

And in order to do enough in-depth work on each individual parcels, to consider what we do when that particular parcel is bought, 
31 

would take a lot of work because if you look at one parcel versus 

if you get the three adjacent to it, there is a lot of change. 

And one of the things that I have seen since I have been here 

is that we will acquire a staff in Stafford Township and it will be 

two years later until we acquire the piece next to it because the 

willing seller has not come around. 

So, to be able to address that in the acquisition EA, I think 

would be very difficult because you would have to do almost indepth on a piece-by-piece or, perhaps, say that until we acquired 

this whole block, that it would all be closed. 

Because, as an example, if you acquire a piece of property that 

has a species of very high concern on it but only a small number, 

and then the piece next to it will round out a big enough number 

where you could allow a management use but you do not acquire 

that piece when you acquired the first one. There is a lot of things 

that I could be potentially concerned with. 

Along the basic overall question of whether or not legislation is 

needed to address some of these issues. Tom made the comment 

that everyone's hands seem to be tied with previous acts that we 

are dealing with. I would not look forward to another act of legislative further tieing our hands. 

I think a lot of these issues can be addressed through public 

meetings and express concerns of the individuals. As a lot of the 

folks know here, we have made some progress in the past. 

There have been some slow things to open. Joan's vision of Cedar 

Bonnet Island is almost there, with the exception of the platform. 

I mean, we certainly issued Joan permits to go out to Cedar Bonnet 

Island. And some of the issues are being addressed-slow but sure. 

It is not a fast process. 

Forsythe, I think, is very unique in that it has had a tremendous 

acquisition budget in the last five years. It has also lost 30 percent 

of its staff. And I do not know that legislating a way for the discretion of the wildlife refuge manager is going to be the answer to 

those two concerns. I do not think that that is going to solve the 

problems. 

I think open dialog between the people who have traditional uses 

and inherent uses with the refuge management group is the answer. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me just stop you there, just so I can inform myself. 

Is it not the legal case that you do not have discretion-or maybe 

you do have discretion-that when an acquisition is made and the 

closed status comes about, do you have the legal discretion to permit certain uses? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. No, not until the ink is dry on the paperwork, 

butMr. SAXTON. The ink is dry on what? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. The paperwork. Not until the plan and the determinations are done. In some cases we can have a public use, a 

management plan, for the refuge. And as pieces of property come 

into our fold, if that property does not have something extremely 

sensitive on it, can fall right into place with that. They did that at 

Cape May with hunting. 
32 

And as land is acquired down there, they are not going to stop 

and say, you know, any land from here on out, we will have to wait 

two more years to do the paperwork 

If there is an accrued public use management plan which includes hunting or trapping or fishing available that looks at these 

new expansions, they can be brought into that fold as they are purchased. 

Mr. SAXTON. In other words, if it is an addition to a current piece 

of the refuge? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. Correct. 

Mr. SAXTON. And that piece has a management plan for it, that 

those uses can be extended to the new piece? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. When we wrote the expansion EA for the latest 

waterfowl expansion, I specifically put wording in there that referred back to the EA for that expansion area that would allow for 

those additional areas to come under that EA as they were acquired so we do not have a stop gap; OK, we have got an 8,000-

acre acquisition, we are halfway through it and we are going to 

wait until the other 4,000 are incorporated to do that. That is not 

going to be the case. 

Now, there are logistics to reposting, managing and shifting 

around some of these areas, but we certainly, in this particular 

case, do not have to wait until we have got the other half to redo 

another EA. I specifically put wording in that to allow that to come 

about. 

So, there are instances where we can do that. There are instances where we cannot. And on a case-by-case basis, I think is 

the way to look at it. 

Mr. SAXTON. Do you want to comment? 

Mr. McDoWELL. Yes. I think, first of all, he mentioned Cape 

May. And it is going to be open for deer hunting. It will not be open 

for woodcock hunting. It will not be open for duck hunting. It will 

not be open to crab in its coastal waters. 

So, the activities that are allowed now are species specific and 

activity specific in this evaluation process. And it took six years to 

get to the first level at Cape May. So, I think that has got to be 

fixed. 

The use was going on-deer hunting was going on-on the lands 

that Cape May was buying for the values that allowed the deer 

hunting to go on. I mean, the deer were there. 

I will say this. In the case of deer when they close it up, it can 

cause us a lot of other problems with adjacent landowners. And 

that is probably why they moved ahead with that. 

But I think this concept that it should be open until closed for 

legal responsible fish and wildlife related recreation that has been 

going on there before, in my way of thinking, there is a better way 

to do things. 

Mr. SAXTON. Tell me what would happen, Tracy, if it were open 

until closed and we made the acquisition and you all would proceed 

then to develop a management plan. 

Would you be able to do that in an expedited way so that if there 

were swamp or piping plovers to be protected that--

Mr. CASSELMAN. In some cases that may work, but I can think 

of many individual cases where that would be a problem. 
33 

One of the things that struck me when I first moved here, I grew 

up in central New York right next to Montezuma National Wildlife 

Refuge. Mr. SAXTON. We are glad you are here, by the way. We want you 

to know that. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. And then I spent five years in Louisiana and 

the refuges there are wide open to everything. I mean, they are 

just completely wide open. You can go anywhere. At one time, I went canoeing and realized that I was canoeing 

right through a rookery. 

Mr. SAXTON. A what? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. A wading bird rookery which, to me, is a violation unheard of. No one should be able to canoe through a wading 

bird rookery during nesting season. 

And I do not think that anybody would disagree that that should 

be allowed. It has a tremendous impact on the nesting birds. 

When I came up here, I could not believe that all of Forsythe was 

closed to just walking through the fire breaks and the trails. 

And one of the things that the refuge manager pointed out to me 

was that, look over there. He pointed to Atlantic City and then he 

says, "We get a quarter-of-a-million visitors here a year." 

And, incidentally, I did not work for the Fish and Wildlife Service when I came up here. I worked for the Department of Agriculture, so I was not in the Fish and Wildlife Service fold. 

And I thought about that as I left. And as I came to work for 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and see the tremendous number of 

people who come around the wildlife drive, watch the tremendous 

number of people that go to Long Beach Island and realize that if 

they had an unrestricted access-whether it would be for traditional uses or not-right off the bat that would cause a tremendous 

impact. 

And the thing that happens that I see potentially happening is 

that once it is known that that is Fish and Wildlife Service property, it is no longer Mr. Smith's who is going to give me a hard 

time if he catches me out there, and it is open to the public, we 

are going to get a lot of influx from outside visitors above and beyond the local folks in the Barnegat Bay area. 

I spoke to one of the reporters this morning. There is a beautiful 

little spot that I love to duck hunt. It could tolerate about two pairs of duck hunters before there would be just too many people for safe 

shooting and also I would think that if it received too much attention, it would not be near as valuable a duck hunting spot. 

Boy, if the service gets that, I am going to hate to put that on 

a map because if it is open, I know that it will attract a lot of use. 

And, therefore, will diminish the quality and even the safety of the 

hunt. 

And that is one thing that I see. Because we are a national organization. It is estimated that 50 percent of our waterfowl hunters 

do not come from this region. They come from outside. 

They come here because they know that it is Forsythe National 

Wildlife Refuge and I have access to 40 percent of it. 

So, if all lands are open until closed and that becomes a legislative policy, I see the potential for some problems on some of these 

pieces of property. 
34 

Mr. SAXTON. Your most recent statement was what prompted me 

to ask the question earlier where we would have kind of an interim 

list of pieces that would be open and closed based on those obvious 

kinds of situations that exist. 

With regard to the duck hunting spot that you just mentioned, 

which I will bet my avid duck hunter friend, Tom Gormley, would 

agree with. Maybe. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Based on what we learn about properties in the acquisition process, is there not a level of knowledge that is obtained 

that would permit the identification of those kinds of situations? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. I think it would have--

Mr. SAXTON. At least on a temporary basis. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. I think it would have to be a little more indepth process than we do currently. 

Mr. SAXTON. Don? 

Mr. CoNNER. Just to make one comment, Mr. Chairman. On an 

existing refuge such as Forsythe-40,000 acres expanded between 

2,400 and 9,000 acres at a time-that is a very complicated process. 

But the service has on its new refuges just last year we created 

Canaan Valley, the 500th national wildlife refuge in the system. 

And we were able to prepare a station management plan prior to 

the acquisition that did address several of these issues including 

determinations made on hunting. 

However, there will always be a need. The purpose that the refuge is established is for wildlife. And the primary consideration has 

to be for that purpose. 

If the refuge manager determines that the use-whether it be 

traditional or not-is going to adversely affect it, that will not be 

allowed, but the service does attempt to eliminate the two year or 

what can be a longer delay. 

And we have on our new refuges and we are attempting to do 

as much as we can on Barnegat and Brigantine. However, piecemeal additions, even though they are 9,000 acres, are difficult to 

deal with. 

And just as a landowner issue, one of the things that the service 

and the government does have is a liability issue when we acquire 

property. 

And to allow the general public onto a piece of property that we 

are maybe aware of a hazard or a potential danger to peoplewhether it be a cellar hole, a fence, an unsafe bridge-there are 

some reasons why we may have to close it until that can be fixed. 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. OK, let me move--

Mr. McDOWELL. Congressman, may I say one thing? 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sure. 

Mr. McDOWELL. All those things are specific areas. A lot of these 

endangered species are specific areas, you know. So, closing down 

9,000 acres because there might be a bad bridge is, you know. The 

liability issue always comes up, but the state is liable also. 

We have lots of endangered species. We have got lots of these 

kinds of considerations also. And when we buy our land, we immediately open it up and we are not adverse that if it has wildlife im-
35 

pacts, to shut it down for particular uses. Higbee Beach being a 

prime example. 

Mr. SAXTON. What is Higbee Beach? 

Mr. McDoWELL. Higbee Beach wildlife management area is on 

the tip of Cape May County. It was established as a layover spot 

for migratory birds, especially song birds and raptors. 

And we have allowed wildlife observation in there, but we have 

disallowed some other uses that interfere with certain kinds of 

wildlife populations at certain times. It is almost site specific and 

this is where the management skill comes in. 

But I think this whole thing about being concerned about a sitespecific area and that therefore you keep X number of acres of a 

refuge shut down until you can write all of these reports, I do not 

see that as a necessity at alL 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me ask you to respond to this, then. First, Tracy 

just mentioned that his staff has been reduced something like 30 

or 35 percent in a relatively short period of time. Since you have 

been here or whatever. 

In terms of your perspective from a state official standpoint, does 

the Fish and Wildlife Service have the capacity in a rapidly growing to be a 50,000-acre reserve to have the manpower to do the 

kinds of discriminating judgments and make those decisions that 

you have just suggested? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, for one thing, the fish and wildlife law, for 

the State of New Jersey, also aids them. And we have about 55 

conservation officers in this state that enforce the law. 

These conservation officers, I would say there is about a total of 

100 people that manage 220,000 acres of fish and wildlife management area in the state. 

Forest and parks manages over 300,000 acres and they have proportionately less people. I do not know the exact numbers. 

It can be done. And you do have trash to pick and management 

decisions to make, but the critters are doing fine on these areas. 

Mr. SAXTON. Would you like to respond, Don or Tracy, to whether you have the manpower to be that flexible with newly-acquired 

pieces of reserve? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. Well, again, I think that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service regulations are, perhaps, a little more lengthy than the 

state's. So, we are required to do many more things because we are 

addressing the nation. We were bought with national taxpayers' 

money, not just state taxpayers' money. 

So, we do have a different type of expectation. I mean, if you ask 

people about the average wildlife management area that is in the 

State of New Jersey to a Californian, with the exception of Higbee's 

Beach, which is nationally known for birds, they are not going to 

know too much about it, but if you ask an avid outdoorsman in 

California about Brigantine Refuge, I will bet he has heard of it. 

So, we have a national scope to address as well, beyond the state. 

So, we are required to do a few more things than the state is. 

As far as the manpower issue, the manpower issue is always 

going to be a problem. I think the thing that has happened in Forsythe is that the manpower has gone down and we have one of the 

largest acquisition budgets in the region. 
36 

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to switch gears and ask about the ongoing management process. The one concept that has been explored 

by the previous panel was opportunities for public input, public 

comment and perhaps some kind of a public role in the decisionmaking process. 

Is there an adequate one currently and do we need something 

different than we have in order to guarantee the public access to 

the process? 

Mr. CASSELMAN. From what I have seen in Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the places where I have seen it work the best have been 

very informal. Situations where there are annual or bi-annualtwice annually-meetings between the refuge staff. 

Just an open public meeting where the refuge staff says, "Look, 

this is what we have got funded; this is what we are planning on 

doing; what do you think we should strive for next year; what are 

your thoughts and what are your inputs." 

This is done at Parker River. It is also done at several refuges 

throughout the region. 

I think that is the best mechanism. And I see the people here 

to provide that kind of input. That was not necessarily input in the 

past. And, again, that is due to the different management styles of 

the different refuge managers. 

I am currently serving in an interim role as the acting refuge 

manager. I am very hopeful that they will have a permanent refuge 

manager within the next 120 days before my tenure as an acting 

refuge manager expires. 

Mr. SAXTON. We would just as soon have you stay. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. Well, I am going to encourage-you know, one 

of the things that I am certainly going to do and one of the things 

that I have been very adamant about is a lot of discussion with my 

staff. 

And my staff has brought up the subject of friends groups which 

are a very effective mechanism in aiding refuge managers because 

they allow the refuge manager to get a feel for the whole scope of 

public use interest. 

Friends groups quite often consist of everyone from people who 

want to foster butterflies in refuges to people who want to hunt waterfowl. 

Mr. SAXTON. Is there anything like a citizen's advisory group 

committee at a refuge anywhere that you know of that would meet 

on a periodic basis-monthly, quarterly, bi-annually? 

Mr. CONNER. The groups that Tracy mentioned in several areas 

we have what may be The Friends of Rachel Carson, Canaan Valley Task Force. 

There are groups of concerned citizens and individuals involved 

with the area and the uses of the refuge that do meet with the refuge manager. The refuge manager serves as a member of that 

team or committee. 

But it is not necessarily called an "advisory group", although in 

this era of partnerships that the Fish and Wildlife Service is starting off on, that would be an excellent idea. 

Mr. SAXTON. One of the previous witnesses, Mr. deCamp, who 

comes from this as an environmentalist and not so much as a 

sportsman, says in his testimony that: 
37 

''We support the idea of forming a Friends of the Forsythe Refuge 

organization which we think should start out as an alliance of existing groups who wish to be helpful to the management of the refuge. Many groups, including the Ocean County Izaak Walton 

League and the Alliance for a Living Ocean, are already hosting 

clean-ups of refuge lands and are thereby acting in a friends capacity." 

And, certainly, in order to foster community support and community involvement, community participation among all the user 

groups and all the interested groups something like that might be 

interesting. 

I can see Bob McDowell and Tracy Casselman having this opportunity today as an exchange and, perhaps, a Friends of the Forsythe participation by the state, by the Barnegat Bay Baymen's 

group, by ALO and other groups-would that be something that 

you think might work out in our specific case and have a general 

application across the country? 

Mr. CONNER. Just before Tracy speaks, I have seen this work in 

several states within the region in many refuges and it is an effective way of getting input from the community, getting involvement 

from the people. 

And it is a great help to myself and my land acquisition program 

to have these groups in there. We can resolve potentially controversial issues before they become controversial. 

And the refuge managers that I have spoken to are strongly in 

favor of this type of participation and encourage it. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. We are actively looking into starting a friends 

group in the Barnegat Bay area. I think that is part of where 

Willie got the idea for the testimony that he prepared. 

Mr. SAXTON. He is shaking his head that that is right. 

Mr. CASSELMAN. And that has come about because the division 

manager here, Allison Banks, has approached him about that and 

she has also contacted Park and River, Rachel Carson, and several 

other refuges to see how they went about establishing a friends 

group and to look into the possibility for doing that for perhaps 

each of the divisions. 

This refuge is so big and spread out that what we have considered now has been a divisional approach. 

Mr. SAXTON. Bob, do you have a comment? 

Mr. McDOWELL. Well, first of all, I think this is an excellent approach and I will help them with some names of folks-in addition 

to those groups-who might be interested. 

I am sure that the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's 

Clubs, Ducks Unlimited and some of these other groups may be 

helpful. 

In addition to that, our division has 1,650 volunteers that work 

for us daily. And, so, getting volunteers to help with wildlife-related kinds of things takes some organizational skills, but I can tell 

you that we would not get the work that we get done if it were not 

for those 1,650 volunteers. 

To help teach kids how to fish and they pick up trash in the 

creek. They do everything. Pound in data. 

And, in fact, some of them even patrol the forests of the state. 

I have about 100 volunteer conservation officers, in addition to vol-
38 

unteers who keep people from going onto beach in an inappropriate 

place because of piping plovers. 

So, volunteers involving the community is what it is all about. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I do not know whether there 

is anything else. I have nothing further this morning, unless there 

are comments that any of you have in concluding here. 

So, let me just thank you for being here. This has been very helpful. We are in the process of doing a re-authorization and that is 

the prime time to make any changes that the committee and the 

Congress deems are in the best interest of the ongoing reserve program. 

And, so, we thank you for being here this morning with your 

input. And we appreciate it very much. And we look forward to 

communicating with you in the future, perhaps on an individual 

basis. Thank you. 

Mr. McCLAIN. Are you taking any questions from the audience? 

Mr. SAXTON. I am afraid that I cannot at this point. However, 

I do not want to preclude the opportunity to do that. 

Mr. McCLAIN. Just one, if I may. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, go ahead. 

Mr. McCLAIN. I am Pete McClain. With the success of the opening of the section of the Cape May Refuge, I think that it has 

worked out very well. 

I am just wondering. It takes a very long and expensive effort to 

develop a comprehensive management plan because of the separate 

areas if it should come under a challenge from a particular group 

who might not agree or does agree. 

Give the refuge manager some flexibility and provide them with 

the support that they would need from the regional officer and the 

office in Washington directing refuge activities, would it be appropriate to consider an interim management plan for areas that are 

very obviously not going to be affected in the endangered species 

way or the vegetation way or anything else. 

An example would be along Route 47 in Cape May County where 

there are several hundred acres of old fields that, since they have 

acquired them, they have grown up in vegetation. 

Now, I have got a rabbit hunter. There would seem to me that 

one who would go in with rabbit dogs in there and shoot rabbits 

on three or four hundred acres of an old field directly adjacent to 

the road. I could not see why that field and areas like that-staying away from where we throw out the baby with the bath watercould not be covered an interim management plan that would be 

approved by the officers, or the Washington level, to allow the refuge manager the discretion of saying, "Let's open this 300-acre field 

just like you have done with the area for deer hunting." 

Again, you are showing the public that you are interested in acquiring these areas and providing the public use of these areas 

while you are hopefully going to get legislation through that you 

proposed-which, I think, is excellent. 

I think a lot could be accomplished with an interim management 

plan which would be an agreement, more or less, that this area is 

not obviously infested with endangered species, if you will, and 

that it could be used for public recreation. Is that possible? 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. 
39 

Mr. McCLAIN. I think that should be very heavily explored. 

Mr. SAXTON. The situation under current law is that everything 

is officially-not always practically, but officially-closed until it is 

opened through a management plan process. 

Mr. McCLAIN. Then, how do they allow the deer hunting? 

Mr. SAXTON. Our process would totally open it-until a part of 

it is officially closed-through the management plan. 

And what you are suggesting is a kind of a middle-of-the-road 

kind of thing where Tracy and his colleagues could say, "Look, 

there is a serious problem in this area and we are going to close 

this area, but we do not have to close the other 9,000 acres in order 

to solve this problem." Yes, sir. 

Mr. McCLAIN. The authority would partially come from their supervisors in Trenton, in Boston, or in Washington to do this activity--

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McCLAIN.-which would get them off the hook as far as total 

responsibility goes. 

Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McCLAIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you all very much. And thank you panelists, 

once again. And the first panel, I see, is still here. Thank you as 

well. 

This has been a very productive session and we will look forward 

to hearing from you on an individual basis in the future. Thank 

you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
40 

NF.W .JJ:RSEV STATE FEDERATION OP SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS, INC. 

Kuftl8w~~=~=~·:::-=ru-.., --- .. ,..,.JU7., 

TostSmony of Ceoree P. ••~wArrl, R~~~t1tive Uirector of tile 

N~w Jersey State Federation Of S~ortRmen'e Clubs, bef~rc tl1e 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans ot tlte Committee 

on K~sourc~s of tt10 u.s. HouGe of Rqpr•~~ntRtiv~~, At RArn~~at 

Recreation CPnt~r, Rarnceat, New Jersey on Saturday, April 22,1tQ95. 

Tho 150,000 member New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's 

Clubo appreciatns the opportunity to nddrcsR the Subcommittee 

today relative to the ~dwin R. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuce 

(NWR) nnd the futur~ acquitition str~tecy for the southern 

~xpansion Ar.ca. We are particularly ;ntcrcstcd in addreseinr. 

l'Ublic acc~as to Forsythe an4 other New Jersey rcfue~a for 

compatible wildlife related activiti~s 3Ucl' 4& flohin~, h11ntinc, 

l)irdin~. trappin~, crabbln~, clammine, etc •• and would like to sur.Re&t a modification to th~ NWR system approach to public 

access, which 6hould ~rove beneficial to the \J.S. Fish and Wildlife 

S~rvice as w~ll as to New JerseY citizen~. 

OV(•J.' the years, spo1·tsmen :111 Nelf Jersey h.lVf"!o cxpcrienced a 

d~e~ frustrAtton relative to the Service·~ recreational u~c 

pnliciea on N~k"s in our state. D~spitc thn ohviou8 intent nf 

t'Plevanl le~islatiur1 to eucouru~u COMI•&llblc wildlife oriettlod 

rPcrcation within the NWk &ystem, and de~pite the oft repeated nfftcial Service policies in this r.ec~r.d, somewhere down throuch 

the y~ara aomethint has tone awry. Instead of eneouraelne ~nmp~1ih1P wil~life-nri~nte(l recreation, ma11y Refuec men~ecrs tn 

N~w Jers~y and th~ Nor~h~aat Rcelon aeem to have an ''inviolat~ 

~>anctuar.yu m~ntalit:y wh~n it eom@s to th~ ~ubl'c's uac of .1!!.ll!: rPf'nr,PA. (11nf'nr1'.nnllltP.1y, in mAny CRBCB, Service policy is still 

dictated hy the whims and biases of many individual r~fur.e 

mana~cr~.) For example in New J~rsey no refu~e permits small 

same huntin8• Excopt for Lily Lake in Forsythe, no refue~ in 

N~w J~rscy permits fresh water fishinc. Fall bow huntinft l$ 

prohibited on all NWR lands tn New Jersey. nirdine io ~ro~ibit~d 

on most refuce laltd& her~. 

It is of interest to compare publ!o acce~s policieR on Stat~ FiRl) and Game ~tv•atort operated Wildlife Manaeement Area&, 

wh!cll sit side by side with many NWK's in New Jers~y. On thP 

~tate wildlife areas, whose broad objectivP& are practically 

identical to thoGc of the Rcfucr Gy~tcm, compatiblr wildlife related recreational uses arc cncouraeed and permitted from 

the dAy tl1e ~reas arP aCQ\tired, unl~ss A problem is id~ntifjed. 
41 

On the ndjoinint NWR lands no wildlife related uses ara permStt~d 

until tho use in quection can b~ doeumqnt~d to be compfttth\~, t~ A 

procos~ that tak~• years, if not decades, to-acCOmpl1ah. fhts 

n~tativ~ approach to co~patible public use does certainly not 

r0pr~s~nt ''encouraRemont.•• In practice, Service public uce in 

Nov Jor~oy translates into, at beat, a mere tolerance of public 

wildlife r.~latcd recreation. This in a &~ate where public l~nds 

for wildlSfn rolatad recreation are at a premium, and ar~ b~~ominc 

moro important daily, and where the u.s. Vish and Wildlife SPrvie~ 

WWR system controls ten6 of thousand& of acre• of potential r.ood 

quality wildlife related recreational londa. 

In 1971, the Service be6an acquirin& Supawna NWR in Salem 

County, New Jer~ey. At abou~ the same time the nearby Had Horae 

Cr~ek Stat~ Wildlife Hanacoment Area wao beine acquired, Some 

twenty plus years lat~r, Supawna is just oponint it~ fir~t wat~rfowl ~eaeon (on a mere 4,5% of the refute.) ~ird~r~ and emall 

~am~ hunters are still con$lder~d non-~ntities. The mis-manaRement 

of the deer herd at Supawna throunh the lack of an adequate 11arv~Rt 

1a~~ uv~r l1tu years cau~ua vast r•rttbl~ma !ur tl1e acrlcullttral n~iehbor~ of the refuee. In the same time period on tl1e nearby 

Had llorae WMA, literally tens of thousands of people days of 

w~t~rfuwl l1uratin~, birdit•R• and s1nall ~ame l1untin~ ltave b~en 

~nioved by the New Jersey public over moat of the tract. In lieht 

of this, ~portsm~n hav~ concerns as to why these two ·~~ncie~ are •~ankgl11~ ~i1~il•r larads ~o diffprerally. After twenty years, th~ 

r~aourc~ i~ no worse or better off on Had llorse WHA than on 

Supawna NWR. 

we•ve heard the areument that it coats too much to open NWR 

lands to the public for wildlife related r~creation, y~t th~ state 

sePms to manace recreational users with tar leas r~eulation and 

rn~t. Tn Any ~A~P, PY~P~~\vr rPe••1A~tnn rloPA not n~c~~8~rily 

translate \nto quality recreational cxpcri~nc~c. Ho~t find th~ 

opposite to be true. ln retrospect, a More positive approach to 

compatiblo rocro~tional u~~ of NWR syst~m ar~as should b~ attempt~d. 

To have NWR lands cloeed to pulic u~e {or years and even 

dacadoR b~cau'~ no on~ has both~red or has the wh~rewithal to 

compl~t~ the necessary manacement plana, opens tho Servicn to 

chaarees of heine unsympath~tic to the needs o£ todaya rcercati~nal 

users, and erodes tupport £or the entire NWR oyGtem. bcccuoc o£ 

its 11ecatlve approach t~ wildlife relat~d r~cr~atlonal users, the 

~ervic~ is lostne the support of ita form~rly ~ost ardent advocates. 

tn concluSion, I would lik~ to stat~ that New J~rsey sports-

~~n s~e the NWR syst~M a1 A potentially tro~cndous as8ot to th~ 

wildlife reeoureo• of our atate aa well as to th@ futur@ 

r~cr~fttionftl U$PTR n* thPAP rPAniiT~P~, i~ prnpPTly man~&Pd. Tn 
42 

&pitP. of past and present problems related to the reer~ational 

uae of theae areas by N•w Jqr~~:"'y <"it-i. 't(""R• vP hRvP hPPn P.nr.nurOiltPd 

by ree~nt ehane~• wa ~co in recreational use policies b~ine 

developed for $oma NWR areaa. In particular we ap~laud tt•e 

cffortG of Service pcreonncl at tl•e •Cape May NWR which has resulted in a rublic acc~ss policy for deer huntint which 

accomodates compatibl~ r~crcational activities at Cap~ Hay NWR. 

We truot that the Cape H~y deer huntinc policy will prove to be a 

model for public accoss plans for other New Jprsey KWR'a rnthPr 

than the ''exception to the rule'' that it now represents. 

Tho NWR system ta far too important to the future of our wildlife, aa well as to the quality of life of our cit17.cns, to 

be th~ rcc1plcnt or anytl1111& less than our best effort relative to th~ plannlnr. for its future. A bit ~art of its future in 

New Jersey should be to encoura~~, and maximi~e vh~re possible, 

cumpftLibl~ wil~lifc related rccr e atlo11&l actlvltles for Nek 

Jersey citizens on NWR lands. With proper plannln~ and mana~cmcnt, 

th~ N~w J~rsey NWR system of the future ~hould prov~ to b~ at 

l e ast as lmpurt&Jl t to our cltl~etls as lt ls to our wlldllfe. 

Reop~ctfully su~mitted, 

4.,f~ ceor~e P. Howard, Executive »lreetor New Jersey State Fcd~ration of ~portsm~n•s Clubs 
OCEAN (QijHTY 

!ZAAK WAUON LEAGUE 

Dlf\EGOP...S 

A'ACr\05( H HAP.CtW!(I< 

HOGA~ 

ELOERT ( HUSTED. Iii 

ADVISORY 

COMMfm:£ 

43 

BARNEGAT BAY 

Apnl 22, 1995 

William deCamp, Jr., PreSident 

Ocean County Izaak Walton League 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Hon jim Saxton, Chairman 

at Barnegat Recreation Center, Barnegat, New jersey 

PO Gox 665 

~~ J 

TI1e Ocean County Izaak Walton League (Save Barnegat Bay) 

thanks Congressman Saxton for allowing us the opportunity to 

testify on the issues of acquisition, access and uthlizaUon of land 

within the growing Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

We are extremely grateful to Congressman Saxton for the 

energetic role that he has played in conserving environmentally 

sensitive lands Vlithm the Barnegat Bay watershed by getting them 

included within the Forsythe Refuge through the mechanism of 

purchase at fair market value from willing sellers. We also 

applaud the efforts of Congressman Saxton to promote a 

discussion of how lands ought to be acqUJred and managed This 

provides a welcome opportunity to work out contltcting views 

that any groups may hold on these issues 

The Ocean County Izaak Walton League has devoted ttself 

primarily to promoting land conservation within the Bamegat 

Bay watershed. Most of our efforts to date have been dwected at 

the expansion of the Forsythe Refuge 

1 Because developmenl pressure continues throughout the 

Barnegat Bay waie:'shcd. we believe that there should be a 

continued heavy emphasis on acquisition, even if it means that 

the land is undermanaged for many years into the future. In the 

realm of iand conservation, acqutsition ts the great challenge of 

our era; if we save habitat from destruction today, we will have 

THE OCEAN COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE 
44 

unlimited time m the future m which to work out management strategies. 

The urgency of the need for land acquisi!ton is well tllustrated by constdering 

specific properties around Barnegat Bay The list of lands that would tn all 

bkelthood now be housing developments tf they had not been included Within the 

Refuge is a long one. It mcludes Murray Grove and Oak Park Homes near Stout's 

Creek in Lacey To~Nnship, the Vvaterford stte and Cedar Bonnet Island m Stilfford 

Township, most of the Reedy Creek area m Brick Townshtp, and the Dowd property 

in the lo~NTI of Barnegat 

Moreover, the list of tracts under development threat which arc eligible for 

inclusion but not yet brought wtthin the Forsythe Refuge ts also a very long one 

Among these threatened properties are the Havenswood and ]o Pal properties at 

Reedy Creek, the Tliton Point area south of Cattus Island in Dover Townshtp, the 

Veeder Lane/ Lifetime Homes property <Ja well as the Maple Creek area in Bayville, 

the Fmninger Farm and the Atrport tract in Lacey Township, the Sands Point 

Harbor area on Oyster Creek in Waretown, and the Ughthouse Camp property on 

the Bayfront m Waretown 

It is worthy of note that Congress is currently threatening to institute new policies 

concerning both the issue of regulatory "taktngs" and the definition of wetlands 

These changes could potentially render regulatory protection of wetlands 

tmpossible. '!he day may come when the wetlands that the government actually 

0\'\11\S are the only ones that we are able to keep from development. 

2 - The US. Fish & Wildlife SeJvice should have their budget for management 

increased, not decreased The Forsythe Refuge is very understaffed at present We 

strongly believe tlut this is unwise both for present and future generations /\ 

particularly adverse consequence of th1s understafflng is that 1t can serve as a 

rationale for opponents of land conservation to argue against increaslng the amount 

of land under protection To our way of looking at it, the fact that the Ftsh & 

Wildlife Service ts Wiliing to lake on more land at a ltme when they are 

understaffed is a sign that they have the big picture in proper focus and that they 

understand what our obligations to future generations truly are. Those who control 

the Service's management pursestrings ought to back them up 

3 - We believe that the boundaly of the Refuge shoukl have wide flexibility ranging 

from paces which are open for people to =me in to walk. fish or hunt without 

having to get pcnnis:sion to other places wl1cre environmental scnsiiMiy requires 

that the public be protubited. This type of flexible refuge boundary Will help to 

maintain the publtc support that the Refuge ul!lmately needs to survive 

H1kin& fishing and hunting are three traditJonal act1vitles of many c1tlzens in our 

area_ When lands pass from private ownership into the refuge, it is only natural 

that those who formerly were able to wallc, fish and hunt on them - and who are 

now no longer able to do so - are upset They feel that something has been lost from 

their lives, and they are right We would ltke to see this problem ameliorated 
45 

In our understanding of the problem, the flexibility that would lessen some of the 

complaints by users, or would-be users, must come from a management level 

higher than the local managers Many policies are set in Washington and do not 

gtve the local management the discretlon to be flexible. The Fish & Wildlife Service 

may wish to rellect further on the regional differences among their refuges Because 

Barnegat Bay exists in an increasingly suburban environment, the public's 

Jegllimate needs for access will likely be of a d1fferent sort than may be found in 

Alaska or Wyoming. The winning possibiHty here is that by letting people use the 

Forsythe Refuge to a greater extent for walking. fishing and hunting, the Service 

may well strengthen the constituency that it needs to support it should it ever come 

under political or fiscal attack 

In urging a more flexible boundary, however, we do recognize that carrying out the 

mission of the US. Flsh & Wildlife Service must necessarily frequently involve 

saying "no" For example we believe in absolute prohibitions on dirt bikes and 

jetskis on refuge lands Where endangered species or possible habitat destruction are 

involved, the public must usually be prohibited. We are not trying to change the 

Forsythe concept from a refuge to a park, but we do believe that nature may be more 

strongly protected by allm~ing further measured involvement b)' people 

4 After lands are acquired by the FISh & Wildlife Service and plior to a 

management plan being drawn up, lands ought to remain open to their traditional 

uses To the best of my understanding the current practice is to completely close of' a 

new piece of refuge property as soon as its boundaries can be posted and to leave it 

closed until a management plan has been drawn up which may lake a long lime. 

Th1s seems unnecessary and only creates bad will for the refuge We support the 

idea of leaving land open until the refuge managers can draw up a plan in which 

access can be considered along \~~lh all other issues. 

5 We support the type of experimenla1 managernenllcclmiques now being tried by 

the Fish & Wildlife Service in the Connectiart River valley and elsewhere. 

Although fee simple purchases from willing sellers will always have our support, 

we are aware that the Service is increasingly using such mechanisms as 

conservation easements and management agreements with property owners or state 

and local agencies \Ve support these efforts as worthwhile management tools. 

6 We support the idea ol funning a "r'licnds of the Forsythe Refuge" organization, 

which we think should start out as an alliance of existing groups who wish to be 

helpful to the management of the Refuge. Many groups, including the Ocean 

County Izaak Walton League and the Alliance for a Living Ocean, are already 

hosting cleanups of refuge lands and are thereby already acting in a "Fnends" 

capacity. 

7 Although the solution of this aspect of the problem 1s likely to lie beyond the 

power of one Congressman or of one Committee, we would be remiss if we did not 

take note of the fact that the problems sum:nmding the Forsythe Refuge have an the 

classic signs of being linked to ovei]XlpUiation Too many people have legitimate 
46 

but somewhat conflictmg needs of the resource: Families need houses; plants and 

animals need protection; the tourist economy and shellfishermen need dean water; 

hikers, fishermen, hunters and boaters need to pursue their avocations. The 

population of each of these constituencies grows every day and functions as an 

invisible engine for most of the problems discussed here. We hope that the 

Committee on Resources Will perceive population growth as a major component of 

this and of other problems and that the Committee Will promote an appropriate 

population policy for our country. 

The expansion of the Forsythe Refuge is doing enormous good for our region in the 

areas of protecting habitat, endangered species, waterfowl, water quality and our 

tourism economy We hope that all mvolved With this project Will keep up the 

good work and that they Will talk through any problems that may arise in 

association With it. 

Thank you for considering our v1ews 
T H E 

TRUST 

F 0 R 

PUBLIC 

LAND 

~ CorueTVin,c: land 

for Peopk 

47 

STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT 

VICE PRESIDENT, THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, & OCEANS 

APRIL 22, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today representing The Trust for Public Land 

(fPL), a national, nonprofit land conservation organization that works with public agencies 

and communities to protect resource lands for the people and wildlife that depend on them. 

appreciate this opportunity to come before the Subcommittee, and am gratified by your 

continued interest in land acquisition as an important tool to preserve dwindling habitat at the 

nearby Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and at other refuges around the country. 

Given TPL's specific role in acquisition assistance as part of the extensive public/private 

partnership at the Forsythe, I hope my organization's perspective on the past successes and 

future opportunities in this effort will provide useful context for your consideration of the 

refuge's acquisition program and related issues. 

Importance of . and Threats to. the Forsythe Refuge 

The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge provides vital wetland and upland 

habitat for both migratory and year-round resident species along the coast of America's most 

intensely urbanized state. The refuge, whose critical oases of open space punctuate the 

otherwise developed landscape along roughly 60 miles of the Jersey shore, is the first major 

estuarine area encountered by Atlantic Flyway waterfowl migrating southward from the small 

glaciated wetlands of the northeastern United States. Consequently, these key remnant 

wetlands represent an irreplaceable link in the constellation of waterfowl areas on the eastern 

seaboard, affording essential wintering nesting and feeding grounds for shorebirds, raptors, 

and upland-dependent species. 

The protected lands of the Forsythe host over 150 species of bird life, including such 

federal-listed species as bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and least tern. An estimated 35 percent 

of the Atlantic Flyway's black duck population and fully 70 percent of its Atlantic brant 

winter here, along with the full complement of other migratory species on the flyway . One of 

just four wetland systems in the U.S. originally designated as a "Wetland of International 

Importance" under the global treaty known as the Ramsar Convention, the refuge also is 

home to a diversity of other sensitive animal and plant life. 

The Trusr for Public Land 

666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suire 401 

Washington, D.C. 20003 

(202) 541·7552 

Fax (202) 544-472.3 
48 

But the same development pressures that have severel y limited this kind of quality 

habitat on the Jersey shore pose a real and present th reat to key unprotected tracts remaining 

within the refuge . Su bdi vision and construction lay cl aim to more prev iously undeveloped 

coastal acreage each year. The habitat that remains thu s is increasingly vital for the breed ing 

sites. feeding grounds. upl and cove r. and travel corridors on which the area's wildlife depends. 

Maintaining the quantity, as well as the quality, of this habitat is central to stabilizi ng and 

enhancing waterfowl and other popul ations. and to the recovery of thre atened and endangered 

species. 

The Forsythe Acquisition Program · · a Partne rshiP Resoonse 

Si nce 1990, the U.S. Fish & Wi ldl ife Se rvice. with su pport from Congress and from a 

broad partnership of interests including my organi zation. has maintai ned an aggressive habitat 

acquisition program focused on those available. willing·scll er pri vate lands most critical to 

ma intaining the frag ile links in the Jersey shore's chai n of wetlands and adjacent upl ands. 

The magn itude of this partnership and its record of success is both gratifying and, based on 

TPL's ex perience ac ross the country . extremely unusual. 

State and local jurisdict ions have not only offered their uniform endorsement to the 

federal habitat preservation effort, bu t also have undertaken substanti al acq uisitions 

themselves, and in numerous in stances have tran sferred their own own lands to the Fish & 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) to promote consolidated management of these lands. USFWS's 

program also has received simil arl y unified support and assistance from a di ve rse coalition of 

interests ranging from the environmental community to sportsmen's groups to local chambers 

of commerce, all of whom have recogni 1.ed the nati onal importance of the refuge and the 

importance of its wildli fe and open space to their commun ities. 

In the past fi ve years, Congre" has specificall y direc ted over S20 million to the 

Forsythe Refuge for its resource land ;;cquisition efforts. With the approval of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission, the Fish & Wild life Sers·ice has committed add itional federal 

duck stamp fun ds to augme nt this very considerable in vestme nt of appropri ated doll ars, and 

even furthe r has appli ed some of its sca rce Emergency Account funding io acquire add itiooal 

land s of importance to the For>y the Refuge and the Barnegat Bay. Th is ste ady. substantial 

fund ing has produced signi ficant. tangible conse rvation results and habitat consolidation 

throughout the refuge. The effects have bee n particularly evident 1nd benefi cial in several 

areas where both the threat of developme nt and USFWS planning efforts to preclude that 

deve lopment have been most intense. 

Since 1990, USFWS has twice undertaken its formal pu bli c process to ex pand the 

boundaries of the Forsythe Refuge to include add itional threate ned habitat. The first of these 

cases led to the establishment of the Reedy Creek Di vision . Private holdings at Reedy Cree k 

ra nged from open-space upl ands already permitted for devel opment to undevelopable marsh, 

all of which together comprised a complete wetland/upl and habit at system . More recentl y, 

US FWS last year approved the nearl y 8,000-ac re Ocea n County expansion of the refuge to 

incl ude some of the last, best islands of habitat in a sea of development stretching south from 
49 

Reedy Creek to the main body of the Barnegat Unit. Like the overall acquisition program, 

these expansions have been true partnership efforts with strong community consensus. 

TPL's role in the Forsythe partnership has centered on the realities of the real estate 

marketplace, in which private sale or development prospects may outpace the government's 

ability to respond. As a private organization with public-interest goals, we have been able to 

secure threatened lands by competing directly with other private alternatives, negotiating with 

willing sellers to purchase or otherwise gain control of lands, and then maintaining our hold 

on properties until public acquisition is possible. In this way, TPL works to meet the 

immediate private needs of landowners while keeping their resource lands available for 

eventual public usc and resource conservation. 

TPL's Perspective -- Ac<Juisition to Date. and Opportunit}· for the Future 

Working with USFWS, the State of New Jersey, and local jurisdictions, TPL in the 

last five years has assisted in the protection of nearly 4,000 acres of habitat lands at the 

Forsythe Refuge and elsewhere in the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.. Our work with USFWS has 

been concentrated at Reedy Creek, in the more recent Ocean County expansion, and in other 

key areas of the original core of the refuge. In each area, the primary initial focus has been 

on propenies that faced the most immediate development pressures in order to preclude loss 

of the habitat integrity of these areas. Subsequem activity has involved acquisition of 

resource-rich but less imminently threatened (and frequently less costly) sites in order to 

block up habitat. 

This approach has yielded clear results at Reedy Creek, where real progress has been 

made towards consolidation but which by now would suffer from considerable incompatible 

development were it not for the acquisition of threatened properties there that began five 

years ago. In the original Barnegat and Brigantine Units of the refuge, which arc fairly well 

consolidated, development threats and acquisition opponunities continue to arise for key 

private holdings. And in the most recent expansion areas, our current experience in the real 

estate marketplace demonstrates just how immediate those threats and opportunities can be. 

TPL currently is affording interim protection to four properties in the expansion, including an 

already-approved 252-unit subdivison_ that arc true now-or-never opportunities. 

I appreciate your commitment, Mr. Chairman, and that of other members of the 

Subcommittee to the protection of resources that once lost can never be retrieved. As the 

experience to date at Forsythe shows, habitat acquisition in this area (as in many other pans 

of the country) is a core component in the strategy to maintain and improve the health an 

number of wildlife populations. Happily, this program also has been consistent with the 

desires of the communities that coexist with the refuge, communities with there own 

appreciation for and stake in protecting threatened open space and the habitat it supports. 

Ami while the progress to date is truly striking, the choice between development and 

protection continually arises '" properties become available. The public/private pannership, 

l!SFWS's program, and Congressional support for the program at the Forsythe all have been 

remarkably strong. For the work yet to be done, we urgently hope this strength will continue, 

and we look forward to our continued involvement in this very special refuge. 
Chri,;toH' Todd Wlutmn• 

GOV('Hl(IJ 

50 

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF l'lSH, GAME AND WILDLIFE 

CN400 

TRENTON, NJ 08625 

ROBERT MCDOWFLL 

CommL•5h'JH't 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MCDOWELL, DlRECTOR OF THE NEW JERSEY 

DIVISION OF FISII, GAME AND WILDLIFE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

OF THEUS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AT BARNEGAT RECREATION 

CENTER, BARNEGAT, NEW JF.RSEY ON SATURDAY, APRIL 22, 1995 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Edwin B 

Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the purposes of the Refuge System as a whole. As 

you know, I am the Director of the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, the state agency 

charged with the responsibility of protecting and managong the state's f•sh ond wildlife. 

resources. 1 am also represen1ing, as an executive commitlce mcmbcJ, The lnternntionid 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies The Association· s governmental n•cmbc• s 

include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states. provinces, and federal governnH':>ts of 

the US, Canada and Mexico. All .SO states are members 

We have always been, and continue to be stron1: supporters of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System We consiMr the U S rish and W•ldlifc Service to he an 

invaluable partner in the conservation of our state's rich fish and wildlife hct it age We 

strongly support the expansion of the Refuge System in New Jersey, particularly when ll 

1nvolvcs wetlands and associated uplands where the threat of development is imminent 

Having said that, J would also like to express some concerns l have with the wny 

the Refuge System is managed. National Wildlife Refuges are purcha~ed becau~e they 

protect some of the richest fish and wildlife hablats this country !1as to offer A< a 

consequence of this richness. these areas have always proVlded outstanding opportunities 

for wildlife-associated recreation such as fishing, hunting, birding, crabbing, clamming, 

etc In addition, this recreational tourism provides significant economic benefits to the 

local community. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Survey, wrldlil(:-

assoclated recreation generates $2_65 billion in cconmnic acti .. ilty in New Jersey cveJ)' 

year, particularly benefiting small businesses and their employees 

Wildlife-associated recreational use has been compatibly enJoyed on manv lar.rls 

that have become National Wildlife Refuges in New Jersey for the !Jct!cr port of three. 

centuries It is ironic, however, thM when these rich habitats AIC designated a Refllgt'. ail 

l'ublic use must stop until a writ!en determmalion is made !hat each pa11iculur use, 

wildlife-as~ociaied c,r not, is compatible with the primary purposes of the Kcfugc 

Nrw Jr'fii,('y l) ,lfl b/<MJ ( 1-'l'<Vfli'''lJI Pmpl"Y""' 

Rr.-.,k.lt\n"t'r 
51 

Because of the Service's limited operational funding, this policy has resulted in the clo>ure 

of Refuges to compatible, wildlife-associated uses for many years, sometimes decAdes 

Because of the burdensome paperwork involved, some Refuge Managers shy away from 

ever opening their Refuges to these uses. This negative approach to wildlife oriented 

recreation not only impacts local economies and recreational opportunities, it frus.trates 

the users and erodes support for the Refuge System as a whole. Waterfowl hunters, in 

particular, who have financially supported the Refuge System for half a century, complain 

about the lack of responsiveness of the Fish and Wildlife Service to their legitimate 

concerns. 

It is my feeling that legislation is needed to allow the Service to tAke a positive 

approach toward their most ardent supporters, the wildlife-associated rccr cAtional users 

Traditional wildlife-associated uses should be presumed to be compatible when a new 

Refuge is purchased. If a compatibility problem arises, then uses can be curtarlcd or 

appropriately regulated This not only sends a positive message to the users, but cuts 

down tremendously on the administrative workload of the hard-pressed Refuge Marmgcrs 

The Service's "Refuges are for People" slogan would not ring so hollowly under this type 

of system. 

The positive approach works' As an example, let me share with you a "tale of two 

cities" In 1971, acquisition for Supawna Meadows National Wildlife r cfuge was begun in 

Salem County, New Jersey. At about the same time, and a short di<tance down the Bay, 

the state Wildlife Management Area at Mad Horse Creek began to take shape Both areas 

were traditionally utilized for all sorts of wildlife-associated recreation. At Mad Horse this 

recreation continued, and continues to this day, without any damage to the cugles, 

harriers, ospreys, black rails or any other sensitive species that inhabits this protected 

ecosystem At Supawna on the other hand, all recreational use has been excluded for rhc 

last 24 years with the exception of hunts to control the deer herd, waterfowl hunting on 

4.5% of the Refuge and guided tours of the lighthouse on the third Sunday of every 

month And these exceptions have occurred only very recently Because of the lack of 

operational funding, wildlife-associated recreation has essentially been eliminated from an 

area where it was compatibly enjoyed for generations. The users arc left wondering about 

the dichotomy in policies between two agencies whose primary mission is the same 

protect and manage fish and wildlife resources for their ecosystem and peoplc-r elated 

values. 

We have seen improvements in this situation in recent years such as the opening of 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge to birding and its planned opening this fAll for 

rc.,:rea.tilm~l deer hunting Even in this best case scenario, however, where the Refuge 

Manager is dedicated to getting the job done, it took almost six years for any traditional 

wildlife-associated uses to be restored. Other traditional uses of this Refuge such as 

waterfowl hunting, woodcock hunting and crabbing will take several more years to re 

establish. 
52 

Legislation is sorely needed to rectify this needless and inctlicvable loss of 

recreational and economrc resources. Additionally, any new legislation should affirm the 

primary role of the state fish and wildlife agencies in protecting and managing fish and 

wildlife resources unless specifically preempted by federal law. Greater comdination and 

cooperation with state agencies, who have the broad responsibility for fish and wildlife 

within their borders, would alleviate many of the problems cited above 

The National Wildlife Refuge System represents a key link in our efforts to 

preserve a place for wildhfe in our nation's most densely populated state, as well as the 

entire country. lt can also serve to meet the considerable recreational and educational 

needs of our citizenry witho~t damage to the tcsource• it was estahlishcd to p1 otect, if it is 

professionally and intelligently managed To accomplish this, legislation to rcfmm the 

existing recreational use policies is a necessity I look forward to w~~rking with you to 

achieve this important goal 
TISHOMINGO NATIONAL Wll..DLIFE REFUGE 

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, 

COMMI'ITEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. If the panel would assemble. The committee will 

come to order. 

I would like to extend a welcome to our witnesses who are here 

today to discuss Mr. Brewster's bill, H.R. 1112, to transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Oklahoma. 

[The bill H.R. 1112 may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. This bill was introduced in response to several actions taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after its review 

of the compatibility of certain secondary activities in the 

Tishomingo Refuge, which I am sure Mr. Brewster intends to outline here today in a few minutes. 

Mr. Brewster's measure would transfer management but not 

ownership of the refuge to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. It would require that this refuge be managed consistent with the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. It would also authorize up to 50 percent of the funds appropriated for the refuge 

to the State of Oklahoma in fiscal year 1996. 

I look forward to hearing from our many distinguished witnesses 

today about this proposal. Nationwide, questions have arisen about 

what constitutes compatible use of refuge lands. Just last month, 

the subcommittee held a field hearing in Barnegat, New Jersey, to 

discuss appropriate uses of refuge lands in the Edwin B. Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, next week the subcommittee will 

be holding a hearing on the larger refuge !'eauthorization bill which 

also examines the compatibility issue. The New Jersey hearing and 

today's hearing will certainly provide the subcommittee with more 

background on this very important issue. 

I would also like to note that we anticipate a number of votes. 

They will be spaced a half-hour to 20 minutes apart, so we will do 

(53) 
54 

our best to work within that. And I would like to recognize Mr. 

Studds at this point for any opening statement he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I will simply put my opening statement in the record at this point. 

[The statement of Mr. Studds follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Today's hearing is part of an ongoing discussion within this panel about the management of our National Wildlife Refuges. From humble beginnings at the start of 

this century, the National Wildlife Refuge System has grown into a large, complex 

system designed to preserve important wildlife habitat throughout the United 

States. As our nation's population has grown, so too have pressures on the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, sometimes bringing various uses of the refuges into conflict. 

The bill on which we will hear testimony today is one approach to resolving user 

conflicts within a refuge. 

I have a number of reservations about H.R. 1112. I am concerned about the prece- dent set by passing legislation to resolve user conflicts within individual refuges. User conflicts are not new to the refuge system, and we will have a lot of legislation 

to do if we plan to resolve them that way. Also, if we take actions that restrict the 

ability of refuge managers to make decisions regarding fish and wildlife conservation, I believe that we will harm the refuge system in the long run. I would venture 

to say that the many dedicated professionals within the Fish and Wildlife Service 

know a bit more about wildlife management than does the U.S. Congress. While I 

wholeheartedly support recreational uses of wildlife refuges by the public, I believe 

that they are secondary to the fundamental conservation purposes of the refuge system. 

In this time of tight budgets, we certainly need to look at creative approaches to 

management. But before we adopt new management regimes, this Committee needs 

to take a careful look at the implications of such changes for the resources being managed. On that note, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and I look 

forward to hearing the testimony of our colleagues and the other witnesses. 

Mr. SAXTON. Also, I would like to recognize Mr. Young who is 

waiting breathlessly to say something. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTA· 

TIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. YoUNG. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1112, I am 

pleased to listen to the witnesses today, and this is just the first 

step of many, although this is the first step that has been instigated by a State and by the delegation from that State that I expect to have happen in the full committee over a period of time. 

There are many areas where the refuge system has, frankly, not 

been operated as it should have been, and how this was created 

and why it was created and by whom it was created has been misinterpreted over the years. I will say in this area that refuges 

should be managed as refuges, and it is really up to the discretion 

of the people, I believe, that live in these States to try to make sure 

that they fulfill the obligations of the Refuge Act itself. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a bill to review 

the total Refuge Act and we hope to have some of these, I think, 

unfortunate instances eliminated and how they are interpreted for 

the refuges take place. That is a step forward, and a very unique 

step I think. It is the first time. 
55 

And I do want to compliment Mr. Brewster for his leadership in 

this as well as Senator Nickles and Jim Inhofe for their fine vision 

of how refuges should be operated. So I look forward to the witnesses today, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

[The statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALAsKA, Al\ID 

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 12112, I am pleased that we are having this important hearing today on the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. 

This bill has been introduced by the distinguished Gentleman from Oklahoma, 

Congressman Bill Brewster. It will transfer the management of the Refuge from the 

Federal Government to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

The Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge was established on January 24, 1946. 

For nearly 50 years individuals have been able to enjoy camping, fishing, hunting, 

and picnicking on some, if not all, of the 13,450 acres that comprise this unit. Re- ~ettably, the Fish and Wildlife Service has now proposed the elimination of campmg in the entire Refuge and new onerous restrictions on boating, fishing, and picnicking. 

H.R. 1112 was introduced in response to these restrictions and the public outcry 

that has been sounded throughout the State of Oklahoma. 

While the Fish and Wildlife Service will be given an opportunity to explain why 

these recreational activities are no longer "compatible", many Oklahomans, who 

help to maintain this Refuge through the purchase of duck stamps and excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment, are disgusted that the Federal Government 

would outlaw activities that have occurred for generations. 

H.R. 1112 is not a new or radical idea. A number of Federal lands in coordination 

areas, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife refuges are being effectively man- aged by the States, and I am confident that the State of Oklahoma could do an outstanding job of managing the Tishomingo Refuge. 

Finally, the American people want a smaller Federal Government and more re- sponsibility entrusted to the States. This legislation will accomplish those goals and 

will ensure that the thousands of people who visit Tishomingo will be able to enjoy 

various recreational activities without destroying either the Refuge or the species 

that live there. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I 

compliment Don Nickles, Jim Inhofe, and Bill Brewster for their leadership in this 

matter. 

Mr. SAXTON. I ask unanimous consent that all subcommittee 

members' statements be included in the record at this point. 

I would like to introduce our first panel and the sponsor of the 

bill, our good friend and distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, 

Congressman Bill Brewster, and former cochair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. 

Gentlemen, welcome. We would like to remind you that under 

the committee rules we must limit our oral statements to five minutes, so if you would proceed in any order, presumably with Mr. 

Brewster going first. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL K. BREWSTER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today, and I appreciate the opportunity to hold this hearing so various interests can 

have an opportunity to publicly discuss the legislation I have introduced. 

On March 2nd, 1995, I introduced H.R. 1112, a bill which transfers management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in 
56 

Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma. I felt compelled to introduce 

H.R. 1112 after repeated attempts failed to resolve differences between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, local citizens, 

and myself concerning uses determined to be appropriate and per- missible upon the refuge. 

In Oklahoma, as in most non-Western States, there is very little 

public land. In most areas, these small pockets of public land provide the only opportunity for the nonlandowning public to fish, 

hunt, or view wildlife in its natural setting. These areas provide excellent family-oriented recreational opportunities at little or no expense to the public. 

Let me restate. I am proposing to transfer the management of 

the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge to Oklahoma as a pilot 

project. In a few years if it has become apparent the refuge is not 

adequately addressing the conservation needs of residential and 

migratory wildlife, we may debate returning management to the 

Federal Government. 

However, during the last few years we have experienced an explosion of government overregulation. The public opinion backlash 

resulting from runaway regulation is threatening to nullify years 

of constructive environmental conservation efforts. If we lose the 

support of the local communities, we lose the ability to protect and 

conserve our wildlife resources in the future. 

I have personally experienced this situation in the district I represent with the administration of the Tishomingo National Wildlife 

Refuge. During the past few months, the manager of the refuge, 

with the support of the regional and national administrators, has 

proposed a new management plan which would prohibit boating 

and fishing for three of the seven months currently allowed. It 

would prohibit year-round access to about 40 percent of the refuge 

waters as well as place all sorts of restrictions on types of tackle 

and fishing equipment permitted. In essence, the refuge manager, 

through his compatibility review, is shutting down well over 50 

percent of the fishing opportunities available to the refuge and is 

setting up a bureaucratic nightmare for local anglers in deciding 

what type of lure they can use or whether the jug on the end of 

their trot line is government approved. 

After I devoted considerable time and effort to resolve the situation at Tishomingo, I realized the jroblems I confronted were not 

limited to the uses which were an were not permitted in the refuge. Therefore, I decided to introduce H.R. 1112 to help resolve two 

separate issues limiting the refuge's effectiveness. 

The first problem the bill will address is a decision of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife not to allocate funds at an appropriate level to 

adequately staff and manage the refuge. The second problem is 

that the unresponsiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to the 

public's concerns. 

As we work toward establishing a fiscally responsible Federal 

Government, every segment of the government is facing tough 

budget decisions. Therefore, it may be understandable that the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife has found it necessary to suspend some of 

the activities it had previously overseen on the refuge. However, 

the decisions made in response to the new budgetary decisions facing the service on how to allocate their remaining funds have not 
57 

fully taken into account the needs of the migratory waterfowl or 

the public. 

For example, the refuge manager is currently proposing to convert the picnic pavilion into an environmental education facility. 

While the manager wants to spend thousands of dollars to convert 

the use of the visitor's pavilion, access to certain areas of the refuge 

have been restricted or prohibited because of the inability to properly supervise activities in those areas. Moreover, the public which 

regularly visits the refuge is greatly opposed to the conversion. 

However, access to certain portions of the refuge is not the only 

problem associated with inadequate funding. Grain cultivation on 

the refuge was discontinued some years ago, reportedly due to the 

lack of funding. The cultivation of grain on the refuge provided a 

supplement to the naturally occurring food sources. 

Furthermore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims they are restricting boating, fishing, and access to portions of the refuge in 

order to control vandalism, off-road habitat impact, and disturbance of wildlife. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to 

properly patrol and operate the refuge because of lack of funding, 

then it would seem appropriate to assign management to an entity. 

In this case, the State of Oklahoma, which will be able to adequately staff and therefore manage the area. 

Turning to the issue of public accountability, the current administrative structure is not responsive to the concerns of the public. 

The decision to restrict activities in the face of public disapproval 

is illustrative of the problem. For example, whether or not the 

practices occurring prior to 1994 were intruding upon the migratory waterfowl is debatable. However, no forum exists to debate 

this question. 

Currently, there is no accountability in regard to what is considered a compatible use. Therefore, if the USFWS is unable to work 

with the local citizenry, then the policy to assign management to 

a state wildlife management agency is an opportunity which should 

be pursued, not avoided. 

In this situation, the frustrated public contacted me after they 

realized their concerns were not being given adequate consideration in the proposed management changes. I too experienced the 

same type of frustration when I tried to work with the two groups 

to resolve the differences. I contacted the USFWS concerning the 

propopsed changes during the official comment period and early 

February 1995. However, my concerns were effectively ignored by 

the USFWS until I introduced H.R. 1112. After I introduced H.R. 

1112, the USFWS wddenly became more than willing to discuss 

the problem. 

We can all agree that is no way to pursue the resolution of disputes. Therefore, it is my hope shortening the chain of accountability between the public and the public's government will result in 

a more responsive and more efficiently managed refuge. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Bill. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Geren. 
58 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE GEREN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Mr. GEREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and express my appreciation also 

to the other members of your subcommittee. 

It is a pleasure to appear before you and join with Mr. Brewster 

to discuss his proposal to transfer the management of Tishomingo 

National Wildlife Refuge to the State of Oklahoma. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have the pleasure of following in 

Mr. Brewster's shoes as the new Democratic cochair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. The Caucus, which numbers 184 

Members in the House and 46 in the Senate, was founded to protect the traditional rights of Americans to hunt, fish, and enjoy the 

outdoors. 

In recent years, there has been an alarming trend of decreasing 

access to land to hunt, fish, and pursue outdoor activities. This is 

particularly true of Federal lands. On more than one occasion, we 

have heard the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say that they simply 

do not have the resources to satisfactorily manage the public recreational programs on the vast inventory of lands currently in the 

national refuge system. As a result, Americans have seen their 

ability to enjoy refuges, the very refuges that they pay for, that 

they own, seen their access to them diminish. The trend indicates 

that access to these lands will continue to decline. 

In response to this, Congressman Brewster and others have proposed innovative solutions that will ensure that these lands are 

still accessible to Americans while ensuring that they are properly 

managed. Specifically, in this case, Mr. Brewster has proposed turning management of the Tishomingo Refuge over to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

Mr. Chairman, the pervasive opinion in Washington for many 

years has been, Washington knows best. For some reason Federal 

bureaucrats and others in Washington think that they know what 

is better for Oklahoma, or for Texas for that matter, than do Oklahomans and Texans. Thankfully, this mindset seems to be fading 

and we are starting to realize as a Congress that Washington does 

not have a monopoly on wisdom. 

Mr. Brewster's proposal establishes a pilot program whereby we 

can examine the effectiveness of a State in managing a Federal 

wildlife refuge. I have every reason to believe that they will do as 

good a job, if not better, than the Federal Government. In any 

event, I think the time has come to give them a chance. This legislation does just that and I urge my colleagues on the subcommittee 

to expeditiously consider it. 

Mr. Chairman, during the course of this hearing I expect that 

you will hear testimuny predicting a negative effect from this proposal on wildlife in and around the Tishomingo Refuge. Some may 

go so far as to stay that proponents of this proposal do not care 

about our wildlife resources. This simply is not true. I can say 

without hesitation that I have never met anyone who is more committed to conservation, who is a better steward of our environment 

or who has a better understanding of the importance of wildlife 

management than our friend and colleague, Bill Brewster. 
59 

I appreciate again the opportunity to appear before you today 

and I urge your consideration of this initiative and see it as a pilot 

program that perhaps we could consider in other parts of the country as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank both of the witnesses, our colleagues, for a 

very articulate testimony. Let me ask two questions and you can 

respond to them however you like. 

Number one, how would you foresee that Oklahoma would proceed to manage the refuge differently? In what respects would you 

see changes made and to what extent do you think those changes 

would be made? Would it be a different planning process? A different hearing process? Obviously, if we are going to acquire lands 

for refuges, there has to be some good understanding of how they 

are going to be managed. And how would Oklahoma do you think 

proceed to do that through your conservation proposal? 

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, obviously we would want the mission to remain the same: To be a refuge especially for waterfowl 

but for all wildlife. 

I think you would see it managed quite differently in several 

ways. For instance, the land adjacent to it is Federal land as well. 

It is Corps land. It is managed by the State of Oklahoma now as 

a public hunting entity. The State of Oklahoma has equipment 

there to plant grain fields with. 

As another example, Mr. Chairman, while the goose populations 

are at an all time high in Oklahoma, the refuge last year dropped 

to an all time low. And the population in January was 1,400 geese. 

Ten years ago that population was 30,000 geese on that one refuge. 

Because of the lack of proper handling, in my opinion, the lack of 

planting food plots, geese don't stop there anymore. If it is to remain a viable refuge for waterfowl, we have to have reasons for waterfowl to be there. 

The State operates a much smaller refuge at Fort Gibson Lake 

and last year they had an estimated 25,000 mallards, an estimated 

12,000 snow geese, and about 6,000 Canadians. At the same time 

the Tishomingo, which is much larger, is now down to 1,400 geese. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have more geese on the golf courses in 

Oklahoma City than we have staying at refuges. 

I believe we must change direction to once again have waterfowl 

utilizing that refuge. I believe our wildlife department can show 

numerous cases where they have done that through the years, and 

due to the fact that they already manage the property adjacent 

they have the equipment there and everything to plant grain and 

do a much better job. 

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the State of Oklahoma is currently 

providing the law enforcement on the refuge. The State wildlife department provides all the law enforcement on the refuge today. So, 

the only change in function would be management of the refuge to 

best handle waterfowl and other wildlife for the Federal Government. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. I suspect that it would be fair to say 

that you are here out of a certain amount of frustration because of 

the lack of local input into the planning as to how the refuge is 

managed. I have seen similar frustration in New Jersey. I am won-
60 

dering if you have given any thought to the possibility of providing 

for continued Federal management through a management plan 

that would be adopted through more meaningful local input from 

local officials, hunting groups, conservation groups, et cetera? 

Mr. BREWSTER. Well, the main issue that created this to start 

with, there were two issues. One, the fact of the diminishing number of waterfowl that stopped there. Obviously, hunting occurs 

around the refuge, not on the refuge but around it. And for many, 

many years, well, the lake has been there 55 years so for many 

years, Goose Hill and some others have been great goose hunting 

areas. There are no geese stopping there any more. The numbers 

were considerably down. That is one concern. 

The second concern is that it is the best crappie fishing in Lake 

Texoma. Obviously, fishing does not occur during the time that waterfowl is on the lake and it should not. We are all in agreement. 

We have gotten along very well for many years with the provision 

that fishing was closed from October to March and after March 

first fishing was reopened. When the management suggested stopping fishing completely and came back and said, well, we might 

open it up June 1st, it gave all the fishermen there quite a heartburn, many of us who have fished there since we were little children. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Brewster. Mr. Studds. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I particularly am loath to ask a question about a refuge that I, quite frankly, had not heard of before today. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, we would like to have you down. 

We would like to--

Mr. STUDDS. Well, it is dangerously far from the ocean; is it not? 

Let me make one general observation since I may not be able to 

stay as long as I should. I have to say I am just a little bit uncomfortable at the thought of dealing with every conflict on a refuge 

by congressional action in order to resolve no matter what manner 

we might choose to resolve it. That makes me nervous, a lot. I understand from your testimony, Mr. Brewster, that one of the two 

principle problems here is inadequate funding, if I read your testimony correctly. 

Mr. BREWSTER. That is correct. 

Mr. STUDDS. How do you propose to resolve that by cutting in 

half the Federal contributions? Is Oklahoma going to more than 

make up for that? 

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Former Chairman I guess I 

should say. 

Mr. 8TUDDS. Yes. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Studds, it is hard to break the habit of calling you Mr. Chairman. 

At any rate, it would alleviate some money to be used on other 

refuges. I think all of us know that the structure, money-wise, this 

time is going to be very, very difficult. If cost savings can occur and 

better management occur, that is what we would hope for all the 

way through. 

The wildlife department in Oklahoma receives, as you know, 

money from Pitman Robertson and many other funds, especially on 

licenses. Lifetime license holders have contributed a pretty vast 
61 

amount of money to the State of Oklahoma's wildlife department. 

They do a great job handling wildlife. They tell me that for approximately half the funding, they think they can do an excellent 

management job of this facility. If that is correct, then the other 

money could be used in much needed places in many other refuges 

across the country. 

Mr. STUDDS. But the problem may not have been inadequate 

funding if you do it on half as much. 

Mr. BREWSTER. I think it has not been handled properly if that 

is the case because they are very adamant that they can handle it 

and handle the mission very well, plant grain and everything for 

the wildlife which is not being done now on half the funding. They 

probably don't pay as big of salaries as we do, either. 

Mr. STUDDS. By the way, this isn't a compensable taking by 

Oklahoma; is it? Never mind. Never mind. I am sorry. 

Mr. BREWSTER. However, we might need to change the Clean 

Water Act. 

Mr. STUDDS. I think we are about do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brewster, I don't have any questions. I have read all the testimony before us. I have some questions for other witnesses. 

I think this is a classic example where again the management of 

the refuge forgets one thing and that is partners. Now, they say 

they are right. They say this is the way they have been directed 

to do it. I notice this was originally set up for a migratory wildlife 

refuge and they are objecting because some of the species affected 

were bald eagles, pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets, and grebes. 

I don't see any word about ducks or geese or those things that migrate. These may migrate but I thought it was set up for geese. 

And you are absolutely right, I have had this fight with the Fish 

and Wildlife for years. They don't like to plant food; it is not natural. I have heard that. 

Now, you are not going to have a refuge unless you have food. 

It may look good for those who want to say it is a refuge but it 

is not a refuge. You have to have food. And they always will say, 

well, this is not natural food. Well, I want to know what is natural 

and what is not natural. The last time I heard grain and rice and 

corn, God created just like they do flax, et cetera and et cetera. 

You know my position on this legislation and we will see what 

we can do about it. 

Mr. Geren, thank you for being here today. This is an example 

of where people have to understand you work with the little people. 

You achieve great goals. If you lose that support--

Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one point. 

I did talk mainly about ducks and geese. However, any improvement in habitat affects all game and nongame species. But we certainly support the nongame species equally as with the ducks and 

geese, but my point, if we improve habitat for one type of bird, it 

improves that habitat in general for all those types. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, listen, I would just like to say thank you for 

coming and for bringing this specific matter to our attention. It is 

part of a bigger issue that we face and we are going to be looking 
62 

at policy changes that affect wildlife refuges in the program in a 

more total vein as well. And there are several changes that we 

might want to look at, particularly in how refuge plans come about 

and then how they are enforced. Refuge managers have a tremendous amount of power and those are some of the issues that we 

want to look at. 

I am just reminded-sorry, Mr. Longley, we didn't have a chance 

to ask if you had any questions or statements. 

Mr. LONGLEY. Not at this time, thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

We will certainly be looking at this bill. Mr. Young told me so. 

And we thank you for your contribution this morning. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, may I just, obviously, I trust the 

new Majority is going to continue our effort to find a better word 

for the kingdom that has just been referred to as nongame. We 

have had a long, long history of attempting not to impugn the bravery of these critters and it does seem to me that nongame is not 

very nice. How do you know? 

Watchable does not qualify. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, without objection I would ask Mr. 

Brewster to join us at the roster. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the witnesses on our first panel for their 

testimony and Members for their questions. The members of the 

subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask them to respond in writing, if so. The hearing record will be open for these responses. 

Mr. SAXTON. Now, I will introduce the second panel, a panel with 

Mollie Beattie, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I understand that while you alone are testifying, you will be accompanied by a staff witness, Nancy Kaufman. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Mr. Chair, also Rob Shallenberger, who is the chief 

of our Division of Refuges. 

May I ask for the Chair's and committee's indulgence, if we ran 

over our time a little we have some maps to show and I think it 

will just be an objective presentation of where and what we are 

proposing and maybe that would help in understanding but it may 

slow my testimony down a little. 

Mr. SAXTON. You may proceed as long as you aren't too awfully 

long. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you. You will get home for supper, Mr. 

Chair. 

STATEMENT OF MOLLIE BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY NANCY KAUFMAN, 

DIRECTOR, SOUTHWESTERN REGION AND ROBERT 

SHALLENBERGER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF REFUGES 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

H.R. 1112. We are deeply discerned about this legislative proposal 

both as it relates to the management of Tishomingo Refuge and as 

it may affect the national wildlife refuge system as a whole, and 

we oppose its enactment. 

We acknowledge that there are legitimate differences of opinion 

regarding management actions proposed at Tishomingo Refuge to 
63 

ensure that public use activities are compatible with the purposes 

of this refuge. However, we respectfully suggest that the proposed 

legislation will not resolve those differences and will likely create 

more serious problems as a result. 

Let me explain by providing some general background on our review of refuge issues and the Tishomingo Refuge in particular. 

I am going to ask Rob Shallenberger, maybe we need to move 

that a little closer so the Members can see it, but let me just tell 

you that Tishomingo Refuge was established in January 1946 

through Public Land Order 312 on the Lake Texoma Project, "for 

refuge and breeding ground purposes for migratory birds and other 

wildlife." The original refuge included 13,450 acres, encompassing 

the Cumberland Pool and immediately adjacent lands. 

Bob, do you have a graphic that you can show people the refuge 

as it relates to the rest of the lake? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. This map which appears on the brochure, 

which is in your package there if you want to look at it closely, but 

only this upper portion at the top of the map, about 13,000 acres, 

is Tishomingo Refuge and the rest is Lake Texoma. 

Ms. BEATTIE. In 1957, the 3,000-acre Tishomingo wildlife management p}an unit--excuse me, management unit was added to the 

refuge immediately upstream of the Cumberland PooL The Wildlife 

Management Unit is managed under a three-way cooperative 

agreement between the Department of Interior, the Department of 

the A.r!!ly, and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation also manages 

a much larger unit further upstream on the Washita River through 

a direct agreement with the Army. 

The service has provided opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities at Tishomingo Refu since it was created, but 

the level and times of use have cha over time. The refuge now 

attracts over 100,000 visitors annually. Of these, 67 percent participate in wildlife observation and interpretation; 29 percent engage in fishing; about 2 percent in hunting; and about 1.5 percent 

in camping and picnicking. 

The Cumberland Pool, a major part of the refuge, has itself also 

changed considerably. When Lake Texoma was created by the construction of Denison Dam, it was anticipated that this pool would 

capture transported sediment loads during floods in the Washita 

River basin. The result has been the transformation of an 11,000 

acre deep water lake into a lake with less than 4,000 acres of deep 

water and 7,000 acres of shallow wetlands, mud flats, sandbars 

and sloughs. Much of the shallow fringes of the original deep pool 

have been invaded by trees and emergent marsh vegetation. 

Rob, can you show the development of the Cumberland Pool over 

time. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. That is an aerial photo that compares 1949 

and 1978 with the same area. This is three years after the dam 

was created when it was only water in the lake and the same area 

all invaded with vegetation as a result of sedimentation along the 

river basin. 

Ms. BEATTIE. And the original extent of the lake itself. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. This is a photo showing the same configuration of the lake shortly after the dam was constructed. 
64 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you. 

This natural process of sedimentation has enhanced habitat for 

migratory birds by creating a far wider diversity of nesting, feeding, and roosting areas. However, this change has also increased 

the conflict between some traditional recreational uses of the deep 

water pool and refuge wildlife. 

Proposals by the service to mitigate increasing recreation and 

wildlife conflicts at Tishomingo Refuge are not new, nor have they 

occurred without controversy. In 1962, Refuge Manager Earl Craven established a buoy line to seasonally close a portion of the lake 

to boating activities. Refuge Manager Ernie Jamieson implemented 

a seasonal closure of the entire lake in 1972. In 1987, Refuge Manager Bill Hutchinson documented mortality of migratory birds in 

trotlines. These are fishing lines with multiple hooks which are fastened to the shore and left unattended in the water overnight or 

longer. That refuge manager attempted to enforce winter removal 

of those lines. All of these actions were aimed at preventing, or 

lessening, disturbances to migratory birds from recreational activities. 

In each case these actions generated considerable backlash in the 

local community, including petitions to remove managers from 

their jobs. Our current proposals have again stirred similar controversy. 

Here is what we have proposed and why. 

First, we propose to prohibit set tackle fishing in the Cumberland Pool's shallowest areas. The purpose of this action is to 

minimize deaths of refuge wildlife caused by trotlines and other set 

tackle in the shallowest waters of the Cumberland Pool. These 

lines typically stretch between floating jugs or other objects and 

contain upwards of 100 hooks. 

Current State fishing regulations prohibit use of trotlines or 

other set tackle in lakes managed by the Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation and all States within three feet of the water 

surface. The principal problem occurs when temporary flood events 

increase the water levels of normally shallow areas, allowing the 

fishermen to set their tackle in these areas, often tied between 

trees. When the water drops, exposed lines and hooks entangle 

wildlife. Among the species affected are bald eagles, pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets, and grebes. Under our proposal, the shallow areas would be identified and marked with buoy lines. 

Rob, one more time could you show where that area is? Again, 

these are the shallowest areas in the lake. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. The shallow areas are shown in the green 

and light blues where the river has flooded and deposited sediment. 

The proposed restricted areas are shown on this. Do you want to 

wait? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Just show the shallow areas where we would restrict the trotlines. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Would he in this red area. This boundary 

of this line is the normally flooded pool at normal water levels. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Trotline fishing would continue to be allowed on 

more than 3,200 acres, or 80 percent of the remaining deeper water 

in the Cumberland Pool, where it is compatible with refuge purposes which again are for the protection of migratory birds. 
65 

Second, we would propose to prohibit the use of plastic containers as fishing floats. This action is proposed to remedy a solid 

waste and contamination problem. Set tackle fishermen often use 

jugs with residue of oil, antifreeze, and pesticides remaining in 

them. These containers should be properly disposed of in approved 

landfills, not contaminating the waters of a national wildlife refuge. 

Many of the containers are also transported to shoreline and 

flood plain areas, creating a litter problem around the lake. Low 

cost commercial floats are readily available as an alternative to 

plastic containers. I understand the cost is between $2 and $3.50. 

Also, use of these floats would likely reduce the frequency of discarded trotlines that entangle wildlife. 

Third, we propose further restrictions on fishing and motorized 

boating in the Cumberland Pool. The pool is currently closed to 

fishing from October 1st to March 1st to prevent disturbance of the 

large concentrations of migratory birds that feed and roost in refuge waters during that period. However, managers have documented disturbance between-during March, April, and September 

that needs to be addressed by expanding the closure period from 

September 1st to May 1st. This action would not impact the vast 

majority of boating and set tackle fishing, which occurs during the 

summer. 

This action would also not significantly affect fishing seasons in 

the Washita River, Pennington Creek, and the seven lakes in the 

Wildlife Management Unit or the traditional year-round rod and 

reel fishing at Tishomingo Refuge. 

A night boating closure of the Cumberland Pool is also proposed 

to minimize disturbance to wildlife and to promote safety. This action would impact, on average, fewer than six people per night. 

Many trotline fishermen have supported this in our public involvement with this restriction as it would protect their lines from vandalism. 

Can I show those closure areas, Rob? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. The closure area is in red. The blue area 

would be open to nonmotorized boating and canoeing and the green 

area is the area that would be open to boating during the open season. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Fourth, the service would propose to prohibit overnight camping on the refuge. Camping now occurs in two forms on 

Tishomingo Refuge: Primitive camping in outlying areas and semideveloped camping near the refuge headquarters. Most of the 

primitive camping is at sites ranging from 10 to 20 miles from 

headquarters, making oversight enforcement and maintenance by 

rangers and staff time-consuming and costly. 

No designated camp sites or sanitation facilities are available. 

Consequently, these areas have become highly eroded and vegetation has been heavily damaged. Human feces, waste paper, and 

other garbage litter the camp areas and pollute the aquatic environment. Portable sanitation units have been tried in the past, but 

vendors in the area are not interested in servicing these remote 

areas. Trash barrels placed at the sites have been stolen. 

What was tent camping now includes frequent visits by trailers 

and motor homes. No sanitation dump facilities exist for these vehicles either, and illegal dumping of waste is common.- Ending 
66 

camping on the refuge will impact less than 1 percent of the visitors who have many alternative camping sites as close as four 

miles away. The Lake Texoma recreational area includes approximately 50 recreation-sites, 19 of which provide camping facilities 

on the Oklahoma side of the lake. 

Fifth, the service proposes to develop the headquarters pavilion 

into an environmental education facility-a 20 by 50 foot shelter located near the refuge headquarters has become increasingly popular for use by local residents for nonwildlife-oriented activities such 

as family reunions, Easter egg hunts, church group meetings and 

picnics accompanied by softball games, touch football and other 

recreation. 

When the shelter is occupied by these users, other visitors are 

generally excluded from the site. Refuge staff propose to use the 

shelter predominately for environmental education programs with 

school kids from neighboring communities, a use more in keeping 

with the purpose of the refuge. There are suitable alternative locations for nonwildlife-oriented group events, most notably Pennington Park in nearby Tishomingo. 

In sum, the service has determined that several recreational activities in their present form are incompatible with the purposes 

for which Tishomingo Refuge was established. This is not a new 

issue nor is the service proposing radical solutions but rather a 

measured approach for real management problems. None of the 

proposed actions would eliminate or significantly affect recreational 

opportunities in the Tishomingo Refuge area. 

The proposed transfer of the management of the Tishomingo Refuge to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, along 

with half of the operating funds, is offered as a means of prevent- ing further restrictions on recreational use. 

This proposal is not likely to accomplish this goal for several reasons. If, as the bill provides, the area remains within the refuge 

system, the laws and regulations requiring allowed uses to be compatible with refuge purposes would continue to apply. 

[The statement of Ms. Beattie may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YoUNG. (Presiding.] With all due respect, you have gone over 

your time five minutes and we have a vote on, so I am going to 

suggest-! have already read the testimony and I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts has read it and I would like Mr. Brewster, just time for the next five minutes, if he could to ask questions because we are running out of time. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Brewster. 

Mr. BREWSTER. I notice in your testimony you said that you 

weren't sure if the Fish and Wildlife Service could transfer management of the area to the State of Oklahoma. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes. Congressman Brewster, the solicitor in the Department of Interior has some questions of constitutionality. Those 

are rather complex legal arguments. I would be happy to provide 

them in writing. 

Mr. BREWSTER. OK. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. BREWSTER. Along with that, they already manage land for 

the Bureau of Reclamation, have for 11 years now. They manage 
67 

a considerable amount of land for the Corps of Engineers already 

and, in fact, managing the land adjacent to this property for the 

Federal Government. And I was curious what the difference was. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Again, those are legal arguments of constitutionality that the solicitor has provided us-I think I would pref~r-­

Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield? 

With all due respect, I would like to see those, too. We write the 

law. We created that refuge and we can create-we can transfer 

and let it sit still. Your solicitor better make sure he has got his 

case pretty well put together. 

Ms. BEATTIE. I would be happy to provide--

M:r. BREWSTER. If it is unconstitutional, we are already violating 

the Constitution? All the other contracts we have done for many 

years there. I was just kind of curious about that statement because we have obviously managed the others quite well, the 10,000 

acres for the Bureau of Reclamation. Only McGee Creek has been 

in effect 11 years along with numerous contracts with the Corps 

dating back 30 or 40 years. 

You mentioned birds and trotlines. How many eagles have been 

caught on those trotlines? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Three so far that I know of, Congressman. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Three. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Three bald eagles. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Three since 1946. 

Ms. BEATTIE. I don't know the time on that. 

Mr. BREWSTER. It has been in place since 1946. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Three that have been documented. 

Ms. BEATTIE. I don't know. I would assume the problem has exacerbated as the lake has filled in and so the graph I would assume 

shows an increasing number of kills because of the hydrologyhydrological occurrences there but we could get you that information. 

Mr. BREWSTER. If you would. 

[The information follows:] 

TROTLINE MORTALITY 

Documentation in refuge files of trotline mortality at Tishomingo refuge dates 

back to the early 1970's. The earliest photo record was of an entangled Canada 

Goose, taken in 1974. Entanglement of three bald eagles was documented in 1983, 

1986, and 1987. The eagle collected in 1986 was sent to the National Wildlife Health 

Laboratory for examination where the pathologist described hook lacerations, myopathy of the heart muscle and emaciation due to the length of capture before death. 

Other photo documentation in refuge fll.es include a pelican in 1992 and an owl in 

1994. Written incident reports include other species, such as cormorants, kingfishers 

and herons. Both current and former staff also report numerous undocumented incidents where they have removed dead and dying pelicans, cormorants, egrets and 

grebes from trotlines at Tishomingo refuge. 

Mr. BREWSTER. There is also a tremendous increase in the number of eagles in the area. We see eagles all over southern Oklahoma and it is not uncommon. Even in far western Oklahoma last 

year I saw an eagle where there are not supposed to be any. But 

I would like to have the documentation you have on that as well. 

[The information follows:] 
68 

EAGLE POPULATION 

For 1995, there are 20 nesting pairs of eagles in Oklahoma. All of these are the 

result of a captive breeding and release program between the Service and the Sutton Foundation. There were also 781 wintering eagles. This figure was lower than 

the current norm due to the relatively mild winter, as many eagles did not migrate 

that far south. For example, in 1993, with a colder winter, there were 1,007 wintering eagles counted. 

In contrast, 10 years ago there were no nesting pairs of eagles in Oklahoma, and 

761 wintering eagles were counted. 

Mr. BREWSTER. One other thing, I notice you all apparently can't 

afford to plant food plots, et cetera, and there are those who say 

that food plots aren't natural but neither is the lake. There was no 

lake there until the Red River was damned. So, suddenly the lake 

is not natural. How can money be spent on the pavilion, et cetera, 

when we are closing roads, closing access and not planting food 

plants anymore? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Congressman, we have about 800 acres of agricultural use there, much of it providing food to migratory waterfowl 

including winter wheat and such other grains that the waterfowl 

seem perhaps even more attracted to. Our problem was particularly with corn. That was discontinued for a number of wildlife, 

soil, and economic reasons in the sense that the cost benefit was 

low. 

The corn was planted in flood-prone areas and we kept losing the 

corn so it was corn in particular that was a problem, but we still 

have a large amount of grain food being produced on that land that 

the birds use. 

Relative to the cost of the transformation of the pavilion into an 

environmental education center, I believe the cost was a few hundred dollars for putting up some walls. 

Mr. BREWSTER. A few hundred? 

Ms. BEATI'IE. Yes. 

Mr. BREWSTER. OK and they were going to start charging $50 for 

use of it? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. That is under the current permit system, 

not for environmental education, but for the permitted uses that 

have been going on in the past. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Unless it was for a bird watching group or something like that, then it was free? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. That is correct. 

Mr. BREWSTER. But it is going to be $50 for anyone else for a 

family to have a family reunion or something there as they have 

for the last 30 or 40 years? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. That is for the administrative costs of managing the permits, yes. 

Mr. BREWSTER. New administrative costs on the other? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. The primary purpose of the refuge is to 

provide habitat for wildlife and wildlife-oriented education. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Yes, sir. I understand that anyone who goes to 

a refuge and has an opportunity to look it over is certainly being 

educated. But from the grain standpoint I would like to know what 

grains are being produced there now because driving through it 

last fall I was not able to ascertain any. 

[The following was submitted:] 
69 

CROPLAND MANAGEMENT 

Several misleading comments surfaced during hearing testimony regarding cropland management at Tishomingo refuge. The Service has been planting a diversity 

of crops at the refuge to provide supplemental food for geese and other wildlife for 

many years. Five Jears ago, refuge staff chose to plant milo in place of corn. Seasonal planting an growing dates for corn correspond with annual spring flooding 

at the refuge, resulting in the regular loss of corn crops. Milo, on the other hand, 

is planted after the flood season and matures in time for use by waterfowl in the 

early fall. Corn also requires specialized farming equipment and intensive use of 

herbicide, pesticides and fertilizer. Through conversion of crops and other changes 

in agriculture practices, the Service has been able to eliminate the use of chemicals 

in the refuge's cropland management program. Winter wheat continues to be the 

primary cropland food source on the refuge, averaging about 550 acres per year in 

forage production. 

The Service plans to contiune the use of crops to supplement wildlife foods at 

Tishomingo refuge. However, flooding and delta growth due to sedimentation have 

reduced refuge croplands from approximately 800 acres to less than 700 acres of 

farmable land and this process is expected to continue. The location of croplands 

within the flood pool of Lake Texoma will continue to limit the cropland alternatives, regardless which agency has primary management responsibilities. 

On a related note, several witnesses at the hearing ar~ed that goose populations 

using the refuge have declined in response to changes m the agriculture program. 

Actually, the reverse appears to be true. While there has been considerable variation in goose use of the refuge over the last several years, the overall trend has 

been upwards, not down, as reported. The peak refuge goose population for January 

1995 was estimated at 29,000. The peak in December 1994 was approximately 

31,000, including 12,000 Canada geese, 11,000 snow geese and 8,000 white fronted 

geese. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield? We have five minutes 

left for the vote. If you would like to ask more questions, we would 

have to adjourn and come back. 

Mr. BREWSTER. OK. Let's do it. 

[Brief Recess.] 

Mr. YoUNG. The gentleman from Oklahoma please. Mr. Brewster, the committee will come back to order. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Give me a chance to catch my breath, Mr. Chairman. 

The point you did make concerning trotlining that, I think, is 

very valid that they don't need to be in shallow water, and it is my 

understanding that State law precludes trotlines being in water 

less than three feet. 

Ms. BEATTIE. That is what we understand and that is why we 

are somewhat perplexed how the transfer of refuge management 

would affect that restriction. It seems to be illegal under State 

laws, too. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Absolutely. I think they would be precluded from 

being set in water less than three feet regardless of whether State 

or Federal Government were in charge. I would hope that there 

would be a little more due diligence given to that by the State than 

there has been by the Federal Government in that regard. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Congressman, I would like to point out if I might 

that is the only restriction that we are proposing on the type of 

fishing tackle, would be that restriction on trotlines. 

Mr. BREWSTER. And the jugs that can be used on jug lines. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Gentlemen, simply to try to restrict the contamination--

Mr. BREWSTER. I fished around Lake Texoma all my life, not all 

of it but I guess when I was starting, about seven. But I have yet 
70 

to ascertain any type of contamination from jugs. Is that a common 

problem that anyone has? 

Ms. BEATTIE. The use of uncleaned jugs that contained chemicals 

such as I mentioned is a problem there, yes. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Many are used that are unclean? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BREWSTER. OK. I guess the only thing I would have to comment on, it is more of a comment than a question, is that it would 

certainly then appear that we have an opportunity to try a concept, 

and I can't tell you 100 percent that it will work but it will lessen 

the cost of this refuge, freeing up some money for other refuges, 

and I know by your letter that you sent out to your people about 

a month and a half ago that you are very concerned with the 

amount of money that is going to be available for managing refuges 

this year, as I am. Without refuges, you damage the quality of 

hunting wildlife as well as nonsporting wildlife as well. 

The only other thing I have to mention, as you are aware we 

have off-shore drilling in that part of Lake Texoma and we would 

also have, I assume, possible contamination from those wells. 

Should we remove those as well? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Congressman, I don't know the situation. I will 

look into it if there is any fear of contamination. It is certainly the 

first I have heard of it. Our refuge manager hasn't told us about 

it. 

Mr. BREWSTER. It is the only part of my district that has offshore oil production. We have a number of wells that have been 

there in the neighborhood for 40 to 50 years. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Maybe, Congressman Studds will be more comfortable coming there if he knows you have wells. 

Mr. BREWSTER. We will show him. 

We appreciate your testimony and your forthrightness and your 

thoughts. A lot of things we agree on, a few things we don't. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Madam Secretary, I don't have any questions. My philosophy is 

we should be making this work and hopefully between now and 

this bill getting to the Floor we will see some progress, and the 

gentleman recommends that area not the government, and I am inclined to take his lead. So thank you for being here today and presenting your views as you see they should be. Thank you. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you, Congressman. We have offered either 

Ms. Kaufman or myself to accompany Congressman Brewster to 

Tishomingo and look at the situation. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. You are excused. 

Our third and final panel of witnesses will be Ms. Ginger Merchant; Mr. James Waltman; Mr. K.E. Pennington; and Mr. Greg 

Duffy. Will you please take your respective seats, please. 

We will go in that order, Ms. Ginger Merchant, Executive Vice 

President of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and you are 

recognized for five minutes. 
71 

STATEMENT OF GINGER MERCHANT, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MERCHANT. Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present the views of 

the association concerning H.R. 1112. The National Wildlife Refuge 

Association was founded by wildlife professionals and is the only 

national conservation organization that is focused exclusively on 

the national wildlife refuge system. 

As introduced by Representative Bill Brewster, this bill would 

transfer the management of and 50 percent of the funding to the 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The bill would also appear to mandate continuation of pre-1994 uses of the refuge and the management of 

those uses, despite the documentation of harm to the wildlife and 

the wildlife habitat of the refuge. 

The National Wildlife Refuge Association is quite concerned 

about the ramifications of this bill, both for the Tishomingo Refuge 

and for the national wildlife refuge system as a whole. We are, 

therefore, opposed to the passage of the bill, and additionally we 

urge the Congressman to reconsider this local controversy over the 

compatibility of some uses as they are currently occurring and to 

visit the refuge firsthand to explore the situation. 

National wildlife refuges are different and very special places. 

They are unlike any other lands in the Nation. They are not meant 

to be parks and they are not recreational areas, although they do 

provide important opportunities for recreation when it is compatible with their wildlife purposes. The reason for this is that the national wildlife refuge system is on the onlf:: system established primarily for the conservation of the Nations fish and wildlife heritage. 

This unique habitat of lands and waters was initiated in 1903 by 

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a sportsman and a conservationist. The refuge system and individual refuges such as 

Tishomingo do provide important opportunities for wildlife-oriented 

recreation and environmental education. By law, the Congress has 

mandated in the past these secondary activities need to be found 

to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established, and we have heard the director testify to the purposes of the Tishomingo Refuge. 

The subcommittee asked us to address three questions in particular. The first question is whether this refuge could be managed 

by the State. The refuge association answers no. We feel a transfer 

of management is inappropriate. First, there is no reason that the 

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge cannot meet its established 

purposes under service management consistent with its legal mandate. 

The habitat at Tishomingo Refuge provides a vital refuge and 

breeding ground and link for migratory birds in the central flyway. 

Second, a legislative transfer of the management of the Tishomingo 

Refuge in response to a local controversy over the compatibility of 

selected recreational issues would establish a dangerous precedent 

we believe for the entire national wildlife refuge system. 

Importantly, the threat of the transfer of the western game 

ranges in the mid-1970's prompted the Congress to amend the Ref-
72 

uge Administration Act to specify that refuges were to be managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Congress acted to ensure that refuges be managed by Federal wildlife professionals to 

meet their establishing purposes for the benefit of the Nation and 

all America. 

Third, the refuge association has recommended to the relevant 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees that the Congress 

endorse appropriate funding for a Blue Ribbon Commission to review the policies and procedures for adding and removing lands 

from the national wildlife refuge system, and that all proposals, including the one pertaining to the Tishomingo Refuge, be considered 

in the context of this commission's review. 

The second question, the liabilities and benefits of such a transfer. I am going to begin to move a little more quickly here. 

Concerning Tishomingo's wildlife and habitat resources, the refuge association is very concerned that passage of the bill would 

preclude the modifications that are proposed to bring the uses into 

compatibility. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Merchant, again, out of respect for other people, 

your time is up. If you capsulize this in a short manner, the rest 

of you, I let Ms. Beattie earlier go longer. She asked that earlier 

and the Chair had granted that, but we are running out of time. 

I suggest you can summarize it as quickly as possible so we can 

go forth. 

Ms. MERCHANT. I would be happy to do so. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

In sum, we looked at the benefits and liabilities to the refu.ge's 

wildlife and habitat, to refuge visitors, and the economics to the 

community and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and attempted to 

look at the economics for the State agency as well. In conclusion, 

we felt that the liabilities of the transfer of management far outweighed the benefits to be accrued from that. 

In summary, I would simply like to go back to the fundamental 

purposes of the refuge system. President Theodore Roosevelt's legacy, it is unique in all of the world. And I want to emphasize a true 

sportsman, President Roosevelt recognized the need for a sanctuary 

to protect migratory birds from slaughter and harassment at Pelican Island, Florida. The refuge manager at the Tishomingo Refuge 

is attempting to carry on this tradition in a professional and responsible way. And that he should be allowed to do so. 

Mr. YouNG. Your time is up. 

[The statement of Ms. Merchant may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOlJNG. Mr. Waltman, Wilderness Society. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES WALTMAN, WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. WALTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Brewster, it is a pleasure to testify before you today on behalf of both 

the Wilderness Society and the National Audubon Society. Both of 

our organizations have a long-standing commitment to the sound 

management and well-being of the national wildlife refuge system. 

Our organizations have over 8,000 combined members in your 

State of Oklahoma and over 800,000 members in the Nation. 

I am also pleased to testify today on behalf of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society as well as the Oklahoma Audubon Council, or-
73 

ganizations that are both umbrella groups of large numbers of local 

conservation groups which are very concerned as well by this legislation. 

Our organizations strongly oppose H.R. 1112. The bill would 

transfer management of the Tishomingo Refuge to the State of 

Oklahoma, prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing a series of reasonable measures to protect refuge wildlife, 

and reduce available operating funds to the refuge by 50 percent. 

We believe that each of these actions is ill-advised. 

While we understand that the Nation faces a very difficult budget situation, we respectfully submit that that legislation was not 

prompted by that concern. However, it was prompted by the opposition of a few vocal individuals to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Tishomingo Refuge is one of over 500 national wildlife refuges 

found across the country. There is at least one refuge in each of 

the 50 States. This system has been a model for the world in its 

comprehensive protection and management of our Nation's wildlife. 

Of course, in addition, the refuges provides exceptional opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent forms of recreation, including 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and nature photography. All 

of the organizations I represent today strongly support those uses 

and their continuation. 

Unfortunately, there have been some problems in the history of 

the refuge system. Chairman Young, I know you have sat through 

a number of hearings over the years on the Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee where these problems were discussed. Fortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed-just about finished-a comprehensive review of all uses in the refuge system 

and, lo and behold, despite a lot of concern, a lot of rhetoric about 

how this review would shut down fishing and hunting what did 

they find? In fact, they found that almost every single refuge hunting and fishing program that they looked at was perfectly compatible with the purposes for those refuges. There were, unfortunately, 

a handful of refuges that required some modification and of course 

Tishomingo is one of those. 

In fact, I want to add that, there has been a lot of discussion 

about how this administration is shutting down hunting and fishing in the refuge system, and I am not always a supporter of this 

administration but in fact they have opened more refuges to hunting and fishing in their first two years than the former administration had in its last two years. I think that is an important piece 

of information. 

The Tishomingo Refuge, of course, provides a spectacular array 

of wildlife and wildlife-related recreational opportunities. As Mr. 

Brewster has said on more than one occasion, the refuge has "the 

best crappie fishing there is." I have read that a couple of times 

and we heard that again this morning and I believe him. 

Unfortunately, certain forms of set tackle fishing gear have 

turned this refuge into a death trap for bald eagles, pelicans, 

egrets, and some other forms of migratory birds. These forms of 

fishing poses a serious and unacceptable threat to refuge wildlife. 

And I have a little show and tell today. I would like to show a 

couple of pictures of some unlucky wildlife that has run into some 

of these trotlines. There is a bald eagle. This is one of the three 
74 

that has been found snagged and killed on the trotline fishing gear 

I believe in the last 10 to 12 years. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Was that at Texoma? 

Mr. WALTMAN. That is right. These are both at Tishomingo. The 

other is a white pelican. That is another specie that has had trouble with the trotlines. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Were they legally set or illegally set? 

Mr. W ALT:rviAN. I am not sure, sir, and I will try to answer that 

question in the future. 

My understanding is a lot of times the tackle might look like it 

is legal tackle but the water levels drop so quickly that after a little while they become illegal. 

I also have a shopping bag here with some--

Mr. YOUNG. You are about ready to run out. 

Mr. WALTMAN. These are just proof that some of jugs that were 

picked up from the refuge-a Clorox bottle, antifreeze bottle, an oil 

bottle. I know they find pesticides as well. 

I will sum up real quickly. 

We oppose this legislation because, one, it states that although 

the Refuge Administration Act will continue, it says that the State 

would manage these lands in a way that would continue the activities that were there prior to 1994 and these activities that we have 

all seen today are a serious problem for wildlife. 

We are also concerned in general with transferring Federal lands 

over to State management. These lands were acquired with the 

money from taxpayers across the country and they should be managed as part of our natural heritage for all Americans. 

And finally, the very serious funding problem, the bill would allocate 50 percent of current levels to the State of Oklahoma for the 

refuge. 

Congressman Brewster, I think you have recommended that this 

area could be managed by the Blue River hunting and fishing area. 

Unfortunately, that area has its own problems. AB I understand, 

they have few full-time staff people. 

(The statement of Mr. Waltman may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. BREWSTER. Maybe. 

Mr. WALTMA.N. That is what I read in the paper. We will check 

into your other questions. 

Mr. YoUNG. Your time is up. 

Mr. WALTMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Pennington of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. 

Pennington. 

STATEMENT OF K.E. PENNINGTON 

Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, I would like to say that I am K.E. Pennington, and never in my 70 years have I been prouder to say that 

I am from Oklahoma. 

Mr. YOLJNG. Thank you. 

Mr. PENNINGTON. I have lived in the Tishomingo area for the last 

33 years-! am not going to talk about some hypothetical situation. 

I started fishing and hunting in the Tishomingo area in 194 7. The 

last trip I made to it was last Sunday. These things that we have 

been hearing about when they start talking about this area being 

home to 80,000 wildlife and 30,000 geese, I am reminded of the 
75 

1947 refuge which was true, but this management that they have 

bragged about so greatly has allowed this to deteriorate until in 

1995 we had 1,400 geese in this area and as Congressman Brewster said, the Maxi geese program of the Oklahoma wildlife department has produced more geese in Oklahoma, than we had in this 

entire refuge area last year, and that is not hearsay, that is fact. 

The area in question was originally a goose refuge but it has deteriorated to such a degree that we have no geese. Now they start 

fumbling for another reason to justify the fact that they are there, 

and they make a to-do about the destruction of eagles. In the public 

media in this area last week I challenged the director of the wildlife management area to produce one documented instance of an 

eagle being killed on the Tishomingo Wildlife Refuge. I am not convinced this is correct. I got no response from him. 

The gentleman from the hatchery area said there was a possibility that in the early 1980's there might have been one. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife is if not overburdened by regulations 

can make this an area usable by a greater number of people than 

are now using it. This department has a nongame section that is 

the envy of the central U.S. 

In the last few years, they have instigated a blue bird program 

that has doubled the number of blue birds in the State of Oklahoma. Wood ducks, the same thing, and this is not false-there is 

documented proof not something that we promise to do. 

Closing this fishing area that has been used for the last 50 years, 

perhaps not in complete harmony, but we have used it under every 

manager that we have had, this rock and lock. And I say rock and 

lock. What they can't place a 2,000 pound granite boulder in front 

of, they lock up. And the access roads that these folks talk about 

people utilizing to view this area have been closed by placing twoton rocks in the middle of the road. The only decent observation 

spot on this part of Lake Texoma to view the beauty of the entire 

thing has a 22,000 pound granite stone preventing people from 

driving out to where they can view it. Now if that is utilizing it for 

what it is supposed to be, I am very, very badly mistaken. 

And we do, as Congressman Brewster said, manage with very little strife, the area immediately across the road, and have for a 

number of years, and they can do this management at half the cost 

and with one-tenth the disagreement among the people. I would 

urge the committee to give this your consideration and pass this 

resolution. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Pennington, and you did finish on 

time, too. I want to compliment you on that. The time is up. 

[The statement of Mr. Pennington may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Duffy. Greg Duffy. 

STATEMENT OF GREG D. DUFFY, DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Department of Wildlife and sportsmen of the State of Oklahoma and the citizens of this 

Nation, I appreciate this opportunity to come before you to address 

your committee today. 
76 

The Department of Wildlife Conservation is very concerned about 

recent plans to restrict public utilization of the various outdoor recreational activities that were previously permitted on national 

wildlife refuges and in particular fishing and boating opportunity 

at Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge. 

Oklahoma has less than 5 percent of its total land base in State 

and public ownership, and this makes the public lands that are in 

our State very important that they remain with as little restriction 

as possible to maintain the resources in the State and still fulfill 

the public needs for the enjoyment of those natural resources. 

Through the past 10 years, numerous refuge management practices have been implemented that have reduced the overall effectiveness of the refuge at Tishomingo. Public access and utilization 

have been curtailed and the wildlife management practices have 

been limited. Under the newest compatibility proposals, the service 

created the nonboating sanctuary areas in shallower portions. We 

heard about all those from Ms. Beattie earlier and I won't go 

through those again. And the public which is the citizens particularly of the area that do enjoy fishing in those waters find it somewhat obtrusive to their needs for recreational opportunities for the 

area and do not feel, I guess, that a good job has been done adequately, nor does our department, with settling the program that 

we are trying to accomplish. 

Previously, Mr. Chairman, current State law requires that all 

fishing lines such as trotlines as we are calling them, the fixed 

lines, the jug lines, have the owner's name affixed to them and that 

the line be attended at least once every 24 hours. Somehow it 

doesn't seem justifiable to further restrict users of a reservoir or of 

a public fishing area because of a problem that may exist only because of lack of enforcement of a current law. If this law were enforced, I venture to speculate that few fishermen would be attending lines with exposed hooks. 

Like I say, the law requires attending every 24 hours. The owner 

of the line has to put his name on the jug or attach or affixed to 

the line. So if we are having a problem with that law, let's enforce 

that law. Let's don't make another prohibition and another prohibition for hundreds of fishermen who try to follow the law. 

In this conclusion I would like to mention the national wildlife 

refuge system has been a successful partner in restoration of wildlife species throughout the Nation. However, it is the Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation's position that opportunity for 

public utilization and access of the natural resources of these areas 

is desirable and unnecessary restrictions to those opportunities 

eliminated. 

The Department of Wildlife is willing to assume management responsibility for the refuge if suitable terms can be provided and feel 

that the interests of the citizens and wildlife resources can best be 

served by this action. 

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide our insight to the committee and ask that Mr. Don Ritter provide his 

comments. 

[The statement of Mr. Duffy may be found at end of hearing.] 
77 

STATEMENT OF DON RITTER 

Mr. RITTER. Thank you. I would like to share a little bit. 

I am currently chairman of the Department of Wildlife Conservation. One thing that jumped out at me when Ms. Beattie was sharing her information, it seems like we are talking about two completely different things. That is perception here in Washington of 

what transpired. 

I drive by Tishomingo. I think what they have there and what 

we see locally is not the same thing, even with the represenation 

of aerial photos from 1949 and 1979 or 1978. You know, when I go 

over there I lo~k at what is happening in 1995, the siltation, the 

erosion, the problems that are occurring now. A photo from 1978 

doesn't do justice to what is out there. And I think if you went to 

that area and you looked at the places they want to close off, the 

fishing and boating access, you would probably laugh at what you 

saw. It is great for fishing, but to restrict people access to that, 

there is someone not looking closely at what the resource is there 

to provide. 

I hear a lot of talk about the wildlife refuge system. As a sportsman, what I am concerned about is the resources which are the 

goose, the duck, the things that utilize those areas. I want to see 

more of the valuable things that we want to protect in that system. 

I hear of a focus of protecting a system but we are not looking 

out for what we can do for the resources in that system as the 

numbers have declined from 30,000 down to 1,400 geese in January 

sort of scares me with that prospect that we are not focusing on 

what we want to do for the sportsmen through that legacy that 

Teddy Roosevelt put out there for us. 

The Department of Wildlife Conservation is a group which is 

looked over by eight commissioners who are independent businessmen. We are the only self-funded State agency in Oklahoma. We 

are very frugal with what we have to work with, with the moneys 

that we deal with with our sportsmen's dollars, and the department feels comfortable that they can manage that area with the 

limited funding and do a much superior job as far as providing access to sportsmen, providing habitat for waterfowl, food, resources 

for the migratory bird that has come through there with the funding levels that have been proposed at half that amount, and I 

would ask that you would give the department an opportunity to 

show what can be done again with that area in the future and let 

the numbers prove themselves out over a given time period. 

[The statement of Mr. Ritter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YoUNG. I thank the panel for its testimony. I am going to 

let the gentleman from Oklahoma ask questions. The first question, 

though, I would like to ask Mr. Waltman. I want to smell where 

those jugs came from. 

Mr. WALTMAN. The jug came from a local citizen member of--

Mr. YOUNG. Do you have his name? 

Mr. WALTMAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to know his name. They don't have the name 

on the jugs? I mean I could pick those out of the trash can. That 

show and tell stuff is awfully touchy when you really don't have 

documentation to back it up. 
78 

Mr. WALTMAN. I would love to document it. The name was on 

the--

Mr. YOUNG. I want to know the gentleman's name. Did he send 

them to you? In reality, those aren't jugs from that lake and unless 

you can prove that they were done to--

Mr. WALTMAN. I received those yesterday in the mail, opened 

them out of the box this morning, and dragged them up here, so 

I have not myself looked at them enough except to see there was 

an Ajax bottle, antifreeze, and an oil jug. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is very convenient. It appeared to be an Ajax bottle, an oil bottle--

Mr. WALTMAN. Can I--

Mr. YOUNG. No, I am not finished. 

It is very convenient that they would send to you to show today 

and no one claims the bottles are where they came from. That disturbs me. 

The average bottle used, if I am not mistaken, is a bottle, probably a milk bottle. I used to do a little trotline fishing in my life. 

We didn't have milk bottles. We have used glass balls at that time 

in California. I do know one thing, a milk jug, it is lighter, more 

convenient, and more available. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Several questions. To Ms. Merchant, you said that I should visit 

the refuge. Have you been to the refuge? 

Ms. MERCHA..~T. No, Congressman, I had hoped to get down there 

before this hearing but I have not yet had the opportunity, and I 

would be happy and welcome the opportunity to get on to the refuge and to meet with you and others to look at this situation firsthand. 

I think one of the important points that Mr. Ritter made, and I 

think it is part of the problem here, is that the perceptions are so 

different as to the refuge itself, the uses that are occurring, what 

the problems are, and it is not a straightforward issue; it is a complex issue. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Yes, ma'am, it is quite different than the way you 

presented it as a refuge instance, because the first time I was there 

was in 1950, and I have been in there within the last three months 

so I am quite knowledgeable about the refuge. 

In addition, you said that you didn't want to take it away from 

wildlife professionals. Are you saying our State wildlife department 

is not a group of professionals? 

Ms. MERCHANT. Absolutely not, and this was in my written testimony but I wasn't able to get to that section. We are in no way 

criticizing the Oklahoma department. In fact, in my testimony I 

note fishing regulations that the department has attempted to enforce, and so it is simply a matter of the fact that national wildlife 

refuges are different and are meant to be different and by Congress' own action are intended to be managed by Federal wildlife 

officials for the benefit of the trust species that the Nation is obligated to protect and for the benefit of all Americans. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Yes, ma'am. As one who spends between 10 and 

20,000 a year in dollars on conservation, I am certainly interested 

in having as much wildlife, game and nongame, as possible. 
79 

You mentioned economics. One of the reasons we got into this to 

start with, the local people were concerned because a large number 

of our motel rooms are occupied by fishermen who come there to 

go crappie fishing in the spring and at that point, the proposal was 

to eliminate crappie fishing in what was the best part of the lake 

so you thought you said it would damage economics, implementing 

the plan would damage economics of the area drastically. 

Mr. Waltman, you said you had 8,000 members in Oklahoma and 

500,000 members nationwide. 

Mr. WALTMAN. I think combined with National Audubon, we 

have about 800,000. 

Mr. BREWSTER. What percentage of those are urban and what 

percentage are rural? 

Mr. WALTMAN. I can't answer that question. 

I would like to add something. I feel a little bit like those of us 

working in Washington are getting picked on and, unfortunately, 

there was a woman from Tishomingo named Connie Taylor, who is 

a professor at the Southeast Oklahoma State University--

Mr. BREWSTER. What is her name? 

Mr. WALTMAN. Connie Taylor, Past President of the Oklahoma 

Academy of Science. She would have loved to have been here today 

and requested an opportunity to testify to support the Fish and 

Wildlife Service but was not allowed. I hope you will receive her 

written testimony instead and pay it strong attention. 

(The information received may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. BREWSTER. The gentleman to your right obtained his degree 

in biology at Southeastern and very well may know her. 

Beyond that, you mentioned what a great model the refuges are. 

I think that is probably correct in general. But when this one has 

deteriorated in the last 10 years from 30,000 geese to 1,400 geese 

at the same time we have an all-time high geese population in 

Oklahoma, at the same time the State wildlife department operates 

a refuge up the road about 70, 80 miles whose geese numbers have 

increased about fivefold, and had last year 18,000 geese at the 

same time this had 1,400, how can you say it would not be better 

to give someone else an opportunity to see if they can do the job 

better? 

Mr. WALTMA...~. Congressman, it sounds to me like the State of 

Oklahoma has done a good job for its geese, but I also know the 

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge has become an even more important area for bald eagles. I know they told me up to 100 bald 

eagles, shore birds, and other species. 

Mr. BREWSTER. We have them on other refuges as well. 

Mr. WALTMAN. I just suggested that the habitat has changed as 

the Fish and Wildlife Service explained today and some of the species that used to prefer the deeper water habitat are elsewhere and 

others have acclimated themselves quite well in the new habitat. 

Mr. BREWSTER. We have another vote coming up and I am going 

very quick on a couple of questions or statements. 

You said this picture was from Tishomingo. I have been led to 

believe by the manager there that there might have been an eagle 

caught on a trotline some years ago. I would like to know where 

the picture came from, whose was it so I can get a copy of it. I 

would like to have documentation as to the date. 
80 

Mr. BREWSTER. The other things, a lot was discussed about the 

economics. Mr. Duffy, you operate many refuges around the State 

as well as many public hunting areas and you do the grain planting, do the things to bring the refuge back to where it is productive 

habitat for wildlife with the funding that is proposed in the bill? 

Mr. DUFFY. Without a doubt. Our typical expenditure on an area 

of this size would be around $100,000. 

You know, I guess the biggest cost saving that we can see, you 

know, between the State and the federally managed areas, number 

one, I expect our people to work most of a week, you know a 40-

hour work week, and whenever they do, they work hard and they 

work 40 hours a week, plus. Our typical biologist isn't fortunate 

enough I guess to be drawing $50 or $60,000 a year, nor our technical people, you know $35 or $40,000. Our wages are much lower. 

Our expenses are much lower. We have much more competitive, 

and as Commissioner Ritter pointed out, we have an eight-man 

commission who watches every penny we spend and these are businessmen that are highly successful who have third careers in private business who know what things cost and know how to manage. 

Mr. BREWSTER. You would propose to keep the mission as is, to 

protect the wildlife resource of our Nation, both game and 

nongame, as far as the mission for-that is what we have in the 

bill and you understand that. 

Mr. DUFFY. Yes. Our agency would be able to compensate. That 

is the same mission of our agency. 

Mr. BREWSTER. And you already have the land adjacent to it that 

you have managed for many years at this point? 

Mr. DUFFY. The agency does manage those lands, since about 

1948. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Any idea how many acres in Federal land you 

manage now, just a rough guess? 

Mr. DUFFY. About 650,000 acres of Federal land, State management/Federal ownership, to about 325,000 acres. 

Mr. BREWSTER. You manage 650,000 acres of Federal land currently? 

Mr. DUFFY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BREWSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. 

I am inclined to listen to the people that have been there and 

lived there. Mr. Pennington, especially you have been there a long 

time and I am inclined to hear what you are saying. 

One of my biggest frustrations in this job over the years has been 

those that are from I call outside trying to tell those who live there 

how they should do business. And I will say, Ms. Beattie has been 

pretty responsive to some of the suggestions that have been made 

in other areas, and I suggest maybe this is one of those areas we 

ought to be looking at the manager and seeing if this is really a 

question of personalities or compatibility. I am not saying that 

willy-nilly because if I had my way a lot of refuges are going to be 

sublet out. 

I hate to use the term "outlet," but in Alaska you know we have 

the largest, if the gentleman will bear with me, group of refuges 

in the world and the increase of money to manage those refuges by 
81 

outsiders has been phenomenal. It is time we start looking for local 

people to be involved and I have said this over and over again. 

Park service is worse. They don't hire anybody locally in that area. 

They have brought them from outside and that is why you have 

lost your support. 

And when I see the head of the wildlife foundation and a person 

from Oklahoma City who is there every day and loves that area 

and one of the directors talking about what they think could be 

done to improve it, that makes an impression. 

And lastly, the Representative of that area who is elected by the 

people, if he thinks there is a problem, there is a problem. That is 

true representation. 

I want to thank the panel for being here. 

Mr. BREWSTER. If the gentleman would yield just a moment, you 

keep mentioning Pennington of Oklahoma City. Mr. Pennington 

lives about seven miles from the refuge between Mannville and 

Tishomingo, Oklahoma, and has lived there most of his years. 

Mr. YOUNG. I understand. That is why I complimented him. You 

see, you shouldn't stop me. 

Theodore Roosevelt, Ms. Merchant, was a hunter and a fisherman, and had not wanted exclusive uses on refuges. What happened because of a lawsuit, there is a more restrictive classification 

of refuges today than maybe tomorrow and the day after. And most 

of these refuges were created with the support of the people. 

Ms. MERCHANT. Mr. Chairman, my organization includes many 

sportsmen, hunters, and fishermen. That is a concern that we 

share and I think that again I would simply emphasize that I think 

the most important thing that we could all do at this point is take 

another look at the complexities and the realities of the situation 

on the ground. There are genuinely different perceptions that I 

think need to be resolved. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, let me stress this. No professional or agency 

is going to survive without the support of the people. That is very 

basic and I have said this all through my career. And I have 

watched this slow deterioration of the Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, even BLM, all start retreating because there seems to be an 

infiltration that they have all the answers and you do not have all 

the answers. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. BREWSTER. One more point I would like to make, I consider 

this to be an innovative proposal of something that will save U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service some dollars. With this Nation approaching $5 trillion in debt with over 15 percent of this year's budget 

going to pay the interest on the debt, if we don't start doing some 

things differently, doing some innovative things, we will be selling 

assets in the not too distant future. It is right around the corner. 

So if we don't get serious about doing some things differently, and 

maybe this is an approach that might work, I certainly hope that 

some of the associations around that like to throw out propaganda 

to all their members would consider the fact that we are not too 

far away from the point that our creditors are going to demand the 

sale of assets. Hopefully, we can do something to prevent that from 

happening. 
82 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, thank the 

panel, and this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
104TH CO:\GRESS 

1ST SESSIOl'\ 

83 

H.R.lll2 

To transfer management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in 

Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma. 

I:;\ THE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 1995 

Mr. BREWSTER (for himself, Mr. YOUKG of Alaska, Mr. CoBUR:'\, Mr. 

lSTOOK, Mr. LA.RGEKT, Mr. LucAS, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BAU,ENGER, Mr. 

BARCIA, Mr. BARRETT of :\ebraska, Mr. BOYILLA, :VIr. BROWDER, ::llr. 

CAMP, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. COBLE, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. CRAMER, 1\Ir. 

CRAPo, Ms. DA.\il\"ER, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. DELAY, Mr. DICKEY, 

Mr. DooLEY, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. l<'IELDS of Texas, Mr. GAKSKE, ::lcir. 

PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. GEl'.."E GREE:-.: of Texas, Mr. HALL of Texas, 

Mr. liA..'ICOCK, Mr. HAI."ES, .Mr. HERGER, Mr. HoBso:-.:, Mr. LA.UGHLI1\, 

Mr. l;IPINSKI, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. MONTGOMERY, 1\lr. NEY, Mr. ORTIZ, 

Mr. ORTON, Mr. PARKER, Mr. PETERSOl\ of Minnesota, Mr. POSHARD, 

Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROSE, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SMITH of 

Michigan, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. TA.'Th"ER, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. THORNT01\, 

Mrs. TIIUR.'I1A.-.:, Mr. VOLKMER, and Mr. ZELIFF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To transfer management of the Tishomingo Xational \Vildlife 

Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and IIouse of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

* 
84 

2 

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF TISHOMINGO 

2 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. 

3 (a) TRA.'\SFER.-Within 30 days after the enactment 

4 of this Act, the Seeretary of the Interior shall transfer, 

5 ·with the consent of the Governor of Oklahoma, the man6 agement of the lands and waters within the Tishomingo 

7 Xational Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of 

8 Oklahoma for administration by the Director of the Okla9 homa Department of Wildlife ConscrTation (or any sueees10 sor agency). Such lands and waters shall be managed for 

II the same uses and in tlw same manner as the.'' were man12 aged by the United States Fish and Wildlife Sc:rviee prior 

13 to calendar year 1994. Such lands and waters shall con14 tinue to be a national wildlife refuge, and the laws, rules, 

15 and regulations applicable to the national wildlife refuge 

16 system shall continue to be applicable to such lands and 

17 waters on and after the effective date of such transfer. 

18 (b) ArTHORIZATIOX OF F'r~<DIXG.-For each fiR<~al 

19 year commencing after the enaetment of this ..:\.ct, there 

20 iR authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 

21 Interior to make annual grants to the State of Oklahoma 

22 for management of the lands and waters transferred under 

23 subsection (a) an amount equal to i'iO percent of tlw 

24 amount made aYailable to the Seeretary of the Interior in 

25 fiscal year 1994 for the management of such refuge. 

•HR 1112 llilS 
85 

TESTIMONY OF MOLLIE BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS OF THE HOUSE 

RESOURCES COMMITTEE, REGARDING H.R. 1112, TO TRANSFER MANAGEMENT 

OF TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

May 16, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 

1112, a bill to transfer management of the Tishomingo National 

Wildlife Refuge to the State of Oklahoma. I am accompanied by 

Nancy Kaufman, our new Regional Director for the Southwestern 

region, and Robert Shallenberger, Chief of our Division of 

Refuges. 

We are deeply concerned about this legislative proposal, both as 

it relates to the management of Tishomingo refuge and as it may 

affect the National Wildlife Refuge system as a whole, and we 

oppose its enactment. 

We acknowledge there are legitimate differences of opinion 

regarding management actions proposed at Tishomingo refuge to 

ensure that public use activities are compatible with the 

purposes of this refuge. However, we respectfully suggest that 

the proposed legislation will not resolve those differences and 

will likely create more serious problems as a result. Let me 

explain by providing some general background on our review of 

refuge uses and the Tishomingo refuge. 

A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office concluded that some 
86 

permitted uses on refuges were harmful to wildlife and diverting 

attention from wildlife management. A more in-depth review by 

the Service in 1990 identified 133 uses on 78 refuge units that 

managers believed were incompatible. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act authorizes the Secertary to 

allow uses only if they are compatible with refuge purposes. This 

review led to an accelerated effort to correct these problems. 

After settling a lawsuit on incompatible uses within the Refuge 

System in 1993, the Service reviewed all ongoing uses to 

determine the adequacy of authority to control such uses, 

prepared written compatibility determinations on all uses under 

Service control, and ensured compliance with the Refuge System 

Administration Act, the Refuge Recreation Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The settlement also required the 

service to end incompatible uses or modify them to become 

compatible. 

A total of over 5200 uses were documented in the review. Of 

these, 46 problem uses on 30 refuges were addressed in fiscal 

year 1994 through modifications, enforcement of existing 

regulations or terminations of uses. Another 23 uses on 19 

refuges were recommended for termination or medication in this 

fiscal year. Pursuant to report language accompanying the fiscal 

year 1995 Interior Appropriations Act, Congress was notified of 

these proposed actions in January of this year. 

2 
87 

No action has been taken on these uses, including proposed 

changes in public use programs at Tishomingo refuge. Evaluation 

of uses on an additional 30 refuges is still in progress, and 

Congress will be notified of proposals to take any needed 

actions resulting from this evaluation. 

Despite considerable rhetoric to the contrary, the compatibility 

reviews to date have had very minimal impact on traditional 

refuge uses, in particular hunting and fishing. This is, in 

large part, due to the fact that managers have been periodically 

reviewing these and other uses under longstanding refuge policy 

guidance and have taken acti ons to ensure they remain compatible. 

However, on some refuges, managers have determined that further 

actions are necessary. Such is the case at the Tishomingo refuge. 

Some background information on Tishomingo refuge will help lay 

the foundation for the proposed actions. Tishomingo refuge was 

established in January 1946 through Public Land Order 312, on the 

Lake Texoma project, "for refuge and breeding ground purposes for 

migratory birds and other wildlife." The original refuge 

included approximately 13,450 acres, encompassing the Cumberland 

Pool and immediately adjacent lands. 

In 1957, the 3,000 acre Tishomingo Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 

was added to the refuge, immediately upstream of the Cumberland 

3 
88 

Pool. The lvolu is managed under a three-way cooperative agreement 

between the Department of Interior, the Department of Army and 

the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). The 

ODWC also manages a much larger unit further upstream an the 

Washita River, through a direct agreement with the Army. 

The Service has provided opportunities for a wide variety of 

recreational activities at Tishomingo refuge since it was 

created, but the level and types of use have changed over time. 

The refuge now attracts over 100,000 visitors annually. Of 

these, 67% participate in wildlife observation and 

interpretation, 29% engage in fishing, about 2% in hunting, and 

about 1.5% in camping and picnicking. 

The Cumberland Pool, a major part of the refuge, has itself also 

changed considerably. When Lake Texoma was created by the 

construction of Denison Dam, it was anticipated that this Pool 

would capture transported sediment loads during floods in the 

Washita River basin. The result has been the transformation of 

an 11,000 acre, deep-water lake into a lake with less than 4 1 000 

acres of deep water and 7,000 acres of shallow wetlands, 

mudflats, sandbars and sloughs. Much of the shallow fringes of 

the original deep pool have been invaded by trees and emergent 

marsh vegetation. This natural process has enhanced habitat for 

migratory birds, by creating a far wider diversity of nesting, 

feeding and roosting areas. However, this change has also 

4 
89 

increased the conflict between some traditional recreational uses 

of the deep water pool and refuge wildlife. 

Proposals by the Service to mitigate increasing recreation and 

wildlife conflicts at Tishomingo refuge are not new, nor have 

they occurred without controversy. In 1962, Refuge Manager Earl 

Craven established a buoy line to seasonally close a portion of 

the lake to boating activities. Refuge Manager Ernie Jamieson 

implemented a seasonal closure of the entire lake in 1972. In 

1987, Refuge Manager Bill Hutchinson documented mortality of 

migratory birds in trotlines -- fishing lines with multiple hooks 

which are fastened to the shore and left unattended in the water 

overnight or longer -- and attempted to enforce winter removal of 

these lines. All of these actions were aimed at preventing, or 

lessening, disturbance to migratory birds from recreational 

activities. 

In each case, these actions generated considerable backlash in 

the local community, including petitions to remove managers from 

their jobs. Our current proposals have again stirred similar 

controversy. 

Let's look at what the Service has proposed and why we have 

proposed it. 

1) Prohibit set tackle fishing in the Cumberland Pool's 

5 
90 

shallowest areas -- The purpose of this action is to minimize 

deaths of refuge wildlife caused by trotlines and other set 

tackle in the shallowest waters of the Cumberland Pool. These 

lines typically stretch between floating jugs or other objects 

and contain upwards of 100 hooks. Current state fishing 

regulations prohibit use of trotlines or other set tackle in 

lakes managed by ODWC and in all state lakes within three feet of 

the water surface. The principal problem occurs when temporary 

flood events increase the water levels of normally shallow areas, 

allowing fishermen to set their tackle in these areas, often tied 

between trees. When the water drops, exposed lines and hooks 

entangle wildlife. Among the species affected are bald eagles, 

pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets and grebes. Under our 

proposal, the shallow areas would be identified and marked with 

buoy lines. Trotline fishing would continue to be allowed on more 

than 3,200 acres (approximately 80% of the remaining deeper water 

in the Cumberland Pool), where it is compatible with refuge 

purposes. 

2) Prohibit use of plastic containers as fishing floats -- This 

action is proposed to remedy a solid waste and contamination 

problem. Set tackle fishermen often use jugs with residue of 

oil, antifreeze and pesticides remaining. These containers 

should be properly disposed of in approved landfills, not 

contaminating the waters of a national wildlife refuge. 

6 
91 

Many of the containers are also transported to shoreline and 

flood plain areas, creating a litter problem around the lake. 

Low cost commercial floats are readily available as an 

alternative to plastic containers. Also, use of these floats 

would likely reduce the frequency of discarded trot lines that 

entangle wildlife. 

3) Further restrictions on fishing and motorized boating on the 

Cumberland Pool -- The Cumberland Pool is currently closed to 

fishing from October 1 to March 1, to prevent disturbance of the 

large concentrations of migratory birds that feed and roost in 

refuge waters during that period. However, managers have 

documented disturbance during March, April and September that 

needs to be addressed by expanding the closure period from 

September 1 - May 1. This action would not impact the vast 

majority of boating and set tackle fishing, which occurs during 

the summer. This action would also not significantly affect 

fishing seasons in the Washita River, Pennington Creek and the 

seven lakes in the WMU or the traditional year-around rod and 

reel fishing at Tishomingo refuge. A night boating closure of 

the Cumberland Pool is also proposed to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife and to promote safety. This action would impact, on 

average, fewer than six people per night. Many trotline 

fishermen support this restriction as it would protect their 

lines from vandalism. 

7 
92 

4) Prohibit overnight camping on the refuge -- camping now occurs 

in two forms on Tishomingo refuge: primitive camping in outlying 

areas and semi-developed camping near the refuge headquarters. 

Most of the primitive camping is at sites ranging from 10-20 

miles from headquarters, making oversight, enforcement and 

maintenance by refuge staff time-consuming and costly. No 

designated camp sites or sanitation facilities are available. 

Consequently, these areas have becomed highly eroded and 

vegetation has been heavily damaged. Human feces, paper and 

other garbage litter the camp areas and pollute the aquatic 

environment. Portable sanitation units have been tried in the 

past, but vendors in the area are not interested in servicing 

these remote areas. Trash barrels placed at the sites have been 

stolen. 

What was tent camping now includes frequent visits by trailers 

and motor homes. No sanitation dump facilities exist for these 

vehicles either, and illegal dumping of waste is common. Ending 

camping on the refuge will impact less than 1% of the visitors, 

who have many alternative camping sites as close as 4 miles away. 

The Lake Texoma recreation area includes approximately 50 

recreation sites, 19 of which provide camping facilities on the 

Oklahoma side of the lake. 

5) Develop the headquarters pavilion into an environmental 

education facility -- A 20 X 50 foot shelter located near the 

8 
93 

refuge headquarters has become increasingly popular for use by 

local residents for non-wildlife oriented activities, such as 

family reunions, easter egg·hunts, church group meetings and 

picnics accompanied by softball games, touch football and other 

recreation. When the shelter is occupied by these users, other 

visitors are generally excluded from the site. Refuge staff 

propose to use the shelter predominantly for environmental 

education programs with school children from neighboring 

communities, a use more in keeping with the purpose of the 

refuge. There are suitable alternative locations for nonwildlife oriented group events, most notably Pennington Park in 

nearby Tishomingo. 

In sum, the service has determined that several recreational 

activities, in their present form, are incompatible with the 

purposes for which Tishomingo refuge was established. This is 

not a new issue nor is the Service proposing radical solutions, 

but, rather, a measured approach to real management problems. 

None of the proposed actions would eliminate or significantly 

affect recreational opportunities in the Tishomingo refuge area. 

The proposed transfer of management of the Tishomingo refuge to 

the ODWC, along with half of the operating funds, is offered as a 

means of preventing further restrictions on recreational use. 

This proposal is not likely to accomplish this goal for several 

9 
94 

reasons. If, as the bill provides, the area remains within the 

Refuge System, the laws and regulations requiring allowed uses to 

be compatible with refuge purposes would continue to apply. 

Neither we nor the Congress can delegate to the ODWC complete 

control over Federal property. Even if that were not the case, 

the existing ODWC regulation prohibiting trotline fishing in 

state-managed lakes would also apply. The uses in question still 

could not occur. 

If one-half of the current refuge funding is transferred to the 

ODWC, they would either have to match that amount with State 

funds or reduce management at the refuge. The funding request 

for fiscal year 1996 is approximately $340,000; half of this 

would be $170,000 in additional State funds. They would also 

have to assume responsibility for backlogged facility and 

maintenance needs. 

Furthermore, the ODWC is already dependent upon the Refuge staff 

and funding for cooperative management of the Tishomingo Wildlife 

Management Unit. The oowc current annual budget for the Unit is 

approximately $5,000, while the refuge contributes nearly $17,000 

annually. Since 1990, the Service has spent an additional 

$70,000 in major maintenance activities at the Unit. All this 

assistance to the ODWC would be lost if the bill is enacted, with 

or without the proposed transfer of funding. 

10 
95 

Enactment of the bill would also mean relocating the Service's 

employees, who live in or near the town of Tishomingo (population 

3,000). The loss of these jobs, and the funds we spend locally 

each year for supplies and maintenance contracts, would cost the 

Tishomingo area approximately $250,000 annually, a not 

insignificant impact for a small town. We have no way of knowing 

if the state would move new employees to the refuge, or purchase 

supplies locally, to make up this loss of spending. 

Another issue is the prospect that management programs of this 

refuge would shift over time to emphasize State agency resource 

priorities, such as resident species. Herein lies the Service's 

greatest concern regarding the transfer of refuges to state 

agencies as a means of addressing local user conflicts. Refuges 

like Tishomingo were established primarily to provide habitat for 

migratory bird species whose seasonal habitat needs transcend 

state, and even international, boundaries. Many other refuges 

are managed primarily to support recovery of Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. 

While we enjoy a fru~tful cooperative relationship in resource 

management with the States, we have different responsibil~ties 

and management priorities. It would be difficult, if not 

impossible, to ensure that the Federal commitment to conservation 

of trust species would be maintained by the States over time if 

there were any large-scale transfer of management of refuges such 

11 
96 

as Tishomingo to the States. 

Lastly, the bill would establish a b ad precedent by starting to 

dismantle the Refuge System in a piece-meal fashion every time 

there is a local land use dispute. We believe these disputes 

should be worked out at the local level wherever possible. The 

removal of an area from Service management, or from the Refuge 

System, in response to such a dispute -- particularly, as here, 

one which impacts a very small percent of refuge users, is an 

extreme response. 

Any removal from the Refuge system, or from Service management, 

should not be done on such an ad-hoc basis, but only considered, 

if at all, after thoughtful criteria have been established to 

ensure an objective and uniform approach to the issue. 

For all these reasons, we oppose enactment of H.R. 1112. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have. 

12 
97 

National Wildlife Refuge Association Dedicated to the protection and perpetuation of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

TESTIMONY OF GINGER MERCHANT, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING H.R. 1112: TO TRANSFER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE 

TISHOMINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TO THE STATE OF OKJ,AHOMA 

May 16, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National Wildlife 

Refuge Association (NWRAI was founded by wildlife refuge professionals and is the only national conservation organization focused 

exclusively upon the National Wildlife Refuge System. I thank you 

for this opportunity to present the views of the NWRA regarding 

H.R. 1112. 

As introduced by Representative Rill Brewster ID··OKI, H.R. 1112, 

would transfer the manageme~t of and 50 percent of the FY 1994 

funding for the Tishomingo ~ational Wildlife Refuge from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. The bill would also mandate continuation of pre-1994 

ICY) uses of the Refuge and management of those uses, despite the 

documentation nf harm to the wildlife and its habitat. 

As evidenced by the article "Tishomingo NWR: refuge or deathtrap?" 

in our April newsletter, the ~WRA IS quite concerned about the 

ramifications of H.R. 1112 for the Tishomingo Refuge and for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole. The NWRA, therefore, 

opposes passage of this bill. Additionally, we urge Representative 

Brewster to visit the Refuge; reconsider this local controversv over 

the compatibility of some recreational uses as they are currently 

occurring; and to explore non-legislative solutions. 

National Wildlife Refuges are special and different places. They 

are not meant to be parks or recreation areas, although they do 

offer important opportunities for recreation when it is compatible 

with their wildlife purposes. The reason for this is that the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is the onlv national network of 

lands and waters set aside primarily to conserve the nation's fish 

and wildlife heritage. 

This unique network of habitats was initiated in 1903 by Republican 

President Theodore Roosevelt, a sportsman and conservationist. The 

Refuge System now plays a vital role In the conservation and management of migratory birds, for which the United States has international treaty obligations, and the conservation and recovery of 

threatened and endangered species. 

10824 Fox Hunt Lane, Potomac, MD 20854 • Phone/Fax (301) 983-9498 
98 

NWRl\ ?. 

The Refuge Svstem and ind1v1dual refuges such as Tishom1ngo can 

and do provide important opportunities for wildlite oriented recrea 

t1on and environmental educational. By law, Congress has mandated 

that these secondary aclivi ies be found to be compatible with the 

purposes for which were ec:tablished. The Tishomingo 

Refuge was established 1946 "for refuge and breeding grbund 

purposes for migratory birds and other wildlife ... " Public Land 

Order 312. January 24. 

The Subcommittee asked that we address, in particular, the follow·-

lng three questions. 

The NWR.~ answers "no". A transfer of management of the Tishomingo 

National Wildlife Refuge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(the Service) to the State of Oklahoma is inappropriate for the 

following reasons. 

there is rl_Q reason that the Tishomingo Retuge .cannot meet its 

ishing purposes und8r Service management <:onsistent with its 

legal mandates~~ the \at1onal Wi l dlif Refuge svstem Administration 

Act of 1966 and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 116 .S.C. 668dd668ee and 16 U.S .. ~60k·-~60k-4 respectJvelyl. 

In fact, the lltation of Lake Texoma's Cumberland Pool 

is improving habitat for rds as original 

intended when th1 was estahli 1n conjlJnction with the 

Denison Dam and Reservoir on the Red River. Thus, the habitat of 

the Tishomingo Refuge v1lal refuge and breeding ground 

habitat link fnr the tory birds of Central Flyway. Over 

250 btrd species use the Refuge 1nclud1ng: 132 species 

of special concern; 50-90 bald eagles; 80,000 ducks; ,000 geese; 

and many species of waterbirds. 

Second, a legislative transfer of the management of the Tishomingo ReTuge in response to a local controversy over the compatlbility 

of selected recreational activities would establish a dangerous 

and inappropriate precedent for the National Wtldl1fe Refuge System. 

The threat of the transfer of the management of western game ranges 

from the service in the mld-1970s prompted Congress to amend the 

Refuge Administration Act to specify that the nation's refuges 

were to be administered by the .S Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Game Range .'\ct. Public Law 94-·223). Thus, Con<Jn;ss acted to 

ensure that refuges be managed to meet their establishing purposes 

by federal wildl1fe professionals for the benefit of the nation and 

all !\mericans. 

Thirg, the NWR.-\ has recommended to the relevant House and Senate 

appropriations subcommittees that Congress endorse and appropriate 

funding for a Blue !hbbon Commission to rev1ew the policies and 
99 

NWRA 3 

procedures for adding and removing lands from the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; and that all proposals pertaining to the removal of 

lands or transfer of their management be included within the scope 

of the Commission's review. We believe our recommendation will be 

adopted and ask the Subcommittee not to move H.R.ll12 independently. 

2) The liabili~ies and penefits of such a transfer? 

Tishomingo's wildlife and habitat resources/liabilities a~g 

ben.efi t~;_ 

H.R. 1112 mandates that "Such lands and waters shall be managed for 

the same uses and in the same manner as they were managed by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to calendar year 

1994." Thus, despite the bill's subsequent reference to the continued applicability of refuge laws, rules and regulations, it 

would appear to preclude the modifications and restrictions proposed by the Service upon set tackle fishing, boating, picnicking 

and camping in order to make these activities compatible with the 

wildlife purposes of the Refuge. 

The modifications proposed by the Service, are prompted primarily by 

the changing conditions of the Refuge habitats: both the siltation 

of the Cumberland Pool and seasonal flooding of approximately 5800 

acres of basins and flats. These natural realities underlie the 

conflicts between wildlife protection and the recreational activities proposed for modification, not environmental extremism as has 

been suggested. 

restrict the use of trotlines to deep water and to prohibit their 

attachment to trees to prevent migratory birds from dying a slow and 

agonizing death due to entanglement; 

prohiblt the use of juglines using pesticide, oil and antifreeze 

containers; 

restrict motorized boating to the deep open waters of the 

Cumberland Pool (80%), leaving the 20 percent of shallow waters and 

associated mudflats and shorelines as a sanctuary for wildl i fe year 

round; 

expand the current seasonal closure (October-March) of the 

Cumberland Pool by three months (September- April) to protect 

migrating birds other than wintering waterfowl; 

restrict boating and fishing to daylight hours consistent with 

existing regulations in order to control vandalism, off-road 

habitat impacts and disturbance of wildlife; 
100 

NWRl\ 4 

prohibit camping by 1% of refuge visitors due to the adverse 

habitat impacts resulting from the Jack of on-refuge developed sites 

and floodplaln conditions, and to re-dlrect campers to the 

off-refuge facilities available nearbv; 

convert the use of the Refuge' single group shelter to an 

environmental education facility in lieu of its current use for 

picnicking which can be accommodated at off-refuge sites available 

nearby? 

Or are these proposals s1mply responsible manaqement designed to 

comply with Refuge System law and goals, wh1le providing for as many 

public recreational uses as appropriate and for environmental 

education opportunities not offered elsewhere? 

It is 1mportant to note that after the close of the public comment 

period on the Environmental Assessment pertaining to boating and 

fishing that the Refuge manager made modif1cations to his proposed 

action as a result of constructive comments made by the local 

fishing public. It is also s1gnificant that the proposed modiflcations to fish1ng do not apply to all areas of the Refuge: the 

Washita River and Pennington and Sandy creeks are unaffected. Bank 

and wadd fishing are to continue at present locations and times with 

one exception, Nida Point within the proposed sanctuary area. 

Another area (Murray 23) was opened October, 1994 to increase bank 

fishing opportunities. This area is now open all year as requested 

by fishermen and found to be compatible because of the major shift 

in bird use to the shallow southern shores of the Cumberland Pool. 

Ironically, the "pre-1994" mandate of H.R 11 12 would appear to 

require clot>ure of the Murray 23 area during the wintet· munths. 

The NWRA sees no benef1ts to the habltat or wildlife resources 

resulting from a transfer of management of the Tishomingo Refuge 

to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. We are not 

in any way criticiZing the Department and, note, that trotlines are 

prohibited in Department Fishing Areas and must be set 3 feet below 

the surface of other waters. This state regulation would appear to 

be inconsistent with the apparent intent of H.R. 1112 to prevent 

restriction of trotlines 1n the Cumberland Pool of the Tishrnn1ngo 

Refuge. 

The annual visitation of the Tishomingo Refuge exceeds 100,000. 

People are attracted from all across the nation, because it is a 

national wildlife refuge. The qual1ty of experience for the publlc 

visiting the Tishomingo Refuge year-round for rod and reel f shing, 

non-motorized boating and Wildlife observation would be diminished 

by the continuation of other activities in manor incompatible with 

the migratory bird purposes of the Refuge. In addition, recreatlonal opportunities that differ from thuse prov1ded by the numerous 
101 

NWRA 5 

state and co,ps of Engineers sites arour.d Lake Texoma would be lost. 

Moreover, important opportunities for environmental education and 

use of the Refuge as an outdoor classroom would be lost. 

Benefits. NWRA believes, would only accrue to those seeking the 

status quo concerning recreational activities or more of the same 

recreational opportunities offered in the •rishomingo community or 

elsewhere around Lake Texoma. 

Precedent/1 iabili ties andbenefits: 

The establishment of such a precedent would invite other members of 

Congress to also resolve local controversies through legislation 

transferring the management and/or lands of properly established 

national wildlife refuges to states. Such a precedent is likely 

to initiate the dismantling of this unique and valuable national 

network of l ands and waters set aside for wildlife and future 

generations of Americans. The NWRA sees no benefit to the establishment of such a precedent, except that which would accrue to 

individual members of Congress and the particular local constituents 

in whose interest they were acting. 

Economic/liabilities and benefit~ 

The loss of Service personnel and expenditures would mean an 

immediate financial liability of approximately $300,000 for the 

local Tishomingo community of approximately 3000 people. The 

current annu al economic benefits to the community include S250,000 

in espenditures by refuge staff and their families, plus another 

$50,000 or more in refuge purchase agreements. 

Over the long term, the community could be deprived of significantly 

greater revenue that could be realized by promoting ecotourism to 

the Refuge as other communities have done. For example, Socorro 

(NMI realizes an estimated minimum of S3.2 million from visitation 

related to the migratory birds of the Bosque del Apache Refuge 

according to the Chamber of Commerce. 

The Service would incur the loss of 50 percent ($180,295) of the 

funding for Tishomingo that could be used for the operation and 

maintenance of the Refuge System, and the costs of transferring the 

Refuge's six member staff to other locations ($150,000-250,0001. 

Thus, the bill could exacerbate an already critical funding situation by a reduction of as much as $430,295. 

The NWRA also believes that assumption of the adtiitional management 

responsibility for the Tishomingo Refuge will prove to be a long 

term liability for the State which is currently benefitting from 

direct and significant financial, equipment and work assistance from 

the Tishomingo Refuge staff on the 'rishomingo Wildlife Management 

Unit and the Washita Arm Wildlife Management Area. The Refuge 

maintains $2 million worth of equipment including tractors, graders, 
102 

NWRA 6 

and dumptrucks that are employed to assist state management efforts. 

While the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation would receive 

50 percent of the FY 1994 Tishomingo Refuge funding ($180,2951. we 

believe the economic liabilities to the Department and, importantly, 

to the community would far out weigh the benefits. Revenues gained 

from continuation of fishing by boat under the current season of 

March 1 - October 1, are unlikely to offset the economic liabilities 

of a transfer as 90 percent of boat fishing occurs between the dates 

of the shorter season, May l SeptPmber 1, proposed by the Serv1ce. 

3) Whether~~cent of__fQ_nds ilfl.PXQPSiatg~1__Jor. th<'l_ 

Tishomingo Refl!.9.'L.shoulQ.~QYide<L.!c<)__l:ll~ID ahOJI!'L 

Department o~ildlife_Co~er~ation2 

The NWRA is opposed to the transfer of funds appropriated for 

the operation and maintenance of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge to the state agency. If the State were to manage 

the Refuge it should be required to assume the f1nancial respon 

ibil1ty. Quite simply, why should appropriated refuge funding be 

provided to an agency other than the F1sh ilnd WJldlife Service to 

manage a national wildlife refuge n con t radiction of Refuge 

System 1aw7 

If the State were required to manage the Tishomingo Refuge consistent with Refuge System law and, thus, to adopt the modificatluns 

proposed by the Service to bring incompatible recreational uses into 

compliance, then why transfer the Refuge? 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, Presi d ent Theodore RooseveJ 's 

legacy, is unique in all the world. A true sportsman, President 

Roosevelt recognized the need for a sanctuary to protect migratory 

blrds from slaughter and harassment at Pelican Island, Florida. The 

refuge manager at the Tishomingo Refuge 1s attempting to carrying on 

that tradition 1n a respons ble and professional manner. He should 

be a l lowed to do so. 

The NWRA appeals to Representative Brewster as a sportsman and as 

an American to promote open communication, objective re-evaluation, 

understanding and cooperation between his constituents, the Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Service. We appeal 

to the Congressman to pursue a constructive "p1lot" effort at 

Tishomingo, in lieu of an anti-federal bill (H.R. 1112) that would 

establish a precedent for dismantling the National Wildlife 

Refuge System as it approaches its centennial anniversary 1n 2003. 

Thank you for your attention to the v1ews of the National Wildlife 

Refuge Association on this important issue 
103 

TI-IE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WALTMAN 

DIRECI'OR, REFUGES AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM 

TilE WILDERNESS SOCIE1Y 

BEFORE TilE FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITI'EE 

REGARDING H.R. llU 

MAY 16,1995 

The Wilderness Society appreciates this opponunity to testify on H.R. 1112, 

legislation concerning the future of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in 

Oklahoma. These remarks are also delivered on behalf of the National Audubon 

Society. Both of our organizations have a long-standing commitment to the sound 

management and well-being of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This testimony is 

also presented on behalf of the Oklahoma Audubon Council and the Oklahoma 

Ornithological Society, organizations that are deeply concerned by the legislation before 

the subcommittee. 

Our organizations strongly oppose H.R. 11 ~2. The bill would transfer 

management of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge to the state of Oklahoma, 

prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing proposed measures to 

protect the refuge's migratory birds and other wildlife, and reduce available operations 

funding by 50 percent. We believe that each of these actions is ill-advised. 

While we understand that the nation faces a difficult budget situation, we 

respectfully submit that the federal budget is not the motivation behind this legislation. 

Rather, this bill was prompted by the opposition of a few individuals to reasonable 

measures that the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to protect the waterfowl and 

other migratory birds of the Tishomingo refuge. The bill would set an inappropriate and 

dangerous precedent by transferring· management of a federal refuge to a state agency 

while simultaneously skirting the long-standing legal protections for refuge wildlife. 

The Natjonal WildUfe Refu&e S,ystem 

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge is one of over 500 refuges in the country, 

distributed across all 50 states. Since President Theodore Roosevelt established the first 

refuge at Florida's Pelican Island in 1903, the National Wildlife Refuge System has 

grown to become the world's most magnificent system of publicly owned lands managed 

to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. The system protects a remarkable 

diversity of native habitats - from wetlands to prairies, forests to desert, tundra to 

seashores. These areas provide essential protection and management for the nation's 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. In addition, hundreds of threatened and 

'Jt)l} "-I·: VFi\TEENTII ST~EE , N.W., WASHI NGTON, D.C. 20006-2596 

(202) 833 ·2300 
104 

The Wilderness Society, page 2 

endangered species are protected in the Refuge System as well as countless others that 

could one day become threatened or endangered without the habitat protection afforded 

by the system. The Refuge System also provides exceptional opportunities for fish and 

wildlife dependent forms of recreation, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, 

and nature photography. 

Unfortunately, as the members of the former Merchant Marine and Fisheries 

Committee know all too well. many of our nation's refuges have been subje:ted to 

activities that have undermined the purposes for which the areas were established. 

These problems have been identified in numerous reports issued by Republican and 

Democratic administrations, the General Accounting Office, and private groups. In 

1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported that nearly two thirds of the nation's refuges 

were subjected to at least one activity that undermined their mission--from water skiin~ 

through wading bird rookeries to over-grazing that destroyed waterfowl nesting habitat . 

(Attached to tbis statement is but a few examples of the findings of reports that have 

been issued on the plight of the Refuge System over the years.) 

After years of pressure from conservation organizations and oversight from tbis 

subcommittee, our organizations concluded that litigation was necessary to resolve this 

long-standing problem with harmful secondary uses in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. In October, 1992, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society, 

Defenders of Wildlife and several Audubon chapters sued the Department of the 

Interior to force compliance with the compatibility requirements of Refuge System law. 

To its credit, the Interior Department settled the lawsuit in October 1993 by agreeing to 

review all uses in the Refuge System and to phase out or modify uses that are not 

compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established. 

The agency's review has resulted in modification or termination of several dvzen 

harmful non-wildlife oriented recreational and economic activities. Although the 

settlement caused initial confusion and concern by some bunters and anglers, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service has nearly completed its review of the Refuge System and bas 

determined that almost all of the refuge hunting and fishing programs are oompatible 

\lrith the purposes for which the refuges were established. On a very small number of 

refuges, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed modifications of hunting and fishing 

programs to make them compatible with the refuges' wildlife conservation purposes. 

Tishomin~o National Wildlife Refuie 

The Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1946 to conserve the 

abundant waterfowl and other wildlife of the Cross-Timbers region of Oklahoma. The 

Tishomingo refuge has been a treasure for the people of Oklahoma and the nation since 

1 Report to the Director: A Review of Secondary Uses Occurring on National Wildlife 

Refuges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June, 1991. 
105 

The Wildemess Society, page 3 

its establishment. Today, the refuge provides essential breeding, wintering. and stop-over 

habitat for more than 250 species of birds including large migratory flocks of waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Upwards of 40,000 geese and 80,000 ducks find habitat on the refuge. 

The refuge is also temporary home to several species of endangered and threatened 

species including bald ~agles,.least terns, and piping plovers. Each.y~ar, the unique 

wildlife values of the T1sbonungo refuge draw more than 100,000 vtSltors. As one 

Member of Congress has said, the refuge has "the best crappie fishing there is." 

Unfortunately, like many other refuges, public use of certain areas within the 

refuge, during certain periods of the year has severely disturbed the wildlife that the 

refuge was established to conserve. In fact, certain forms of set tackle fishing gear have 

turned the refuge into a death trap for bald eagles, pelicans, herons, egrets, grebes, owls, 

kingfishers, and other birds. Unrestricted boating on the refuge has denied refuge 

wildlife any open water sanctuary areas during important spring, summer, and fall 

months--a situation that is extremely rare in the Refuge System. Camping on the refuge 

has denuded vegetation, caused major erosion, and degraded water quality. 

In accordance with the settlement of our lawsuit, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

proposed a number of reasonable restrictions to ensure compatibility of fishing and 

boating at the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge. The Service also determined that 

overnight camping on the refuge should be discontinued. The agency's proposed 

restrictions on set tackle fishing, boating, camping, and other uses of the Tishomingo 

National Wildlife Refuge are necessary to ensure that the refuge accomplishes the 

purposes for which it was established: to conserve migratory birds and other wildlife. 

H.R. 1112 would undermine a lonK tradition of federal manaKement of national wildlife 

refuKes for mijiratory birds and other wildlife 

We strongly oppose the transfer of management of the Tishomingo National 

Wildlife Refuge to the state of Oklahoma. The Tishomingo Refuge was acquired in the 

1940s by the federal government, with federal taxpayer funds, for the benefit of all of the 

people of the United States. The Tishomingo refuge and the federal public lands are 

among the unique natural assets that are the birthright of every American citizen. 

The area was established to be part of a national network of federal lands 

managed for the nation's migratory birds and other wildlife. The United States, acting 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its predecessors, bas bad treaty 

responsibility for managing migratory birds since the early part of this century. Federal 

acquisition and management of refuges for wildlife has a long successful history that bas 

always enjoyed bipartisan support. 

We are particularly concerned with the proposed transfer in light of the recent 

history of the Blue River Public Hunting and Fishing Area, which Representative 

Brewster has indicated could manage the refuge. While the Blue River area was 

established as a conservation and hunting and fishing area, over the years it has been 

overwhelmed by camping, picnicking, and forms of recreation that have no association 

with fish and wildlife. In recent years when the state of Oklahoma proposed restricting 
106 

The Wilderness Society, page 4 

certain activities to protect wildlife resources and enhance the quality of hunting and 

fishing, local oppoeition caused the state to retreat from its proposals. We are extremely 

concerned that if the State were to be granted management of the Tishomingo refuge, 

local opposition by a few individuals would overwhelm the state's resolve to manage the 

refuge in the best interests of wildlife. 

H.R. 1112 would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from implementin& reasonablf: 

restrictions on refu11e public uses 

To resolve the serious problem with incompatible activities at the Tishomingo 

National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a number of 

reasonable protective measures. These proposals were made in an Environmental 

Assessment that was made available to the public for review and comment. 

First, the Service proposed prohibiting trotlines, jug lines, and other set tackle 

fishing in shallow areas of the refuge. By exposing eagles, herons, egrets, pelicans and 

other birds to unattended fishing lines adorned with as many as one hundred hooks 

apiece, these forms of fishing pose il serious and unacceptable threat to refuge wildlife. 

The state of Oklahoma recognized the danger posed by these activities and wisely 

banned such fishing techniques from fishing areas managed by the Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). If anything, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service's plan does not go far enough. The Service should be consistent with the ODWC 

and prohibit all set tackle fishing in Tishomingo and other national wildlife refuges. 

Second, the Service proposed prohibiting the use of pesticide, antifreeze, oil, and 

other toxic containers as floats for set tackle fishing. This restriction is simple common 

sense. 

Third, the Service proposed closing the sensitive mudflats and shallow waters to 

motorized boating in order to provide an important sanctuary for shorebirds and other 

wildlife. Currently, the entire water area of the refuge is opened to unrestricted boating- -a situation that is extremely unusual in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Forth, the Service proposed extending the existing fishing closure to protect 

waterfowl, shorebirds and other migratory birds using certain areas of the refuge in the 

early fall and early spring. The vast majority of the refuge fishermen use the refuge 

during the late spring and summer months and would not be impacted by this measure. 

Fifth, the Service proposed prohibiting overnight camping on the refuge. The 

refuge lacks any designated camp sites or sanitation facilities and thus camping bas had 

serious negative effects on refuge habitats. Vegetation has been heavily damaged, 

erosion has been dramatic, and human feces and other wastes have polluted the aquatic 

environment. The Lake Texoma area contains more than 50 public and private 

campgrounds, ranging from highly developed to primitive areas, and including several 

thousand individual camp sites. There is no compelling reason to permit camping on the 

Tishomingo refuge. 
107 

The Wilderness Society, page 5 

These protective measures have been strongly endorsed by state, local, and 

national conservation organizations. Unfortunately, a few vocal individuals have objected 

to these reasonable measures. H.R. 1112 caters to the objections of a few by attempting 

to prevent adoption of these reasonable measures. The bill requires that •such lands 

and waters shall be managed ror the same uses and in the same manner as they were 

managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to calendar year 1994" 

(Section l(a)). 

H,R, 1112 would reduce operations fundini for the Tjshominilo Refuile by 50 perceot 

It is no secret that the National Wildlife Refuge System is under serious budget 

constraints. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented more than $350 million 

maintenance bacldog and a similar operational deficit. To address this problem, The 

Wilderness Society and National Audubon Society have joined with thirteen conservation 

and sportsmen's organizations to review the funding situation and prepare a list of 

funding recommendations, including user fees, management cost savings, and cost-sharing 

opportunities. · 

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge has not been spared the budget problem. 

In fact, the refuge is now operating well below previous staff and funding levels, a 

situation that is not uncommon in the Refuge System today. 

H.R. 1112 would severely exacerbate the situation at Tishomingo by reducing 

operations funds by 50 percent from current levels. The bill would provide half of the 

current operating budget to the State of Oklahoma for management of the refuge. The 

Oldahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation is suffering from its own budget 

problems and cannot be expected to find additional funds to manage the refuge. In 

particular the Blue River Fishing and Hunting Area, which Representative Brewster has 

suggested could manage the refuge, is suffering its own budget shortfall. We understanc 

that ODWC currently employs only one and a half full time staff people to manage tbi• 

3,300-acre area. Clearly the ODWC does not have "extra" staff or funds that could b<' 

used to manage the Tishomingo refuge. 

Conclusion 

Our organizations strongly oppose H.R. 1112. We believe that the U.S. f 

Wildlife Service should continue to manage the refuge, that the agency's propo 

protective measures should be implemented and in fact strengthened to inclul 

complete ban on set taclde fishing gear, and that the Congress should work ' 

adequate funding to ensure that the refuge meets its purpose of conservinr 

birds and other wildlife. 
108 

A MAGNIFICENT SYSTEM IMPERILED 

Over the last quarter century, over a dozen major reports have identified 

problems in the National Wildlife Refuge System. For example, 

In 1968 ... The "National Wildlife Refuge System Advisory Board on Wildlife Management", 

appointed by Secretary of Interior Stewart L. Udall wrote: 

'The proxunity of urban masses leads ineV>!ably to pressure for larger picruc grounds, camping facilities, 

tmproved swtmmmg beaches, motorboat mannas, water skllng. bndle paths, target ranges, and other 

assorted forms of play which are only obliquely related to refuge p~. " (from Rq;ort an the 

Nut:onu/ Wlldl:fe Rtfu.gt Systtm) 

In 1979 .•. The "National Wildlife Refuge Study Task Force" appointed by Assistant Secretary of 

Interior Robert Herbst wrote: 

"Local pressures to use refuge lands for such benefits as grazing. timber harvesting. and public recreation 

prevent refuge managers from effectively managmg refuges pnmarily for wildlife ... Pressures to develop 

or degrade refuges for economic gain are growmg exponentially " (from Rtcommmdations on the 

Man~agtmmt of the Nation~al Wildlife Rtfu.gt Systtm.) 

In 1981 ... The General Accounting Office wrote: 

'The Servtce is properly operating and nwntaining only about 46 percent of the nation's refuges. . Local 

pressures to use refuge lands for sudt benefits as grazing. timber harvesting. and public recreation prevent 

refuge managers from effectively managing refuges pnmarily for wildlife." (from National Dir<ction 

Rtquir<d for Effoctivt Managtmtnt of Ammca·, Ftsh and Wildlife.) 

In 1983 ... The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote: 

'Threats associated with poUutants, land uses, public uses, exotic species, Individual development 

profects, etc. . . are currently causing or have the potential to cause signifiOUtt damage to Servicemanaged natural resources ... An average of 18.6 resource problems were reported per refuge.'' (from Fish 

and Wildlife Stnnct Rtsourct Problem•. National Wildlife Refu.gn. National FW. Hatchtrits, 

Research Cmters) 

In 1989 ..• General Accounting Office wrote: 

"National Wildlife Refuges are frequently not the pnstine wildlife sanctu.aries implied by their name . 

. Despite the requirements that only compatible secondary activities be permitted, refuge managers 

report that activities they consider harmful to wildlife resources (sudt as power boating oil and gas 

drilling. mining. jet-skiing. over-graztng. and off·road vehicles) are occurring on nearly 60 percent of the 

w1ldlife refuges." (from National Wildlife Refuges: Conturuing Problem$ with lncompatii>lt Uses Cail 

for Bold Acti011.) 

In1991 ... The U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiCe wrote: 

"Incompatible and harmful uses are occum.ng on many national wildlife refuges ... Refuge managers 

reported 836 use occurrences as being harmful to refuge operahons ... The survey results indicated thdt 

63% of refuge units rl.'ported (at least onej harmful use." (from Rq;ort of Stcondary tl5e.'l Occurring on 

National Wildlife Rtfu.ges) 

In 1993 ... The Intenor Department's Inspector General wrote: 

"We concluded that at all of the refuges we visited, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had n<>t 

mamtamed the refuges in a manner that would effectively enhance and protect the wildlife. ifrnm 

A1ainttnanct of Wildlift Rtfu.gts, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Stroict) 

The National Wildlife Refuge System needs your help!!! 
109 

STATEMENT OF 

K.E. PENNINGTON 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

May 16, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify 

today. I am K.E. Pennington, a retired educator. I served eight years as 

a member of the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission. I have hunted and fished all 

my 70 years, almost 50 years on the Tishomingo Wildlife Area, beginning in 

1946 when I got out of the Army and my last visit was this week. I will 

average over 150 days a year hunting and fishing. Twenty-three of the last 

JO+ years I spent teaching; the districts in which I taught drew impact aid 

from part of their district lands being inundated by the waters of the area 

under discussion. I feel that I know the area and its people. 

The area in question was originally a goose refuge, but v.·hen the central 

flyway shifted away from Oklahoma, most of Tishomingo's mission ceased to 

exist. Since that time, there seems to have been a series of attempts to 

justify its continuance. Much 11 to-do 11 has been made about the destruction 

of eagles due to fishing lines, yet I challenged these people in the local 

media to cite one instance of such a documented death. There was D..Q 

response. I'm convinced there have been nor.e; I • m not sure what they are 

directing their efforts toward at present. 

For years the goose, archery deer hunters and the fishermen coexisted, 

not in total harmony on either side, but never was there strife as is present 

today. Had it not been for the actions of one of your colleagues, this area 

would have virLually ceased to cater to fishermen this year. We are told by 

the management that it will be closed completely next year to bass, cat, and 

crappie fishing, thus eliminating the fishing we have known for 50 years. 

As missions cease to exist, regulations become more stringent. 

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife, if not overburdened by regulations, 

could make this area into an area utilizable for water, deer and small game, 

as well as non-game species, while catering to a far greater number of 

taxpaying, nature loving people for recreation costing half as much as the 

present operation. We now manage the upper arm of the Washita watershed and 

create far less controversy and strife, while still offering refuge for all 

the species presently found in this area. The Department has the enforcement 

people at the present time in the area to assure the safety of the species, 

as well. 

Closing this area to fishing as it has been known here for fifty years, as proposed for the 1996 season, would have an impact on the economy of 

Tishomingo, a town which is even now considered a poverty area by all your 

standards. Bait houses, motels, cafes, service stations, and guide services, 

all would be greatly impacted by the proposed closure. 

I would urge you to consider the savings, consider the sportsmen, and 

consider all those to be adversely affected and vote for HR 1112. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
1.1101 

JCHH a. ~ JAC~" liNK 

JIIIMtlfll 

110 

FR~JcK KEAtiNG. OOillltNOA 

OA£Q D. DUFtY. WAlC:TOA 

YIC 

MUIC: 

~D. OAOV.OYJC:£ 

.. IMkR 

WILliAM OAA~Rt) 

MEM.ER 

V\'JILKUTIJt 

M£W:IER 

SECAtT.UY 

:~:::~ 

Prom: Director Greg Duff~~ 

to: The Honorable Jim Saxton 

May 9, 1995 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

SubJ~t: Testimony Regarding Management Transfer of Tishomingo National Wddlife Refuge 

to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (H.R. 1112) 

I would like to introduce Mr. Don Ritter, Chairman of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and Mr. K. E. Pennington, former member of the Commission and long-time 

resid$1t of the Tishomill&o area. 

The department of Wildlife Conservation is ~ery concerned about rcant plans lo restricl public 

utilit4tion of the outdoor recreational activities that were previously permitted on National 

Wildlife Refuges and in particular fishing and boating opportunity at Tishomingo National 

Wildllfe Refuge. 

Thro~gh the past 10 years, numerous refuge management practices have been implemented that 

have reduca:l the overall effectiveness of the refuge. Public access and utiliution have been 

curtailed and wildlife management practices have been hmtted. Under the newest compatibility 

propqsals, the Service has created non-boating sanctuary areas 1n shallower portions of the lake 

citing erosion problems by boat wake as one of the justifications for this action. An equally 

effective management option would be to limit the areas as "no-wake," therefore eliminating the 

wake washing, yet allowing fishermen access. Other proposals to limit the materials used for 

floats for jug-fishing and trotlining are unreasonable and unwarranted. The Service justification 

that J)ollutants from these commercial and household containers are polluting the waters is not 

do<:u(nented nor justified. Restrictions that prohibit trotlining from "fi~ed objects" 

S-eard'l for 1ha SclUOr'!lll 
111 

the optn areas to deep waters have been made to curtail wading bird entanglement as water 

levels tlrop e>:posing fishing hooks. Mr. Chairman, current state law requires that all lines, such 

as troUines and jug-lines, have the owner's name affixed to the line and be attended at least once 

every :;?4 hours. 

l! doe~n't seem justifiable to further restrict users because of a problem that may exist only 

becau$c a lack of enforcement of current law, If this law were enforced, I venture to speculate 

that feJw fishermen would be attending tines with expose(l hooks. 

I previously mentioned that refuge wildlife management practices on the refuge have been 

changM and this change is having a negative effect on wildlife populations and I would like to 

funhet discuss this item. Historically, crops, such as corn, milo, and wheat were planted on 

the refuge to attract and hold large numbers of Canada geese. ln recent years, refuge personnel 

have tletracteil from this long-standing practice and the waterfowl wintering capacity has 

diminlshed. Over the past 10 years, a dedine in number of geese the refuge holds on January 1 

has b~n observed. On January !, 1995, the count was 1,475 birds, yet the 10 year average is 

appro~imately 13,000 geese. This low count comes at a time when continental goose 

popul.tions are at near record levels. 

In conclusion. the National Wildlife Refuge System has been a successful partner in restoration I 

of witdlife species throughout the nation. However, it is the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife ! 

Con~rvation's position that opportunity for public utilization and access of the natural resources 

of these areas is desirable and unnecessary restrictions to those opportunities eliminated. 

The l)epartment of Wildlife is willing to assume management responsibility for the refuge if 

sulta~~e terms can be provided and feel that the interests of the citizens and wildlife resources 

can b~ best served by this action. 

1 tha~k you for the opportunity to provide this insight to the committee and ask that Mr. Don 

Rittet provide his comments. 
112 

WILDI,.tF£ COQI .. Y~ tK)W CQIIIMIIIION 

og~.~:::: ==A" JACK" f!HK 

iH~l~~~~~~:~=~ =~~ROfCO£HCI'fiCt 

FRAIIIIIC .li:UttH(J;, OOVEAHOA 

Qfi\[Q 0 DUFfY, DIRECTOR 

U.&.AIC P.ln'OH WILL lAM CIIAWrOAO 

Sf-CRtT..t.AY M£UUR 

EO All!.. Y'filtl K£UU M£MI£1t MINIER 

May 11, 1995 

Frotn: Commissioner Don Ritter 

To: The Honorable Jim Saxton 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Ftsherles, Wildlife and o-ns 

Subje(:t: Te~>tlmony Regarding Managtment Tl'ansfer of Tishomingo National Wildlife 

Refuge to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (HR 1112) 

Havl~ utilized the Tlshomlnao National Wildlife Refuge as a sportsman and addressing 

local ~lllzens' complaints as a Wildlife Commissioner, I am somewhat sympathetic to the 

ultlm~te users of this area who are normally local residents and dtluns of Oldaboma. 

Some rocent management activities have put the Tishomingo Wlldllft Refuge on an adverse 

basis with local sportsmen, I believe the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, 

throu~h Input from the Wildlife Commission, would be more sensitive to management needs 

of the r.!fuge, as well u be!nc more responsive to local concerns of the Tishomingo area 

sport4men. With this local knowledge, as well a~ a speclnt long range management plan, 

I belltve this refuge would provide practices that would better suit the refuge and develop 

a better relationship with local sportsmen. 

I beU~>·e the area has not been fully utilized and local people have no way to convey their 

Ideas, concerns, and frostnotlons to the t:.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation would work to fulnll the needs of a wlldllf~ refuge but 

also work with local clllzens and sportsmen to devdop a facility they could use on a limited 

ba.•l•1 hut feel the)· have a voice In what happens on land In their local area. 

This facility bas been a top-n<~tch facility In the past and throu&h mimage•~~. 

Oklahuma Department of Wildlife Conservation could quickly 

Looa) citizens who c.are are more committed and ,.m do a better job to 

Wllctllre Refuge to where It needs to be. 

Sc1Hch fi)t lhe Sciuor1e11 

nn Your Jl1tJ1ft TiU' Form 
Mr. Chairman: 

113 

Wildlife Management Institute 110114th Street, N.W. • Suite801 • Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 408·5059 

Sutement of Lonnie L Williamson 

before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

of the 

House Committee on Resources 

on 

H.R. 1112 

May 16, 1995 

I am Lonnie L. Williamson, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute. Headquartered in 

Washington, D.C., the 84-year-old Institute is staffed hy trained and experienced wildlife biologists. 

We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on H.R. 1112. 

The Institute opposes enactment of H.R. 1112. We believe such would set a dangerous precedent that 

could result in considerable weakening of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

It is our firm belief that the restrictions placed on jug-fishing, trotlining, boating and other uses of 

Tishomingo Refuge are appropriate, given the migratory bird management purpose of the area and the bird 

mortality and harassment that have been caused by those activities. I believe that local sportsmen and other user 

groups would have supported those changes, had they known the full consequences of inaction on the refuge 

manager's part. In any event, local misunderstandings should not be sufficient reasons to divest the National 

Wildlife Refuge System of an important component. 

Use-compatibility assessments are required by law, and any use on refuges must conform to the purpose 

for which the area was established. That is as it should be in order to conserve the public's resources. There are 

disagreements about uses on neady all refuges at one point or another. At various times; we might have hunters, 

anglers, graziers, loggers, oil drillers~ miners, birdwatchers and others angered about their respective activities being 

controlled. 1 recall nudists being upset several years ago when their use of an East Coast refuge wa.s restricted. If 
114 

Congress reacts to bickering about all such curtailments, H.R. 1112 would be but the first in a parade of bills 

transferring refuges to state and posSibly pnvate ownership. LO<al problems do not need Congressional fixes. 

Another worry with this bill is the reduced funding for managing Tishomingo. The area already is 

falling into disrepair because of a lack of operations and maintenance money in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

To cut the available funds by 50 percent would only worsen matters. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation also is strapped for funds, as are other state fish and wildlife agencies. These agencies and NGOs, 

including the Institute, are working desperately on a "Wildlife Diversity Funding Initiative" to help bolster the 

states' ebbing fish and wildlife management capability. H.R. 1112 is inconsistent with this situation. 

It is important also to note that the Oklahoma Department does not have the legislative authority or 

responsibility to manage migratory birds, which is the purpose of Tishomingo. That is a federal treaty 

responsibility enacted in 1916 and supponed by the state wildlife agencies. 

Though we oppose H.R. 1112, we are not against careful consideration of whether some refuge lands 

should be removed from the System. For example, the Optima National Wildlife Refuge, also in Oklahoma, is the 

result of a Corps of Engineers project which was supposed to provide significant waterfowl habitat. But due to an 

insufficient water supply, Optima ha. not provided the waterfowl hobitat expected. Thus, the Service is left with a 

refuge primarily for fish and resident wildlife, which come under state authority. Optima-not Tishomingo-might 

prove more appropriate for state management> but only if a thorough evaluation so suggests. The Service already comanages a number of refuges with various state wildlife agencies. 

There are other examples in the Refuge System where the Service bought land that it didn't want in 

order to get land that it did. Likewise, some gifts of land included areas that were not needed for refuge purposes, 

but which came with the donation. 

We suggest that this is a good time for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review the Refuge System 

and determine, among other things, if there >re lands that should be disposed. However, this should be an orderly 

process by the Service using specific criteria and in coopention with the appropriate state wildlife agencies and 
115 

other interested parties. Any disposal should be made only after recommendation by the Service. There should be 

no legislative taking of refuge land prior to the completion of this analysis. 

Fifteen national conservation and sportsmen's organizations have banded together under a "Cooperative 

Alliance for Refuge Enhancement" (CARE). These diverse groups, ranging in philosophies from that oi the 

Defenders of Wildlife to the National Rifle Association and including the Wildlife Management Institute, have a 

common interest in refuges being managed to sustain fish and wildlife populations to meet public needs. The 

Alliance, in concert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, mtends to develop an action plan that identifies 

important management and use changes for the Refuge System. Perhaps rhe committee could benefit by waiting for 

the CARE recommendations before acting on proposals such as H.R. 1112. 

Again) Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the committee's consideration of our views. 
116 

OKLAHOMA 

ACADEMY of SCIENCE 

Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Rt. 1, Box 15 7 

Durant, OK 74701 

Phone (405) 924-0121 ext 2209 

FAX (405) 920-7476 

Hay 8, 1995 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

House Resources Committee 

u. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Honorable Saxton: 

We are very concerned about. the House !!ill 1112 introduced by Rep. Brewster 

that will transfer the Tishomin90 National Wildlife Refuqe, Tishomingo, Oklahoma, 

£rom the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servlce to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. 

I understand there will be hearings on Hay 16, 1995 concerning this bill. 

Would there be an oportunity for me to testify at th1s hearin9. !£ tline is not 

available, will it be possible to send information for the hearing record. This 

~ould include the resolution o£ the Oklahoma Academy of Science supporting the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Please advise me as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

c~~~ Dr. Connle Taylor 

Professor of Biology 

Okla. Academy of Sc~ence 

Presiderl.t-el~ct 
117 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM RESOLUTION 

OKLAHOMA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 

WHEREAS, the Narional Wildlife Refuge System is a viral and imegral part of the conservation 

of wildlife in North America, both for endemic and migratory species. and 

WHEREAS, the National Wildlife Refuges of Oklahoma are essential for the preservation and 

c;on.servation of many species such as the bald eagle, gray bat. Ozark big-eared bat, and 

plains bison, and 

WHEREAS, the primary functions of our National Wildlife Refuges are wildlife producrion and 

protection, and 

WHEREAS, the secondary functions of the' National Wildlife Refuges are wildlife maintenance. 

environmental preservation, education, and interpretation, research and publication of 

data, and cooperative programs, and 

WHEREAS, other uses of wildlife refuges come from wildlife-oriented recreation and nonwildlife oriented activities, and 

WHEREAS, many multipurpose uses are compatible and reinforce each other, and 

WHEREAS, limited monetary and personnel resources are a reality of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and some activities directly compete with wildlife habitat management 

for money and diven: personnel from direct wildlife management activities, 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Oklahoma Academy of Science supports the 

multipurpose use of public lands, but believe the use of National Wildlife Refuges for 

wildlife production and protection should be their primary purposes. Conflicting 

activities which interfere directly with the breeding and reproduction of wildlife on our 

refuges or conflict with other purposes of the Refuge System should be controlled, 

reduced, or eliminated. 
~ 

~ 

118 

United States Department of the Interim:. 

OFTICE Of THE SOUQTOR 

. WuhinR"on. DC. 20240 

DEC 18 1994 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Tom Collier, Chief ot staff 

Assistant Secretarie 

Heads of Bureaus a ffices 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: Inherent 

I . Introduction 

This memorandum describes, in general terms, the types of functions 

performed by the Federal Govern~ent that are "inherently Federal" 

by nature, and thus cannot be contracted or compacted out to private citizens or tribal organi:tations. !I Thil ilsue ariaes in the context 

of Ti t1 e IV of the Indian Self- Determination and £ducation Alai stance 

Act, as amended, which is entitled "Tribal Self-Governance." Section 

A03(k) of the Act provides in pertinent part: 

(k) DISCLAIHER . --Nothing in this section ia 

intended or shall be construed to expand or alter existing statutory author! ties in the 

Secretary ao as to &uthorite the Secretary to 

enter into any agreement under sections 

403(bl!21 and 405!el!11 with respect to 

functiona that are inherently Federal •••• 

Indian Self-Determination and tducation Aasiatance Act Amendments 

of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-413, 108 Stat. 4250 (19941 ("the Act") 

(emphasis added).'ll Thus, the Act explicitly excludea functions 

that are inherently Federal from the leope of the Self-Governance 

program. 

!I Although some authorities diScussed in thil memorandWII refer 

to this doctrine AI "inherently governmental," we ~ill, for 

consistency, use the ten~~ "inherently federal" throughout. 

lt sections 403(b)(2) and 40S(c) (1) uftr to programs, services, 

functions and activities adfllir.istered by the Department of the 

Interior, but not through the ~ureau ot tndian Affairs. 
119 

II. Executive Su-.ary 

Inherently Federal function8 have generally been described aa involving the exercise of "si~nif'icant authority pursuant to.the laws 

of the United States ...• I Buckley v, vaao. U4 u.s. 1, 126 

( 1976). They also have been described att those functions which 

require "'either the exercise of diScretion in applying Federal 

authority or the use of value judgment in Making decisions for the 

Government. •" Office of tegal counsel M!!!f!orandum for Janis A, 

Sposato, General Counsel, Justice Management Division, April 27, 

1990, ("OLC Memo"} at 6, n.4 (quoting OMS Circular No. A-.76 §§ Sb, 

6e (Rev. Aug 4, 1983)). tn a policy IJtatement, the Office of 

Management and Budget opined that these functions involve, among other things, the interpretation and execution of Federal law so as to: 

(1) bind the United States 

to take acme action 

policy, regulation, order, or otherwiae; 

to take or not 

by contract, 

authorization, 

(2) determine, protect, and advance its 

economic, political, territorial, 

property, or other interests by 

military or diplomatic action, civil or criminal judicial proc~edings, contract 

management, or otherwise;, 

( 3) significantly aHect the life, liberty, or property of' private persons; 

( 4) commission, appoint, direct, or control 

officers or employees of the United 

States; or . 

( 5} exert ultimate control over . the 

acquisition, use, or disposition of the 

property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, of the United States, 

including the collection, control,, or disbursement t:>f appropt"iat:ed and other ~ederal funds. 

OMB Policy Letter 92-1 (Septembet 23, 19!12) at: 2. Section 900. 106(d) 

of the Proposed Rule to implement the Indian Self-betermination and 

Education -Act· Amendments of 1988, 59 'Fed. Reg. 3166, 3180-81 

(Jan. 20, 1994), contains an illustrative lUt ot activities or functions that are noncontuctible Secret&l:'ial or Federal functions 

under most circumstances. The Secretaries of DOI and OHHS proposed 

2 
120 

the rule jointly.P A copy of section 900.106(d) is attached to 

this memorandum as Attachment A. Attachment !I contains an illustrative list of functions that OMs, as a matter of policy, cons~ders ~o be inherently Federal functions. 

By contrast, OMS bas noted tha~: 

Inherently [Federal] functionl do not normally include gathering information for or providing advice, opinions, ~ecommendations, or ideas to 

Federal officials. They alto do not include 

functions that are primarily ainisterial and 

internal in nature, luch AI building security; mail operationa; cafeteria operations; housekeeping; facilities Operations- and 

maintenance; warehouse oparaHont; ftlotor vehicle 

fleet management and Operationt; or other 

routine electrical or mechanical aervicea. 

OMB Policy Letter 92-1 at 2. An illual:raHve list of functions that are not considered to be inherently Federal is contained in 

Attachment C. 

In instances where it is unclear whether particular functions Or 

activities are inherently Federal, each function or activity ahould 

be evaluated individually, with the final determination in each ease based on the totality of the circumstances. 

III. Discussion 

A. constitutional Analysis at Inherently t&deral function• 

The prohibition against the contracting out ot inherently rederal 

functions has ita roots in the United Statea constitution. The 

Constitution provides that "[t)he e~ecuti•e tower ahall be vested 

in a Presidlmt of the United Statu of Merica," and charges the 

President to "take care that the t.awl!l be faithfully executed." U.s •. const., art. I!,§ 1, cl. 1: art. Il, § 3. The Appointments Clause 

provides the mechanism for the delegation of executive powers to 

Federal officera under the ~tetident•a control. lt provides: 

(The President) ahall fiominate, and by and with 

the Advice and conaerit of the senate, lhall 

appoint Atnbauadora, other publie MinUtera and 

conaule, Judges.of the tupreme court, and all 

other Officer!! of the United Statel, tthose 

Appointments are not herein otherwiae provided for, and which ehall be establiehed by L~w; but 

Jl The proposed rule was never firtalH:ed, and was developed prior 

to tribal comment. 

3 
121 

the Congress may by taw vest th~ Appointment of 

such inferior Offic~ra; as they think proper, 

in the President alone, in the Courts of Law or in the Heads of bepartmenta ;: 

U.S. Const., art. JI, §·i, cl. 2.Y 

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 u.s. t (1976), the aeminal case in this 

area, the Supreme Court examinee! the Scope of the Appointments. Clause 

in the context of a constitutional challtotnge to the Federal Election 

commission. The appellanU in· that ease clailhed that the Commission 

could not exercise the powera conferred on it, consistent with the 

separation of powers doctrine, in view of the fact that •ome of the 

Commission• s members were appointed by Congrt:sa. tn addre•aing that 

issue, the Court concluded that the commistion' a authority to gather, organize and make information availAble to thf! public--described by 

the Court as the CommiSI!Iion 1 8 "recot:dkef!p1ng, dilcloaure, and 

investigative functions"~~--raUed no constitutional probfem. With 

respect to the Commission' il l!mforcf!ment power as well as ita 

'rulemaking and adjudicative powers, however, the Court concluded that 

such functions .could be performed only by pt!!raons who are "Officers 

of the United states. "§1 As the introduction to the proposed rule 

to implement the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act 

Amendments of 1988 aptly notes: 

Y The Appointments Clause has a "horizontal" and "vertical" 

component which underlies the separation of powers principle. The 

horizontal component protects against the t!!l<ercise of executive power 

by any other branch of the Federal Govt!!rnment (e.g. Congress) or by 

any individual appointed by, Or subSt!!rvi'ent to, such other branch. 

The vertical compon&nt proUcts against the delegation of' executive 

power to private parties. w OLC Memo at 3 and n. 2. tn thf! context 

of Section 403 ( k) of the Tribal $elf•Govtrnanee Act of 1994, Indian 

tribes would be treated like private parties for put:poses of the 

vertical component, particularly linet Congre.u specifically excluded 

any delegation of inherently tederal functione. · 

V Buckley, 424 U.S. at 110. 

§I The court in Buckley defined the tertn 110Hicer of the United 

states," as used in the Appointlbent:e clauae; as follows: 

{A]ny appointee exeroUing llignificant authority 

pursuant to the lawa of the United States is an "Officer of tho! United States," and must, 

therefore, be appointed in the Mann~r prescribed 

by § _2 , c 1. 2 of that Article. · 

Buckley, at 424 U.S. 126. 
122 

Buckley dealt specifically with "functions 

necessary to ensure compliance with tederal 

statutes and rules"--the ~onduct of litigation 

to vindicate public right8 under Federal 

statutes, · adminHitri.tive determinations and 

hearings, and related infotmal procedures, 424 u.s. at 137-140. These were held to be 

exclusively veste~ in Officerl of the United 

states because it is _the Pteaident to whom "the 

constitution ent:ruah the reaponsibili ty to 

•take care that the lawa be faithfully 

executed.' Art. II, lee. 3" 424 U.S. at 138; 

There was no restriction, hoWever, on delegation 

of responsibility · for investigation and 

information gathering related to such 

enforcement. 

Buckley also addre!l!led other adrflinilltrati ve powers--such as rulemaking and the issuance of 

advisory opinion!l--.and found them not to be 

"sufficiently removed from the administration 

and enforcement of public law to allow it to be 

performed" by peraona not "OHicers of the 

United States," 424 U.S. at 140-41.V In 

Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.s. 714, 733 (1986), the 

executive power was defined, for Appointments 

Clause purposes, to include the interpretatlon 

and effectuation of All public law. 

59.Fed. Reg. 3166, 3168 (January 20, 1994). 

In short, the Supreme Court in Buckley locuaed on the exercise of 

significant authority pursuant to Federal law in determining wh~ther 

one must be properly appointed under the Appointm!nts Clause to do 

certain function!!. Only OfHcers properly appointed under the 

Appointments Clause may determine the policy of the United States, 

make funding decisions, or interpret and apply tederal law in Any 

way that binds the United States or aHects the legal rights of third 

parties, for each of_ thue ActionJ iriVolve_ the exercise of 

significant authority pursuant to tederal law.V 

11 The Federal Election Commislion•e advisory opinions were, 

in effect, binding because anyone acting in good faith reliance on them was presumed to be in compliance with the applicable statutory 

provision. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 110-11, 

~~ Based on an analysis ot constitutional requirement~ as .set 

forth in Buckley, section 900.106(d) ot the Propoaed llule to 

implement the Indian Self-Determination and !ducation.Act Amendments 

of 1988 contains an illustrative liJt of activities or functions 

(continued ••• ) 
123 

The Supreme Cou~~ also addre!$ed the Appointments Clause in Bowsher v. Svnar, 478 u.s. 714 (1986). th that ease, "the Court reviewed the 

functions perfor111ed by the Comptroller General pursuant to the 

Balanced Budget and £mergen6~ Deficit Control -Act of 1985. Under 

the Act, the co~ptroller Gene~&l, an otfieer or the legislative branch, was required to ~tepare a repor~ eohtaining tederal revenue and expenditure projection! AI well as reduction• on a pr09ram-byprogram basis necessary to reduce the deficit to the fiscal year 

target. ~. at 132. The Supreme Court deemed thia duty to be 

executive in na~ure because the Act granted the Comptroller General 

"the ultimate authority to deterinine the budget cuts to be made" by requiring the President to incorporate all provilions in the 

Comptroller General•a report without ehAnge. ~. at 733. 

Thus, the disclaimer in the lndian self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act Amendments of 1994 that exclude1 inherently Federal 

functions from the scope of the Self-Governance p~oqra.111 ill in accord 

with the dictatu of the constitution. · 

:B. The Executive Branch; I teqal Md Policy interpretation of 

Inherently Federal f'unctions21 

The Office of Legal Coun~el ot 'the Department of Justice analyzed the Appointments Clause in an April 27, 1990, memorandum regarding the "Constitutional Limitations on •contracting out• Department of 

@/( ••• continuf!d) 

which are noncontractible SecretArial or P'ederal functions under moat 

circumstances. 59 t@d. Reg. at 3180-81. 'l'he Secretaries of OOI and 

DHHS proposed the rule jointly. The propoaed ~ule was never finalized, and was developed prio~ to ~ribal comment. ~copy of 

section 900. 106 (d) of the p~oposed r-ule ii attached to this 

memorandum as Attachment A. ' 

21 The Offic~ ol l.egal Counsel bU advised us . that it is 

preparing a comprehensive memorandum ~n the aeparation of powera 

doctrine, including a ditcu~tion ol ifthft~ntly Federal functions. 

Also, OLC has indicated tha~ the new ~emorandum will analyze the 

Appointments Clause, and Article 1! 1 § 3 of the Conatitution, which · charges the President to take care that the 1awa be faithfully executed. The lattf!~ ConsH tuUonal provi!ion will be characterized as relating to "d~legAtiOn Of Authority" fhAtters AI diltinquithed from Appointments ClAuse iaauea. Aceordingly, while the April 27,- 1990, OLC memorandum discussed in thia 1eetion ia, at this time, the 

most current statement of otc•a position on inherently tederal 

functions, oLe has advised that the analytil contained in the 1990 

memorandum may be changed in th~ upeominq memorandum. 

6 
124 

Justice Function!! Under OMB Circular A-76. oo!2/ The memorandum notes 

that OMB Circulsr A-76 reflects the cOn!IHtutionsl concerns the Court 

expressed in Buckley, in that: it: !:'6COgnh.es that "• [c)ertain 

functions are inherently tederal in nature,• defined as functions 

'which require 6ither. the ~lU!i:cH~ bf discretion in applying 

Government: author! t:y or the u~e of value judgment: in lila king decisions 

for the Government.•" OLC Memo at 6 (quoting okJ:l Circular No. A-76, 

§§ Sb, 6e (Rev. Aug. 4, 1983)).!!1 otc emphasized that:: 

[U)nder auckley private incHviduals lllsy not: 

determine the policy Of the United States, or interpret and apply tederal law in any wsy that 

binds the United ·states or affects the legal 

rights of third parties. hor c!ln any private 

individuAls make funding decisions. 

Properly appointed tedetsl · officials must 

maintain both legsl and effective control over the direction of United States policy in this area !IS well as control over the allocation of 

Federal funds. 

IQ. at 7. Among the inherently Federal functions listed in OMB 

Circular A-76 and acknowledged by OLC were "•criminal inveatigations, 

prosecutions snd other judicial functions; mansgement of Government 

programs requiring value judgments,'" and "'selection of program 

priorities. •" ~- at 6, n.4 (quoting OM11 Circular No. A-76. 

§ 6e(1)). OLC noted, by contrast, that: 

[!Information gathering, investigative, and 

advisory functions that do not involve final action~ affecting third party rights 111ay be 

performed by private psrtie!l o!:' "independent" 

contractors. Similarly, purely ministerial and 

internal functions, tuch !1!1 building security, 

mail operations. and physical plant lllsintenance, 

which neither affect the legsl rights of third 

parties outside the Government nor involve the 

exercise of significant policymaking authority 

may be performed by persons who are not Federal 

officers or employee&. 

lQ/ OMB circular A-76 seta forth 'procedures for deterlflining 

whether commercisl activities should be perforlfted under contract with 

commercial sources or in-house using Goverrunent facilities and 

personnel. 

!!I OLC noted the po!lliibility that: the definition of inherently 

Federal functions in OMB Circular A-76 might be broader than the 

"significant authority" criterion adopted in Buckley. OLC Memo at 

7, n. 5. 

7 
125 

IQ. at 6. 

On September 23, 1992, OMB issued A policy letter which describes 

inherently Federal functions tor purposes of establishing !xecutive 

Branch Policy. OMS Policy tetter 92-1.U1 According to OMS, an inherently ~ederal function, as a matter of p¢1iey, ia a function 

"so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate 

performance by Government employees." ld. at 2. Consiatent with 

Circular A-76, OMS described these functions to include activities 

requiring either the exercise of dijcretion in applying Government 

authority or the application of value judg~enta in making decisions 

for the government. }2. OMS further explained that inherently Federal functions involve, among other things, the interpretation and execution of Federal la~A to AI to: 

(T) bind the United States to take or not 

to take some action by contract, 

policy, regulation, authoritatio~, 

order, or otherwise: 

( 2) determine 1 protect 1 and advance i h 

economic, political, territo~i&l, 

property, or other interests by militat'y or diplomatic action, civil or criminal judicial proceeding!, contract 

management, or otherwise; 

( 3) tignificantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private per!IOh!l; 

(4) commission, appoint, direct, or control 

officers or employees of the United 

States; or 

( 5) exert ultimate control over the 

acquisition, use, or di!lpolition ot the 

property, real or pertonal, tangible or intangible, of the United Statea, 

including the collection, control, or disbursement of appropriated and other 

Federal fundi. 

Jll The policy letter beg ina ~ith the atatement: "This policy letter establishes Executive Aranch policy relating to 'service 

contracting and inherently [Federal] functions." Policy tetter 92-1. OMB emphasized that it wu not purporting to define inherently Federal in a legal sense,· but only as a •atter of policy. 

8 
126 

Consistent with the OLC memorandum, .OMS ·· also concluded that·: 

Inherently [Federal! functions do not normally include gathering information for or providing advice, opinions, ~~commendations, or ideas to 

Government officialA. They a lao do not include 

functions that are primarily ministerial and 

internal in nature, such a! building aecurity; 

mail operations; _ cafeteria operations; housekeeping; faciliti~A operations and 

maintenance; warehous~ operations; lhOtor vehicle 

fleet management and operations; or other 

routine electrical or mechanical services. 

Sen a tor John McCain gave important guidance to the meaning of " inherent Feder&l functions" in hh etatetnent &ccompanyinglt.R. C842: 

It is not possible at this time to list all the 

elements of Federal programs which ~ay not be 

subject to self-governance compacta, but such a list certainly could include discretionary administration of tederal fish and wildlife 

protection laws, promulgation of regulations, 

obligation and allocation of Federal funds, the 

exercise of certain prosecutorial powers, and 

other discretionary functions vested in Federal officials . 

·Also , in a letter to Senator McCain , dated September 28, 1994, 

Se c retary Babbitt stated: 

Nothing in [H.R. 4842) or P.t. 93-638 would 

change jurisdictional re~ponsibilities for 

administering f~deral laws governing natural 

resources, including fish and wildlife 

resources, or exempt Ihdi.t.n tribes from adhering . to federal laws &nd standards with ~espect to 

the protection and lll&.nagement of Aueh r-esources .· Indeed, I am obligated by vi~tue of lily oath of 

office to uphold and cuty out these federal 

laws. This responsibility ineludes conditioning approval of aelt-d~te~ination And tellgovernance compactl as neeeesary to fulfill my 

responsibilities und~r eueh lawe. 

As OMB recognized -in its policy lette~. the determination whether a function is inherently Federal is oftM A cHfficult one. In 

instances where it is unclear whl!ther particular functioM or activities are inherent!~ F~deral, the facts of each case lhould be 

analyzed with consideration given to factors such as: whether there 

9 
127 

are legislative restrictions or authori~ationa; the degree to which 

official discretion would be limited; the finality of the 

contractor's actions affecting third parties; the degree to which 

the contractor's activities involve "wide-ranging interpretations of complex, ambiguous case law and other legal llctivities, as opposed 

to being · circumscribed by detailed laws, regulations and 

procedures; "L31 the extent to which the tnaHer for decision involves 

recurring rather than unique fact pattern!; whether the contractor 

has discretion to determine an award or per1Al ty; the contractor's 

ability to take action significantly and directly Affecting the life, 

liberty or properl:y of third partie!; the availability of special 

agency authorities such as the power to deputi~e private persons; and whether the function il tHready being performed i:?Y private parties. ~Policy Letter 92-1 at S-6. OMB noted that in engaging in such a policy analysis, each case tbould b~ evaluated baaed on the totality of the circumsUnc~s, with no tingle factor in itS!!lf 

determinative o! the issue. 14. at 4. 

To further assist you in deterMining ~hether a particular !unction . is inherently Federal, we offer the following examples of guidance 'provided by the Solicitor'S o!!ice. ln a Memorandum dated July 28, 

1994, to the Acting Director, O!fice of American Indian Trust, the 

Associate Solicitor, DiviSion of IndiAn Affairs, Advi~ed that the 

ultimate decision to acquire land in ttutt for An Indian tribe could 

not be delegated to a P.L. 93-638. contractor, both because it 

involves a nondelegable trust function, and bei::lluse it i$ an inherently Federal funcHon. However, predeci!lional technical 

activities, such as gathering apprai!!llS or examining title records, are clearly contractible. Similarly, in a Memorandum da~ed 

October 20, 1993, to the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Indian 

Affairs, the Associate Solicitor, DivUion of Indian Affairs, advised 

that technical services relating to the management of Individual 

Indian Monies (IIM) were contractible under P.L. 93-638, but that 

affirmative statutory trust duties Of the Secretary could not be 

delegated to non-Federal entities. 

IV. Conclusion 

In instances where there iS doubt as to ~o~hether a particular activity or function is inherently tederal within the meaning of the Indian 

Self-Determination and tducation Ji!!illhnce Act Amendment! of 1994, a case-by-case Analysis ahould be employed. 'l'he final determination 

should be based on the totality ot the e:l.reumAtanee• eonsi!tent with 

the general principles set forth above. 

Attachments 

~~ In the context of pr~serving compactlbility under the SeifGovernance program, standards eould be negotiated in the compact 10 

as to limit discretion through detailed tegul&tions and procedures . 

. 1 0 
128 

F""-1 a.p.iat I Vol SO, No. U I 't11uttdwy, lenl1Al7 20, 1094 I Prop<*<! RuJ~ . 

,.Oect.l an U>tllnl to be>&& lrlc!Wu. Orjl.nl.atlall a.; J*fm!!lu!>ctiOJ>t . btc>""' or tholz .utu~ulndlanJ, M · wlilch would othr..!Jo bt periortMd by 

p'rimar)''OI slgn!!caD!honoftd&rieo ol Fodm.l e!!>p~ llltll M dtl~ 

"" appr<>pr!a!Jona,u ntdanced lA tho . tht tUS{b!Uty or "''Plla.att l<!t,l:lld the 

" 

$111U

th• 

t0f)' 

budgetjUJ!lllaUot11 

01 commfH .. Jtpot1 iubmfttod Ja.o~U~«t 

14 bentnt.t, 

lmaunt W 

lit llt?ioeo 

tx!Oill ol, 

Ltl ~ ~~ toith th• Appr<>pr!aUoru CDmmltiH; or tht ttrllll OCiho ""'tttet at>d tppUctblt tCI Regui.IUQllj or admlnlttralloO cl t fetulatloru 6( tht tpp11>pr1.alt -~ 

n'd ~ ~~':!":r ~:J= .. ldanUiy Pr-ovld.d. n.tt tht S.O.W, ahtll oot 

l

. n di&DJ. or ronocta Dopo.rt.men•-• •-•-t llllh li!J llOIIlnclwb.Jch -.Jd lm1'*lt ... ......., lhl ah uJ ty hi clltchattt !1\ltl . to benefit lndiiD..I, boauoo of!htlr fttpo11Jlb!Ut!tt to lbJ Indlm tnht lit 

·"''"' ulndl&nJ, u primary or · IDdlY!diiW or obliattlon tt!>dot lba ,;gnincant ndplont.t ot tho •rvlctt to CDnJ!ltutlonl~ O!>Adtlho lawtllrl be hrovlded by tho pn>g!am at partl<UJ lllthlully tuc:ut.d. • 

oft'21eJ;~~ be sub )«::to lb. . fd) Cct!t:rtc:tlo& II% tht ~tlon 01 

,.,dale ot (o)(tjabove, a pn>grun or ton'\iru I~ tribal mom bert and othot 

portion the,.ot must be authori.od bJ ttlglblt belliftdaritt dC<Ot Ml pomill 

Co nJ!TI'U within one or tho cslttori• . tho lrtnll'tt te tho !r!bt lit lribol . li <ted In (a)Jll tor whlch Coagrou hat crgoniutlon otiAhrttt~tly F~ -- rl• ted lunda. '"J><nl'lbiUUet U:Telvl!ll tho~ or '/bl.Tho Soc. .. tory otthe Intorlot upon algniBCL!lt oat.b ority llil~ tht tho roqu.,l or any lnd!OD lrlbe and &om ConJ!l'IJdmt, and f..I.D ctlont llliJgrt.lt~ fund s opproprlated tor tho bonafit of the txord .. o( dl"""t!OII, fudgomtt ot 

lnd ;tns punuantlo tho Ad of -mghl flllM In tho s.a.tlry by~ 

l'ovomber 2. 1921, 42 St.tt. 108. Snyder or by 11rtuo o!lbo Soc:tWY'olrut1 t\ ct a.od ony Aw ru~uoDI tbomo,l.o mpontlblliijet. Sot:h lullr:dCftU tnd 

outhorltsd under 10c1Jon 103(o) of tho ,.,pon!lb!UUII m.oy MliJ bo etnitd out Actio contnu:t w!lh &llY lndlon tribe at for tht Tedt~ Ccrtmml!lt by Podlftl u ibal o'loniulloo for: otlldt!J t11d ~ ... eoatnlcllolt tmda !II the roongtbec!ng or !mp,voment tht Act.l!xamp! .. otFadtrtl of tribal govamment lncludln&. but Dol IOtpo:ulbiUUH C>d fJndiO!It etnitd limited to, tht devo oplllJ!n~ out tor tho S«>owy ll!d Wldl!' tht 

improvement, me.Jntaouu::::e. Sec:rwt.try't t\Jthorl:-y whfch tr1 !lot 

r.;;~~.:~~%:=tlon ~( tribol ::.·r.t=udt. but .,. ftot lllllltod 

Ill The pl.tnn!ng. tral.nlng. Ot (1} AUoeotJOil, twttd Ooclud.lo& ovoluoUon ofthe!raciJrlU .. d.Wgnod to dlocroUO!l.lr)' sn,nt fundJ).-tl!d 

Improve tho capoc!ty ot o.n U>dlao tribe obUgoUoo otredlftl fundJ tnd or tribal o'1&.'1J uUon loon lor l.olo 1 fppr<>'-lna llllOUl:ll or Fodml 

~=~~~:~~~::f::t 102 ol txpendituret. 

" .OOoled with tho [nJUaJ yMl'l of 12) 't11o .. lociJCII or nanAoloctloo or 

opoN>Uon undor auch 0 coolrtdlo); or lndlviduw tor Fodotol CoYtnllll*td (31 Tho acquJs!Uon of !.o.od LD. *tt>plo~onlll!d thl cli..alllfl iltd 

:r'~ ~~~~~J::. ~~ ... ;0 ~:p~.'t~e;;~1:n=ftl C3MI or l.a.!ld withllllndl&ll c::ouDtry U and perfa.t::Libe» JUI\d.ttdJ tot hcMrtJ 

defined 1n Oap<or s.! of Utlo U U.!.C. lmplo)'MI ~:taopi ti tut.borittd Ullda or whlch od)olnl 0011 )out tvro tldiO 6tc1Jon 11)4 or tht Ad . 

lands bold 11> tr-un by lho Ulllttd Slllel l!l Admln.!rbttlat! or Ptdtrtl for the tribe or fa:l.odlo!du.fl hlc!Wu. Cl>ottadinl and Cfllrtlawalot lho tho s.cr.wy of tho hltoriar ,.,, ~pen Fadml eo.enunmt. !bdudllll roquHI or tho tribe, tar.W. fuch W.d Ill lllonllorint U>d oud!lll!l ol Ftdml !nul for the tn'bo . .. · · COnine! ll!d l!tJ>I Pf!>Jai:U Blt:ltlttJ ~ 

{c) Tho Act d.ired.J lho Soc-rWy to l!ltlJ>IIlll lht ct>nttitu!.t!t lftiMl, 

con trod tor "progrtmt or pcrt!ODJt ·; ~rogttm1111Ue lbd !.teo] ~UJ!IM lhareot. " Tho term "pn>grun"l.o do~td cllfit s.atw,. Th<tl Fadtftl 

In! !100.102 u "l.bo o~UOii tl tetpontlbtUU6010d lu.ccllo!l.l Ulcludt. aervicot tor ttibol mombero and othtt but~ bolllllll!M 10. ~ol~l.flln& •hat 

eligible booefidar!H." Suvl<t detinry pr<>p<irt} or Mrvicot LJO tO be~ 

~·ui~~~~:. c:=· undlt ~~~r:n-;: ~~~~~ . . penom>ed 11 tho ,....,.,,uoolovtL but tdmll!h1:1ti0ft offtdtrtl eco!rtclt l!ld 

moy be performed 11 hl&bor · .,..,.IJ.Ind dtlirmlallll tor lht l"odm.l 

o~!Ul.lntio.W lovelt wlihlll\l>t Dl~ '1Jfnet lll•e)vtd wbtU.., ee.>&ttt 1M on d DOL In prov!diDI,.rvictt Wldo.r I .,..,.1 ccoh LJOI'$UI.'Mblt, llloe:iblt. til~ 

e<> ntra cted pftWilll>, ihe tr<.bo or tribal allowohlt. 

l1l1 
129 

-I- -IThe tollowinq is an illultrat!vt lilt of functions 

considered to ba inhtrently qovarnmantal tunetiona: 1 

1. The direct conduct of criminal invastiqationa. 

2. The control of ~rosecutionl and- performance of adjudicatory functions (other than those relatinq to tr~itration or other 

methods of alternative diaputa resolution) • 

3. The co~and of military torces, ts~aeially tha leadership Of 

military personnel Vho are ae~ars of the combat, combat aupport or combat servica tupport roll. 

4. The conduct of foreiqn relationl and the determination ot 

t:oreiqn policy. 

s. The determination of aqency policy, lueh 11 det&rmininq the 

content and application of requlations, amonq other thinql. ' 

6. The determination of tederal proqram priorities or budqet 

requests. 

7,_ The direction and control of tadaral amployaas. 

8. The direction and control ot iftttlli~tnet and counter~ 

intelliqence operationa. 

9. The stleetioft or nonseleetion ot individual• tor Federal 

Government employment. 

10. The approval of position daseriptiont and perto~anea 

standards tor Faderal tmployttl. 

11. The d•t•~ination ot vhat Covarnmant proparty it to ba 

disposed o! and on vhat tare& ralthouqh an agency aay 9iva 

contractorl authority to dit~otl of ~roperty It prices Vith~n 

speeitied ranqee and tubject to other reasonable conditions 

deemed appropriata by the a;eney). _ 

With ru~et tel \hi &etutl drdtinO ot Conqnuion&l tutiloony, of 

ruponou to Con9reflional eorrupendanet, and ot .aqaney ruponlu to audit 

roportl troe%1 an tntpaetor C•nerU, thl Ctntral Aeeo1111tin9 Ottiel, or other 

F•d•ral audit entity, ••• 1paeill ~rovl.liont 1ft tublletion 6(e) of the te•t-ot tho poliey let tar. -
130 

12. In federal procurement Activitiea vith .reapect to prime contract&, 

(a) determining what lupplies or llrvices trl to be 

acquired by the Government (llthouqh an aqeney eay q-ivl 

contractors authority to acquire luppliet at prieta within 

speci!ied ranges and lubjact to Other reasonable conditions 

deemed appropriate by tha aqancy)J 

(b) participating as a voting mambat on any aource •election boards; . 

(c) approval of any contractual document&, to include 

documents dafininq requirements, incentive plans, and evaluation 

criteria; 

(d) awarding contracts: 

(e) adm i nistering contracts (including ordering changes in 

contract performance or contract quantities, taking action based on evaluations o! contractor pertormanea, and accepting or rejecting contractor products or aarvieas); 

(!) terminating contracts; and 

(g) determining whether contract eosts are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. 

1J. The Approval of agency rtsponsts to treedom ot Information 

Act requests (othtr than routine responses that, because Of 

statute, regulation, or aqancy ~olicy, do not ttquirt thl 

exercise o! judqmtnt in datarminin~ whether documents are to be 

released or withheld), and the approval ot aqancy responses to 

the Administrative lppa&lS ot deni&ll Of traedom of lntormation 

Act requests. 

1~. The conduct ot adminittrativa hearing• to determine thl 

eligibility ot any ~erson tor a saeurity eltaranee, or involvinq actions that atfect tltttrl of ~ersonal reputation or lliqibility 

to participate in eovtrnmtnt ~roqr~··· 

15 . . The approval o! Ftdtral licenll.nq action a and inapectionl. 

16. The determination of budqat po1iey, guidance, and ltrattqy. 

11. The eollaction, control, and diaburstmlnt ot !111, 

royalties, dutiel, finis, taxtl and other publie tunds, unl••• 

authorized by etatute, such AI title 31 u.s.e. S 9!2 (relatinq to 

privata collection contractors) and title 31 U.S.c. S l718 

{relating to privati attorney collection •ervicts), but net 

including: 

(a) collection .o( !eu ,- finu;- penalti es,·-coats or ther' ~ 

charges !rom visitors to or patro~ of mesa halls, post or ba!e 
131 

exchange conclllions, national parkl, aftd limilar 1ntiti11 or activities, or from other perlonl, v.bare the amount to bl 

collected 11 eaaily calculated or predate~ined and thl funds 

collected can bl easily controlled utinq ttandard cash aanaqament tachniquel, and 

(b) routine voucher and invoiel examination. 

18. The control of the treasury aeeountt. 

19. The adminiatration of publie trultl. 
132 

-~-·-- APP!:!IDIX II --1-

· The !o!Io~!ng list it o! · aervices and actions that art not · considered to be inherently govarnmantal tunctiona. However, 

they may approach being in that category bacaust o! tha way in 

which the contractor per!or~l tha contract or the manner in vhich 

the Government administers contractor per!ormanca. Whtn 8 

contracting for such services and actions, ageneiaa ·ahould ba 

tully aware of the terms of tha eontraet, contractor performance, and contract administration to ensurt that appropriata agency control is preserved. . . 

This is an illustrative liSting, and il not intended to 

promote or discourage the use of the following typtl o! 

contractor se~vices• 

1. Serv ic!s t~&~ involve or relate to budget preparation, including work~oad modeling, fact finding, tffieieney ltudiaa, 

and should-~ost analyses, ate. · 

2. Services :hat involve or ralate to reorganization and 

planning actlvi:!tS. 

J. Services that involve or relate to analyses, faallbility studies, and strategy options to be used by agency personnel in d~veloping poli:y. 

4. Services t~at involve or relate to thl 4avelopment of 

regulat1ons. 

5. Services t~at involve or relate to tht avaluation of another 

contractor's pe~!or~ance. 

6. Services in support ot ~cquisition planning. 

1. contractors• providing assistance in contract management (such as where the contractor ~iqht in!lutnee o!!ieial 

evaluations o! other contractors). 

e. contractors' providing technical evaluation ot contract 

proposal I. 

g, cont~actors' providing assistance in tht development o! 

statements of work. 

10. contractors' providing support in preparing responses to 

Freedom of Infor~ation Act requests. 

11. Contracto~s· working in any situation that permits or might 

permit the~ to gain access to confidential buliness information . and/or any o:.!'ler unsitivt intormation .(other than situations-==-=--=- cove:red by i::h~ ·:Je!ense Industria 1 Security Proqram described in 
133 

FAR •• 40~ (bJ i. 

12. con~rae~ors• prcvidinq in!o~ati9n regarding agency policies or requla~ions, suen,as ~~~ending con!trtneas on behalf of an agency, ccnduetin; co~~unity relations campaigns, or conducting 

agency training courses. 

lJ. Contrac:ors' par~icipating in any Situation whirl it might 

be assu~ed that they ara agency tmployaes or representatives. 

14. Contractors' participating as technical advisors to a source selection board or participating as voting or nonvoting members 

of a source evaluation board. 

15. Contractors• serving as arbitrators or providing alternative 

methods o! dispute resolution. 

16. Contrac:ors' cons~ructing buildings or structures intended 

to be secure !ro~ electronic eavesdropping or other penetration by foreign ;over~~ents. 

17. Contractors • prcv icl ing inspection serv·icas. 

lS. Con~r~c!crs• provid1ng legal ~dvice and in~erpretations of 

regulations and Statutes to Government officials. 

19. Contractors• providing special non-law enforcement, security activities that clo not directly involvt criminal investigations, 

such as prisoner de:ent!on or transport and non-military national 

security details. 

-- 2 --

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995 

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISH· 

ERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. We are going to begin in spite of the fact that there 

are more members coming who are not here and our first panel has 

not completely arrived yet. However, there is an ESA hearing down 

the hall at 12:00, and so we want to be sure that we are finished 

by that time. 

I would like to begin by welcoming you all here today for our 

third in the series of hearings on the management of our National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Our first two hearings focused on the compatibility of secondary uses on refuge lands. According to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual, an activity on a refuge may be determined to be compatible if it will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Currently, refuge managers are responsible for determining on a 

case-by-case basis whether activities carried out on refuge lands 

are compatible. Some have argued that this directive gives individual refuge managers too much discretion. Some refuge managers 

argue that they are not given enough discretion to successfully 

carry out their missions. This debate will certainly surface again 

today. 

Improving the management of the refuge system has been the 

subject of a number of bills and Congressional hearings in recent 

years. In the last Congress, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Management and Policy Act of 1993 was introduced in the House 

of Representatives by Representatives Sam Gibbons as well as by 

Mike Synar and in the Senate by Senator Bob Graham. This legislation would have established purposes for the system, prohibited 

new or existing uses of a refuge unless determined to be compatible 

with the purposes of the refuge and the system, and would have 

(135) 
136 

required the development of a comprehensive plan for the refuge 

system. 

On March 18 of this year, Chairman Young introduced H.R. 

1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995, which 

I am certain he will explain later in detail. Briefly, however, the 

bill establishes the mission and purposes of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. In the bill, it makes clear that one of the stated 

purposes of the system is to provide opportunities for fish- and 

wildlife-dependent recreaticn. Clarification of this purpose will 

please many of our constituents a great deal. 

I am looking fsward to hearing more about the particulars of 

the legislation from Chairman Young, and I will currently recognize Mr. Studds, the panel's Ranking Minority Member, for his 

opening statement. 

[H.R. 1675 and analysis may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At today's hearing the 

subcommittee, as you have indicated, will finally address the fundamental question in the debate about administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System, namely what is the purpose of that 

system. I believe that the fundamental purpose is and has always 

been the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. Others, 

including, as you know, the unspeakably distinguished gentleman 

from Alaska, believe that providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities should also be a purpose of the system. I for one would not want to be out in those woods when the 

Chairman is engaging in wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service should and will continue to provide 

opportunities for a broad range of fish- and wildlife-dependent rec- reational activities within the system, however I do not believe that 

one type of use should be elevated above others. This is especially 

true if those uses would be virtually exempt from the process of determining compatibility, as appears to be the case under H.R. 1675. 

The refuge system represents a substantial public investment in 

conservation, and we should not confuse uses of the system with 

its fundamental purpose. 

There has been a lot of rhetoric accompanying this debate over 

the years. There seems to be a perception fueled at times by organizations with a financial stake in fanning the flames that there 

is some sort of conspiracy to close down the refuge system to fishing and hunting. And the more that honest sportsmen believe that 

the government is out to get them, the more they contribute to organizations to fight the evil encroachment. The settlement of the 

compatibility lawsuit only fueled those fires. Unfortunately, sharp 

rhetoric with only a casual association with the facts is a cottage 

industry these days. 

I ask my colleagues to look at the facts. The compatibility lawsuit did not result in the termination of a single hunting or fishing 

program. In its review of over 5600 activities and over 500 units 

of the system, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed only one 

change in a hunting program and three changes in fishing programs. In fact, the current Administration opened more refuges to 
137 

hunting and fishing in its first two years than were opened during 

the last two years of the preceding Administration. So I plead with 

my colleagues to dispense with the rhetoric and take a good, honest 

look at the facts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the Ranking Member, and I ask unanimous 

consent at this point that all members have their opening statements placed in the record. 

[Statement of Hon. Don Young follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALAsKA, AND 

CHAIRMA."', COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding this hearing today. The National Wildlife Refuge System provides habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for thousands of our citizen:>. Efficient management of the System is nec- essary in order to maximize both of these uses. I believe that H.R. 1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995, provides the legislative framework 

necessary to accomplish these goals. 

This legislation would be the first comprehensive refuge reform bill since the en- actment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. While 

that landmark statute has served our Nation well, it is time that we update that 

law and, by so doing, improve the management of our Refuge System. 

Our Nation's Wildlife Refuge System must be managed mDre effectively in the future. This System, which was first envisioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 

1903, needs to have a statutory list of purposes, uniform guidelines to determine 

what activities are permissible, comprehensive conservation plans, and the enthusiastic support of the American people who finance this System not only with the 

payment of their tax dollars, but also by purchasing duck stamps and paying excise 

taxes on fishing and hunting equipment. 

These are goals of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. This legislation 

will build upon and improve current law by: making wildlife-dependent recreation, 

including fishinlf and hunting, a purpose of the Refuge System; defining the term 

"compatible use ; allowing historical uses to continue on newly acquired lands un- less those uses are determined to be incompatible; requiring conservation plans for 

each refuge within 15 years; providing that fishing and hunting are permitted un- less a finding is made that these activities are inconsistent with either the purpose 

of the refuge or public safety; and emphasizing a cooperative relationship with the 

States who have primacy on the management of fish and wildlife. 

This legislation will restore the Wildlife Refuge System to the goals and intent 

of Congressman Dingell's National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966. It will ensure that this System is alive and well for all our constituents in 

the 21st Century. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses, and I am confident 

that we will move this legislation forward in the very near future. 

Mr. SAXTON. Before I introduce our first panel of witnesses, I 

would like to just take one moment to put the issue of secondary 

uses in some perspective. Over the past five years several hearings 

on secondary uses and compatibility have been held. Legislation 

has been introduced to solve the problem of secondary uses, and it 

is also noteworthy that a lawsuit has been filed against the Fish 

and Wildlife Service relative to this issue. In the end, however, 

after a year-long review, the Service determined that of the nearly 

4800 secondary uses that occurred on refuges and were under the 

Service's jurisdiction, less than one-half of one percent needed to be 

modified or eliminated because of the concern expressed in the lawsuit. 

Much of the rhetoric that has surrounded this issue over the last 

few years would have led the public to believe that the system was 

under fierce attack by pro-development forces bent on turning the 

refuge system into a series of theme parks. The numbers show that 

this is not true. As Mollie Beattie points out in her written testi-
138 

mony, refuge managers have been routinely reviewing uses under 

longstanding policy guidance to ensure compatibility. I would presume that other Federal agencies would be very pleased if after a 

year-long study, their error rate was found to be less than two percent. 

So having made those opening remarks, I would like to welcome 

our first panel. I understand that Norm Mineta is not going to be 

able to make it this morning. He has asked that his testimony be 

included in the record. And so, if there is no objection, we will move 

on that point. 

[Statements of Ron. Norman Y. Mineta and Ron. John D. Dingell 

may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to also welcome Wally Herger, our colleague from California; Marty Meehan, our colleague from Massachusetts; and Wes Cooley, our colleague from Oregon. And I would 

just like to point out to the witnesses that we do operate under the 

five-minute rule. Your entire statement will be included in the 

record, so if you would summarize for us in the five minutes that 

we have made available, we would appreciate that very much. I 

recognize Mr. Herger from California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY BERGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the families 

in the Tulelake region of my district. 

Mr. Chairman, my district includes much of the northern portion 

of the State of California and encompasses three National Wildlife 

Refuges, the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge, the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and the Clear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

These refuges are the homes of over 1300 families who farm 

roughly 22,000 acres of refuge land under Federal leases. Although 

I support the objectives of the refuges, I have serious concerns regarding the duplicative and extremely burdensome restrictions the 

Department of Interior is placing on the leased land farming, particularly with regard to pesticide use. 

Mr. Chairman, the Kuchel Act of 1964 designated 22,000 acres 

of prime farmland in the Tulelake and Lower Klamath National 

Wildlife Refuges for lease farming in perpetuity. Today these 

leased lands annually generate row and grain crops valued at nearly ~ 16 million, generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax 

revenues and return nearly $2 million in lease receipts to the Federal Government. The Kuchel Act specifically gave farming on 

leased lands a priority equal to the preservation of refuge habitat. 

Unfortunately, however, farmers are now forced to contend with 

a morass of Federal regulations and requirements that are literally 

shutting down their operations. Most of these regulations stem 

from a Department of Interior pesticide policy which prohibits 

farmers from using a number of substances that in fact pose no actual threat to fish or wildlife in the area. 

These are pesticides that have been approved under Federal and 

state law and have undergone rigorous testing and review. Yet notwithstanding these safeguards, farmers are still prohibited from 
139 

using them. These duplicative and excessive regulations unnecessarily expose crops to destruction by harmful pests. As a result, 

farmers are less able to obtain bank financing, their crop yields are 

significantly reduced and their families are put under severe economic stress. As we speak, many families which have been farming 

in the region for four and five generations are in jeopardy of losing 

everything they have. 

Mr. Chairman and members, the Department of Interior's pesticide policy has created confusion, fear and distrust among the 

farmers in the Klamath Basin. These farmers, who are careful and 

responsible stewards of the land, are mystified as to why, despite 

their efforts to reduce their use of pesticide and refrain from using 

them when migratory birds are present, the Department continues 

to penalize them. Often the Department rejects pesticides without 

consideration of such things as careful application procedures or 

the cost and availability of alternatives. When alternatives are suggested, they are at times more dangerous to fish and wildlife than 

the rejected chemicals. 

Mr. Chairman, a report from the California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Food and Agriculture indicates 

that pesticides currently used by Tulelake farmers are not harming 

flora or fauna and have not resulted in any documented fish or bird 

kills as a result of their application. In fact, farmers in the area 

have been very proactive in their efforts to promote the recovery 

of endangered species. It appears that the Department of Interior 

is simply abusing its regulatory authority based on an inherent distrust of pesticides and other traditional farming practices and to 

accommodate extreme environmentalists who wish to eliminate row 

cropping in the area. 

Mr. Chairman, changes to the way we manage our wildlife refuge, and particularly the leased land within the Klamath Basin 

Refuge, are long overdue. We must quit treating leased land as 

simply an extension of the larger refuge. Rather, we should regu- late them in a way which reflects their unique status and which 

adequately protects not only habitat but also farmers and their 

families. I urge this committee to take the appropriate steps toward restoring this balance as it considers amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act in the weeks ahead. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. 

[Statement of Hon. Wally Herger may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Herger. 

Mr. Meehan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETI'S 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning my bill, H.R. 

1407, the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act, within 

the context of your subcommittee hearings regarding improvements 

to the refuge system. 

The Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1972 

with approximately 711 acres of land formerly part of Fort Devens, 

Massachusetts. As with all refuges, Oxbow was established to pro-
140 

teet wildlife and habitat. In Oxbow's case, this includes migratory birds, endangered species such as the Blanding Turtle and several 

types of wetlands and floodplains. 

Oxbow comprises a variety of habitat types and correspondingly 

supports a variety of wildlife spedes. Over 70 percent of the current area of Oxbow is composed of various kinds of wetlands. The 

importance of these wetlands have been recognized and they have 

been listed as priorities for protection under the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and under provisions of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. 

The refuge supports an incredible variety of flora and wildlife. 

These species include 18 types of reptiles, 13 species of amphibians, 

white-tailed deer, coyotes, and raptors. The refuge is teeming with 

the best nature has to offer. 

Oxbow is a component of a larger Greenway buffer and floodplain 

composed of numerous state and Federal conservation and wildlife 

management areas. Within Oxbow, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service maintains hiking trails and canoe launches, which complement the Service's mission of the conservation of this refuge. In 

fiscal year 1994 over 21,000 individuals visited Oxbow and enjoyed 

these facilities. 

Additionally, limited and regulated hunting and fishing is permitted at the refuge. In fiscal 1994, 330 fishing visits and 710 

hunting visits were logged by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

As I am certain the subcommittee knows, Fort Devens is slated 

for closure in 1996. In anticipation of this closure, I worked with 

a variety of interests in my districts, from local Boards of Selectman to municipal planning boards and local conservation groups, 

to acquire approximately 800 acres of Fort Devens for inclusion in 

the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. With the assistance of the Department of the Army and Interior, and my colleagues on what was 

formerly known as the Committee on Armed Services, this was accomplished. 

On the 25th of October 1994, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt 

and Assistant Secretary of the Army Robert M. Walker signed an 

agreement to begin cooperative efforts to protect, conserve and enhance the fish and wildlife and surrounding habitat until such time 

as the land is officially transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

At the insistence of local conservation groups and elected officials, I introduced H.R. 1407. This bill was introduced to continue 

the evolutionary expansion of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge. 

The bill contains three essential elements: the transfer of land commonly known as the South Post of Fort Devens for inclusion in 

Oxbow; a conveyance of approximately 100 acres to the Town of 

Lancaster; and lastly, language to ensure the continued responsibility of the Department of Defense for environmental cleanup 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act. 

These conveyances will only occur if the Department of Defense 

designates these lands as excess property. In the interim the Department of Army is committed to managing these lands and using 

them for training purposes. Each of the conveyances, beginning 

with the conveyance that was used to establish Oxbow, was accomplished at no expense to the government. 
141 

To conclude, the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge plays a significant role in conserving the natural resources of Northeastern Massachusetts and provides a variety of compatible recreational opportunities. 

I ask unanimous consent to include a report prepared by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service in 1993 for the House Committee on Appropriations that provides a detailed survey and evaluations of the 

lands proposed for conveyance in H.R. 1407. 

Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee and I am prepared to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Cooley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WES COOLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OREGON 

Mr. CooLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

would like to thank you for calling this hearing to examine the nation's Wildlife Refuge System and appreciate the opportunity to address issues of great importance to my Congressional district. My 

district encompasses much of Southern Oregon and borders parts 

of my good friend from California, Congressman Herger's district. 

Because of the proximity of these two districts, we share m3.ny 

common matters of concern. In particular, we both represent farmers and ranchers in the Klamath region, many of whom operate on 

lands within the Tulelake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife 

Refuge, which are leased to them by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The 22,000 acres of leased land came about as a result of an unfair historical circumstance in which lands given to the Federal 

Government by the State of Oregon and California for the purpose 

of homesteading, reclamation and irrigation were instead placed inside wildlife refuges. This was fine for those portions of land that 

were unsuitable for farming, but for those lands that amounted to 

prime farm land, this was clearly unfair. 

In 1964 the Kuchel Act was attempted to resolve this issue. Instead of homesteading these lands through the Act, that provided 

that these lands should be leased for farming in perpetuity. Since 

that time, the lands have made valuable contributions to the area's 

economy, producing over $16 million worth of crops, including onions, sugar beets, potatoes and a variety of grains. The area grows 

nearly 40 percent of California's fresh potatoes and 35 percent of 

the nation's horseradish. 

In the last several years, the Department of Interior has made 

farming on the leased lands increasingly difficult. Most importantly, they have heavily regulated traditional farming practices, 

placing restrictions on federally approved pesticides and making 

other amendments to the leasing terms. This has imposed heavy 

bureaucratic burdens on these farmers and ranchers, not to mention that it renders their crops subject to infestation, reducing their 

yields and decreasing their economic value. 

Leased land farmers and other farmers in Klamath Basin have 

struggled over the years to cope with a variety of environmental 

constraints, and this is the latest, largest attack on their livelihood. 

These farmers have responded by attempting to address environmental issues head-on, taking progressive measures to improve the 
142 

environment of the Klamath Basin. Leased land farmers have substantially reduced their use of pesticides over the years. In addition, as with potatoes, farmers often use significantly fewer inputs 

than farmers in other parts of the country use. They have hired 

consultants, worked with Federal and state and local officials and 

university extension services and invested untold sums, all to 

maintain their livelihood as they have for generations. 

The Kuchel Act states that these people can farm on leased land, 

but apparently more clarification is needed. Congressman Herger 

and I are very interested in clarifying the role of farming on these 

lands, farming, which I might add, is not a secondary purpose of 

these refuge lands, but rather a coequal purpose significantly guaranteed by law. We hope that this subcommittee can assist in this 

effort. 

Refuges in the Klamath Basin serve a very valuable purpose, 

providing resting habitat and food for over 1 million waterfowl that 

travel along the Pacific Flyway. They are valuable parts of the area 

that should be maintained, however farming is also a significant 

part of the Klamath Basin and for those farmers on leased lands 

must be relieved of the unreasonable burden imposed upon them 

by the Bureau and Department of Interior. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and I will 

listen to concerns of the people of my district and also Congressman Herger's. Thank you. 

[Information submitted on Klamath may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, we thank you very much, all three, for your 

testimony. We have informally agreed here that we are going to bypass questions at this point. We have an ESA meeting down the 

hall at 12:00 and Secretary Babbitt will be here, so we have got 

to conclude by that time. But let me just say that with regard to 

Mr. Cooley and Mr. Herger, we appreciate your problems that have 

to do with EPA and Agricult~re as they relate to the refuge system. 

And as we move through this, the bill that we will markup here, 

hopefully in the next few weeks or month, we will certainly take 

your concerns into consideration. 

Mr. Meehan, I just would relate to you that your concern about 

Fort Devens, I think we have adequately taken care and appreciate 

your testimony with regard to it. Last evening during the markup, 

as you probably know, on the National Security Committee, our 

committee released its concerns and possible responsibility regarding the transfer of land from Fort Devens to the refuge that you 

have requested that it be transferred to. So we thank you all very 

much for being here, and appreciate your testimony. 

And Mr. Miller would like to be recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Herger or Mr. Cooley-in both 

of their statements they refer to a diminishment of farm income 

and crop yields and what have you, and I just wonder if that-if 

we might have testimony supporting that submitted to the committee as we deliberate that. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, very good. Thank you very much for being with 

us. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 
143 

Mr. SAXTON. Our next testimony this morning is a panel of one. 

That, of course, is Mollie Beattie, who is no stranger to any of us 

on this panel. She is the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. I understand that while Ms. Beattie will be testifying 

alone, she will be accompanied by a staff at the witness table who 

she will introduce. 

Ms. Beattie, we thank you for being with us and you are free to 

proceed accordingly. 

STATEMENT OF MOLLIE BEATTIE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My staff, who have a 

better flair for showmanship, and I must say a lower threshold for 

the corny than I, have insisted that I bring along this likeness of 

Theodore Roosevelt to remind us of who started the refuge system, 

when and for what purpose. It was my staffs hope that in carting 

this up here, that the watchful eye of Roosevelt would help us to 

keep focused on the purity of his original vision, which I would abstract from a 1915 quotation of his. He said it was keeping for our 

children's children as a priceless heritage all of the delicate beauty 

of the lesser and the burly majesty of the mightier forms of wildlife. A reflection, he said, of a new understanding that wild beasts 

and birds are by right not the property merely of the people who 

are alive today, but the property of unborn generations whose belongings we have no right to squander. 

I believe that nothing we do in the 104th Congress or in the policies of the National Wildlife Refuge System should detract from or 

add complexity to that supreme vision. On the other hand, the 

challenge of resource management in 1903 was a great deal simpler than it is in 1995. 

As the Service wends its way through preliminary project proposals, appraisals, public hearings and Congressional appropriations, 

I have always noted with envy that Pelican Island, the first refuge, 

was created in 1903 with a stroke of Teddy Roosevelt's pen. Teddy Roosevelt visited Breton Island, Louisiana, one day in 1904, and it 

was a national wildlife refuge the next day. Both of these original 

refuges were for the purposes of protecting seabirds from the depredations of uncontrolled hunting. The president turned them into 

sanctuaries. 

A century later we have over 500 refuges, about 92 million acres. 

Those who know no more than the early roots of .the refuge system 

believe that they are sanctuaries and are surprised, to say the 

least, to find that the refuges are open to a variety of recreational 

activities, including hunting and fishing. Those who do not know 

much about the refuge system seem not to distinguish between 

them and the other big Federal land systems, especially the national parks and forests, and are surprised to find out that the refuges have a far more specialized approach to public recreation than 

do other acres of Federal land. This second interpretation is reinforced by the simple fact of the growing pressure on public land on 

any open space for all of society's natural resources needs, from 

recreation to agriculture to resource extraction. 

At this hearing you have heard and will hear about many of 

these pressures which are intensifying on the wildlife refuges as 
144 

both open space for human recreational and economic activity and 

undisturbed habitat for wildlife conservation both become increasingly rare commodities. In other words, it sometimes seems as if 

we have two schools of thought on the refuge system, first, they are 

lands where people can't do anything and second, they are lands 

where people should be able to do anything. All of us are trying to 

find a middle way, and I believe this is the problem that, at its essence, we have been trying to solve for the last two years in working toward organic legislation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The question we have to answer is this, I believe, given that we 

now know that all uses of refuges cannot and need not be excluded, 

by what standard should we choose. I do not believe we can answer 

this question without a guiding principle, and I believe that the 

guiding principle must be Theodore Roosevelt's. That is contributing to the keeping for our children's children all the lesser and 

greater forms of wildlife, especially those assigned to Federal jurisdiction. Those are migratory birds, anadromous and 

inte:tjurisdictional fish species and marine mammals. I agree that 

this principle must be translated into clear and detailed guidance 

for the refuge manager. 

Clearly, for us to be able to wisely administer the refuge system, 

this purpose must be supreme above all others and all proposed 

uses of the system must be judged against it. When, and only 

when, any use is contributory to its fulfillment should it be allowed 

and encouraged. In general, if uses of refuges are confused with 

and given equal status with this primary principle, we will have severely compromised its integrity. Uses of refuges that encourage 

the public's enjoyment of wildlife like fishing, bird watching and 

hunting are essential and should be given the highest, if not exclusive, priority in our administration of activities on the refuges. But 

to give them identical status with the supreme purpose of the refuge system, that is the conservation of wildlife, is to confuse 

means, that is hunting, fishing and other forms of wildlife enjoyment, and ends, that is conservation, and to leave us without the 

proper guidance for deciding what public uses are compatible with 

what specific refuges and wildlife. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the committee and especially to you personally for working with us on this issue. I am 

hopeful that our combined efforts to craft appropriate organic legislation will make it possible to achieve this vision. In my formal testimony I have addressed four elements which I believe should be 

embodied in legislation, a clear mission and purpose, well defined 

affirmative responsibilities of the Secretary to preserve integrity of 

the system, legislative direction relating to the management of permitted uses and guidance on the development of refuge planning 

documents. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

[Statement of Mollie Beattie may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Beattie. I have just one 

question, which is, I think, central to this discussion. You indicated 

in your very articulate testimony that we are looking for a middle 

way to identify what types of uses are suitable for inclusion in the 
145 

refuge system. And the term you used was specifically middle way, 

and I think that is very accurate. It seems to me that it is necessary for us to do that inasmuch as the public support for the refuge system must continue among all interested parties. 

Obviously, the extreme environmentalist part of our society is interested in maintaining the refuge system under certain conditions, 

and there are other groups who are interested in a variety of uses 

such as hunting and fishing and for other purposes who have other 

interests. I believe part of Mr. Young's bill-as a matter of fact, I 

drafted part of the bill-which provides for a change in the way 

management plans are put together and adopted and the status of 

the land during that period of time when those management plans 

are being put together. In other words, instead of immediately closing down to all historic uses upon taking title, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, under the proposed legislation, would be required to leave 

the refuge open to historic uses until such time as a management 

plan is adopted. 

Would you comment on that and let us know what your feelings 

are? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We recognize this problem and 

the fact that it has created a great deal of frustration, especially 

among local people who have supported the acquisition and establishment of a refuge and who then are immediately precluded from 

engaging in the activities on which their support was built. We 

think that is a very manageable problem, and we have addressed 

ourselves to it based on our work with you on this bill. We think 

it is very possible, in this rather protracted process I described of 

establishing a refuge, to in fact do a preliminary compatibility 

check on all uses going on and issue an interim compatibility, or 

if necessary incompatibility, finding until such time as we have the 

data and the staff to handle it in a permanent way. And that way 

we would have a smoother transition to the refuge establishment 

and think that that is, again, a very manageable problem. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. We also provided for a long period of 

time, in my view at least, in the legislation for the development 

and adoption of conservation plans. I believe it is 15 years? 

Ms. BEATTIE. 15 years, yes. 

Mr. SAXTON. Can you respond to that provision in terms of the 

length of time? Is that an excessively long period of time? Does the 

Fish and Wildlife Service need that much time in order to develop 

a conservation plan? 

Ms. BEATTIE. In my experience, Mr. Chairman, that is about the 

standard amount of time that you find in a natural resource management plan, ten to 15 years is fairly standard. And I don't think 

you have meant to exclude an amendment process if one is needed 

in that period, but generally speaking ten to 15 years seems to balance the need to always take the long-term view against the practical. And that is certainly within the realm of normal practice. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you. In terms of that length of time, 

then, it seems to me that the treatment of historic uses in a slightly different way as expressed by the bill would make a great deal 

of sense, and we appreciate your comments on these matters. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Studds. 
146 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. Ms. Beattie, I want to 

thank you for bringing my favorite Republican, except of course for 

the four who are here, from the days when Republicans were really conservatives. It is very nice. 

Do you think your imaginative and hokey staff could provide a 

similar cutout of Richard Nixon for our hearing that begins at 12? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Mr. Congressman, I have found them willing to do 

just about anything for the cause. 

Mr. STUDDS. I really appreciate that, because I think it is another healthy reminder. 

A couple things very quickly. The bill before us, H.R. 1675, provides authority for the Secretary to turn over the management of 

refuges to state fish and game agencies. Do you support that pro- posal? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Congressman, let me address that in a general 

way. We have not thoroughly reviewed this bill, as it was introduced only a couple days ago, a few days ago, so I don't want to 

speak directly to those provisions. But let me say that generally there are two concerns. One is that this is a National Wildlife Refuge System. We believe it should be managed for national, Federal 

priorities, which are to some degree distinct from state priorities. 

We have, as you know, a distinct definition of who manages what 

between the states and the Federal Government, so the Federal 

Government has a different set of priorities. 

This is not to say that the states cannot blend those priorities 

into their own and do a very good job of managing wildlife refuges. 

We have attempted this or attempted to contract with states for 

the management of various programs and, in a lesser extent, the 

management of actual acres on national wildlife refuges. There are 

as many successes as there have been failures on that. The successes are very good ones. They are neither case very many. 

So our concern would be, first of all, that we could merge the 

Federal and state priorities and maintain that Federal aspect to 

management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The states 

can often-within that, the states can often do a better job than we 

can, where there is-it is more efficient for them where they are 

able to merge those priorities rather easily. So, again, we do have 

some successes. 

The concern-the other concern is a legal concern which came up 

at our hearing last week. And it is one that, again, I have not fully 

researched and we-fully understood, promised to get back to the 

committee and will do so. And that is a legal concern relative to 

the constitutionality or the limit, the constitutional limits of delegating the management of National Wildlife Refuge System. I have 

a stack in front of me of letters from lawyersMr. STUDDS. I am sorry to hear that. 

Ms. BEATTIE [continuing]. going over this issue. Yes, well, as I 

said, I don't fully understand it. 

Mr. STUDDS. OK. 

Ms. BEATTIE. One of the letters from the lawyers sort of sets a 

limit on what they think can be and cannot be delegated to states 

for management. And, again, this issue really came up for the first 

time, in at least contemporary awareness, under the Indian, socalled Indian Self Government Act passed last year, which has to 
147 

do with delegating management of Federal resources to the tribes, 

a principle we very much support. However, there are legal limits, 

and in looking for those discovered this concern. 

Mr. STUDDS. OK. 

Ms. BEATIIE. So those are the two concerns at the moment, but 

I also want to point out that we do have a number of successes in 

this area. 

Mr. STUDDS. Sure. I have before me a genuinely alarming document from the Wildlife Conservation Fund of America, who is going 

to appear, I gather, later on. Let me just read you a couple of excerpts and see if you have any response. The headline is "Clinton's 

people have cut a back-door deal that severely threatens hunting. 

At immediate risk are hunting, fishing and trapping on the 91 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System. Clinton's Department of 

the Interior, which includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Clinton's Department of Justice, which serves as Interior's lawyer, 

not only gave away everything the settlement suit asked for, but 

gave away a lot of control over a multitude of uses, including hunting, fishing and trapping on all 494 refuges. The deal requires the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, among other things, to stop all hunting, 

fishing and trapping if all the data requested is not produced now 

and every year thereafter. It is of course impossible to meet the 

deadlines. Goodbye hunting. Fish and Wildlife is being ordered by 

the Clinton team to close down refuges and lock the gates." This 

goes on several pages later to ask for a tax-deductible contribution 

to help spread the message. 

Do you have any response to that characterization of the Administration's position? I believe it was your predecessor, Mr. Turner, 

who signed off on that, was it not? 

Ms. BEA'ITIE. Signed off on the--

Mr. STUDDS. The settlement. 

Ms. BEATIIE (continuing]. legal settlement? Yes, that is true, and 

the settlement was, in our minds, not much of a change from 

standing operating procedure either then or now, which is simply 

to review all uses for their compatibility. Our agreement was that 

we would write down our determinations so that the public would 

have access to the reasoning behind them. That was not a huge concession on our part and certainly one that improves, we would 

think in the long run, the management of the refuge system. 

Outside of that, if the President has ordered us or the Clinton 

Administration to close hunting and fishing, we probably should be 

dismissed. As I think the Chairman read, we have opened more 

refuges to hunting in these two years than the previous Administration did in its last two. So I believe that record counteracts most 

of that document. 

Mr. STUDDS. So if I were an ardent sportsman and hunter, if I 

were the gentleman from Alaska, I ought not to be alarmed in spite 

of this rhetoric? 

Ms. BEA'ITIE. Again, I hope the facts would stand that we have 

been opening refuges to hunting as quickly as we could review compatibility and as quickly as we could afford it. 

Mr. STUDDS. So I don't need to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you. 

Ms. BEATTIE. You could to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
148 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Or to the Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman 

from Alaska. 

Mr. YoUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having a 

hearing on this legislation, which I am the prime sponsor, as well 

as John Dingell, who is really the father of this legislation in 1966. 

This is the first time we have reviewed the refuge system and 

I think it is time. I think we do have to make some adjustments. 

And much as I love Mollie Beattie, other fish and wildlife secretaries will come after her, and I don't like the discretion given to the 

executive branch on the uses of the refuge system. 

Mr. Chairman, may I suggest respectfully that what started this 

was the settlement of the Audubon Society, and it was her predecessor who signed off on it, so I am not casting aspersion. As far 

as the tax operation that you just mentioned in the letter, I don't 

take great offense to that type letter. I have read about nine different ads in the paper recently, and all the way from New York 

Times to LA Times, et cetera, about how I am the rape or ruin and 

ruiner of all lands and wildlife and please send money to save our 

beautiful, pristine areas, wilderness society, et cetera, et cetera. So 

that is a common practice. If there is anything I could change i.t 

would be this nonprofit status for every special interest lobbying 

group so we at least know where their moneys are going. 

Mr. STUDDS. Not only that, it is an exaggeration. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, it is an exaggeration. I am one that protects 

the wildlife and have always done so. I hope that we can see the 

wisdom, and I noticed that you are not in your testimony saying 

no or yes on this legislation, but understand what we are trying 

to do is make sure that the supporters of the refuge system still 

exist. This government cannot, regardless of what agency or what 

administration, cannot continue to exist as a democracy without 

the participation of the people. 

There is illusion and there is some truth in the refuges now 

being set aside for other than the uses of hunting, fishing, conservation, bird watching, et cetera. I always love when you bring 

Theodore Roosevelt. I happen to be one of the few people that belong to Boone and Crockett, one of the 123. It is quite a privilege 

for myself. But he set aside the conservation uses primarily for the 

continuation of species for, yes, the preservation and the use of 

man. He was not an exclusive user. Ms. Beattie, I know very frankly, has said that we have opened, and I have seen that before, more 

hunting areas. Well, that bothers me in the sense it says we have 

opened more hunting areas. And reality is, very frankly, the greatest supporter are the conservationists within the organization of 

the hunting community, the trapping community and the fishing 

community. 

And I hope this bill goes along, Mr. Chairman, that we see the 

wisdom of allowing-because I have listened to you, Ms. Beattie, 

say again we don't know the legal ramifications. We created this 

act. We can write it any way we want to, and I want to see where 

the lawyers are coming from and why they are even saying that 

as far as contracting it to the states or to the native corporations 

or to native group or tribe. If it isn't legal, and that is an opinion 
149 

of your judicial department, if it is illegal, then we will write it so 

it is legal, because I think that is the way you gain support. 

I have argued with every administration I have had, Republican, 

Democrat, et cetera, parks and partners, refuge people, refuge 

managers and partners, BLM and partna.rs, working together and 

saying-don't get me started talking about boots now. Working together saying we are together, what can we do to do what the ultimate goal of the refuge is. And I get a little apprehensive, and the 

reason this bill was introduced, when I see a director or a president 

deciding that he or she knows what is best in the intent of the refuge, because every one of these refuges were created with the support of those that lived around the community in which they were 

created, other than Alaska. They were created because they 

thought this is what we could have in the future and we were protecting the areas. 

Now the term compatibility, which is in the original bill, it concerns me when there is a possibility of a lawsuit that can be filed 

against the administration or administration head saying by a 

group, which is nonprofit, for the gentleman from Massachusetts, 

with one of those lawyers who is no longer employed because we 

have got too doggone many of them in the country, so they filed a 

suit which causes not only the Federal Government and the taxpayers money, but it causes a misinterpretation of the refuge. 

So this bill is really set up trying to make it easier for whatever 

administration-and I will say my administrations in the past 

weren't any better, but no agency has the right to interpret what 

we intended with the original act, nor the 1966 act, nor those people who live in that community. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I compliment you and I am pleased Ms. 

Beattie did not take a position on this bill and I am hoping to work 

together. I would like to see something positive come out of this 

Administration concerning ESA, concerning the wetlands, which we 

did not have, concerning the refuge system, something that we can 

work together on, because your support comes from the people and 

if the people turn on you, this Congress will turn on you. This will 

protect and continue the utilization of the refuge system, which I 

highly support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman from Alaska did not ask a question. 

It was a very eloquent statement. Let me ask a question that was 

very directly related to what the gentleman spoke about. He spoke 

about parks and partnerships and refuges and partnerships. This 

bill, as I understand the language, provides for full public participation. As a matter of fact, we would advertise in the Federal register that a management plan is in the process of being adopted 

and invite public participation. Do you support that provision and 

would you change it in any way one way or the other? 

Ms. BEATTIE. I can't address it technically, I am sorry, Mr. 

Chairman, in terms of its specifics, but yes, we endorse the idea 

of public participation and in fact welcome it. I ran the public land 

system in Vermont. There had been no public participation on the 

planning for those lands. We instituted it. Not only did we find a 

great deal more support than we had had from the public, but we 
150 

also discovered that our land managers found their jobs a lot easier 

as opposed to a lot harder. 

Mr. SAXTON. Some refuges also have groups that are ongoing 

supporters. Some of them call them, I believe, friends of the refuge 

or whatever the name ma.y be, where a group of people meet with 

the refuge manager or with refuge personnel on an ongoing basis 

to help to give input. Is it necessary for us to put-desirable for us 

to put a provision in the bill to encourage that practice? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Encouraging, not requiring would be, of course, 

welcome. We have a number of outreach efforts. I would call that 

one. We also have our volunteer system. I have spent afternoons 

on national wildlife refuges and never actually seen an employee 

of the national wildlife refuge, the place being entirely possessed by 

volunteers who are wonderful. We also have our private lands program run out of many of our refuges where we reach out to private 

landowners, work with them on a voluntary basis to involve them 

both in the management of the refuge and help encourage them to 

manage their land in a way that encourages the purpose of the refuge. And all those have had a tremendous effect on our public support, and anything you could do to encourage those efforts would 

be, of course, welcome. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Miller 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me thank 

you very much, Ms. Beattie, for your testimony and for all of the 

work you have done during your tenure in office and the help that 

you have provided us in California as we worked out a number of 

these hot spots over the management of these lands and of our resources and the willingness of you and your people to work with 

the entire community, if you will, of farmers and sportsmen and 

environmentalists in our urban communities that have a great 

stake in some of your management decisions. We appreciate that. 

I think the Chairman of the committee, Mr. Young, you know, 

properly states that there is a great deal of consistency among the 

members of this committee as to the goals of this program, and 

hopefully of this legislation, in recognizing that systems like refuge 

systems do in fact need a support system of people who not only 

use them, hut in some cases support them without using them because they believe in the concept. And your job, unfortunately, is 

to manage those various points of view. But I think we have to remember in the conduct of this legislation, and I don't mean this in 

a combative sense, but at some point on some given day somebody 

has to take responsibility for the management of these resources. 

Fortunately or unfortunately, now, that falls to you in this position. 

And while this legislation, I think, properly broadens public 

input and all the rest of it, that doesn't mean the controversy is 

any less. And I hope that we can work out this legislation, and 

your willingness and your testimony to work with this, I think, is 

helpful. I think we do fall victim, and again, I agree with Mr. 

Young, that the kind of rhetoric that we see in fund-raising letters, 

unfortunately, is just simply not constructive, especially when you 

have the range of people who are willing to work on this issue and 

try to resolve those conflicts for the preservation of the refuge system. 
151 

And I note with interest that none of the facts that are alluded 

to in the fund-raising letter are presented to us as a matter of testimony this morning. I assume that means that they simply were 

unsupportable or they were not prepared to have them subjected 

to cross examination. But yet rhetorically they are out there inflaming people against your management or your attempt to resolve these issues or this committee or what have you, to start to 

put people into camps that diminishes the opportunities to come to 

a consensus over resources and assets as valuable as the one you 

manage in the refuge system. 

And I think your testimony, you know, directly goes to the allegations that were made in the fund-raising letter and refutes them 

rather directly. And I would just hope that, members of this committee, we would not let ourselves get broken down into these 

camps whether the fund-raising-you know, no matter who sends 

out the fund-raising letters, that we address the needs to manage 

these resources. And at some point--

Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will yield--

Mr. MILLER. Again, I would-! had asked that Mr. Herger and 

Mr. Cooley submit information. I would also appreciate if you 

would submit information that you may have as to the impacts 

that they discussed. And it may have to come from, actually, the 

Bureau of Reclamation, I think, also because they are sort venturing this. 

Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. MILLER. On yields and incomes and what we know about the 

impacts of those decisions in the Tulelake area. And finally, let me 

say, and then I will yield, you know, I don't think we ought to write 

legislation that takes away from you the same kind of management 

tools that any landlord would want over the land that they are 

charged with managing. And, you know, very often we see people 

on Federal leases coming here and whining and crying, and not a 

single private landowner would put up with those actions or those 

prices or-if that was in fact private land. And I think there has 

got to be some compatibility there in terms of a respect for the taxpayers and the people of this country that we hold that land in 

trust for. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman, I hope he takes time to read the bill, 

because the bill does exactly what he says. 

Mr. MILLER. No, !-that is what I am saying. It doesn't say with 

the outside group status, and I just don't want us to fall into that 

trap. 

Mr. YOUNG. The thing that we have to keep in mind, again, this 

is not directed at this Administration or Mollie Beattie. This is directed at those groups that have the legal right to misinterpret 

what is the original intent of the refuge, and Ms. Beattie or any 

other secretary has no recourse then to try to reach a solution that 

may not be meant as the original intent of the refuge. And they 

don't even support the refuges. 

And I am going to say that the other problem we have, regardless of who the president is and who the secretary is, if there is 

a refuge manager, the only way you can change that refuge manager's conduct, even though he is wrong, and she knows he is 

wrong, is to transfer him. You can't fire him. And if you transfer 
152 

him, God help the pressure that happens to you. I have seen this 

happen twice before and I am saying let us try to rigidly keep the 

intent of the refuge land if we can. That to me is support. 

Mr. MILLER. I agree with the gentleman. I just want to make 

sure that the legislation also allows for the managers to unfortunately at times have to make decisions that may be immensely unpopular but happen to be right in terms of the long-term interest 

of the refuge. I mean, we cannot just say we are going to always 

do what is popular, because that will not necessarily lead to the 

best regime in terms of the management of these resources. My 

time is out. You are in control. Thank you very much. I am out of 

here. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I would like to 

recognize now the gentleman from the Eastern Shore of Maryland. 

I am sorry, the gentleman from Massachusetts. That is correct. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague from Maryland for giving me the line for questioning. Just 

very directly, I appreciate the Chairman of the full committee filing 

the bill and getting the debate going, and I appreciate the Fish and 

Wildlife Service keeping an open mind toward it, because I do 

think there needs to be some type of framework in place. 

The situation up in my own district is that we have the Parker 

River Wildlife Refuge, and how it is used is a subject of debate. 

There is one endangered species we have up there, the Piping Plover, which is continually debated about what is the best way to see 

it back to sustainability. The response has been to close the Parker 

River refuge entirely for a period of time during the summer while 

recovery efforts for the Piping Plover elsewhere in Massachusetts, 

such as nearby Cranes Beach and the Cape Cod Wildlife Seashore, 

has not been to close those areas but to use other means to protect 

them. The numbers would suggest that using alternative means 

have been more successful than total closure, and yet people who 

wish to advocate that for the refuge find that they do not have an 

audience. 

So if we could at least have some type of framework, one, for the 

purpose of the refuge, and two, how to evaluate which efforts are 

indeed most successful, I think that would be helpful to everyone 

involved so that we don't have a situation where it looks like there 

is substantially different treatment of one area versus another. I 

think if anyone advocated total closure of the Cape Cod National 

Seashore, you would see a miniature revolt in place happening, but 

because Parker River refuge is not as well known or perhaps as 

well traveled, closing it was never deferred at all. So I would like 

to see a thorough review of that area as part of this and just say 

that if we have a framework, at least individuals will know what 

to expect and we won't have to deal with the arbitrary decisions 

being made on a refuge-by-refuge basis. I think we would all benefit from that. 

The purpose--and, you know, I concur with the primary purpose 

has to be one of conservation and to protect wildlife, especially 

those which are endangered or threatened species, but within that 

allow other types of use that are consistent. And with that as an 

overall goal, I think we should be able to have bipartisan support 

on what form this legislation should take. 
153 

So that is more of a comment than a question, but if you would 

care to respond to it, I would be happy to hear whatever thoughts 

you had on it. 

Ms. BEATTIE. I have two responses, Congressman. First of all, we 

will look into the question that you asked about why closure here 

and not complete closure there and find out what the specifics are. 

Generally, I just want to reemphasize, obviously, that there should 

be a revolt, I think, if we closed a national seashore unless we were 

in a true emergency situation. And that is the thing that we really 

haven't done a good job of and need to do a good job of in the future, which is distinguishing the refuge system from the other 

types of public land. 

The response for the Piping Plover, or any other endangered species, will necessarily be different on a refuge than it would on a national seashore, and to some extent the principle-and again, I am 

not answering your first question because I don't know the details 

and I will have to get back to it-but the principle probably should 

be that the refuge should take the heaviest hit in terms of protection efforts than a national seashore or certainly other state and 

local beaches, so you may see because of the essence and purpose 

what we need to do is make the public understand that difference. 

And I also want to just note, as I am sure you know, that despite 

these difficulties and the kind of displacements and inconveniences 

and changes for the public, the progress on the Piping Plover is significant and with great public support, not to say we are not conscious and they are not conscious of the inconveniences. So we 

ought to take credit for that success while we are trying to solve 

that problem. 

Mr. STUDDS. Will the gentleman yield just for a quick clarification? 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I will be glad to yield. 

Mr. STUDDS. I appreciate it. Just to be clear, Cape Cod National 

Seashore is not-first of all, it is not a wildlife refuge. It is a national seashore. Secondly, beaches are regularly closed there to offroad vehicles when the plovers are nesting and hatching. We have 

had closures both in Martha's Vineyard and county beaches and on 

the Cape in the National Seashore precisely for the plover, so we 

are there, too. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. If the gentleman will yield back, or reclaiming 

my time, the nature of closing to off-road vehicles, we certainly understand that. Is the gentleman saying that the beaches are closed 

just to off-road vehicles, or they are closed to all human foot traffic 

of any type? 

Mr. STUDDS. Those areas where the chicks have just hatched are 

closed to people, period. They are protected. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. OK, thank the gentleman. 

Mr. STUDDS. Not universally popular, I might add. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Oh, it is certainly not north of Boston, either. 

It is quite controversial. 

Mr. STUDDS. Is there something north of Boston? I thought that 

was Canada. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. It is called, yeah, New Hampshire or something 

else. 

Mr. SAXTON. If I may just pursue the plover. 
154 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. I will be glad to yield. 

Mr. SAXTON. One further question with regard to plovers. I understand that we now have something in the neighborhood of 1200 

nesting pairs, that we are up from six or 800 to a higher number. 

It is working? 

Ms. BEATTIE. It is working and that was my point. I don't know 

the exact numbers. I did at one point, but I--

Mr. SAXTON. Any guess at when plovers would be considered recovered? 

Ms. BEATTIE. I will have to get back to you on that, but we do 

have an estimate, certainly. I just simply don't know it today, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Just since we are talking about that issue, if you 

could get that back to us I would appreciate it. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Certainly. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may very quickly, just one 

follow-up point, too. If in the review that you are doing, if you could 

also look at areas that are not part of a refuge or even a seashore. 

And again I mention specifically what is called Crane's Beach--

Ms. BEATTIE. OK. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN [continuing]. which is very close to the Parker 

refuge. They have set up their own system of symbolic fencing and 

the like, and I believe they have had a far more significant increase 

in nesting pairs than the Parker refuge has. So if you could include 

that in your review, that would be most appreciated. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Be happy to. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman from Maryland, who was, incidentally, born in New Jersey, in my district almost. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The great State of New Jersey. I left there in 

1964, Jim. I go back occasionally, though. I get my accent back and 

it is great. 

I had one off-subject question. You mentioned Vermont. Did you 

live in Vermont? 

Ms. BEATTIE. I am from Vermont, yes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Where are you from in Vermont? 

Ms. BEATTIE. A town called Grafton, 600 people. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No, not publicly at any rate. Grafton? I used to 

live in East Fairfield. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Oh. 

Mr. GILCHREST. North of Stowe. 

Ms. BEATTIE. There is a very big county-grassroots-based county conservation effort going on in Fairfield County now that is, I 

think, going to be a model for the nation. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that right? That is great. Maybe-in fact, my 

two sons camped up there the last couple of days and they hiked 

up Mount Mansfield and went swimming in Lake of the Clouds. 

Beautiful spot, I would like to have been there. 

Ms. BEATTIE. This is the kind of testimony I like. It is making 

me homesick. 

Mr. GILCHREST. That was my first indoctrination into acid rain. 

I climbed up Mount Mansfield about 15, 20 years ago, and I said 

why are all these trees dead. And that was why. At any rate, I 

would like to talk about Underhill State Park and those beautiful 
155 

places, but that is where the boys camped. They were the only ones 

there all week. Nobody else was there. 

Ms. BEATTIE. It is a wonderful place. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It is the Sunset Ridge Trail that is a great place. 

I would recommend it for anybody, northern Vermont. 

Ms. BEATTIE. I am gratified, Congressman. I meet people in 

Washington who ask me what state Vermont is in. I am gratified 

to know you know it is a state. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It is a pretty place. I hope it remains that way 

for 1000 more years. 

Mr. MILLER. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 

be given an additional two minutes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. You know, you can see all of the Adirondack 

Mountains when you are on the top of Mount Mansfield. You can 

see the entire Lake Champlain Valley and you can see Mount 

Washington in New Hampshire. And if you look to the north, you 

can see Canada. It is a spectacular place. 

Ms. BEATTIE. Senator Jeffords recently said that it is such a 

beautiful place and so desirable that the state government is soon 

going to have a department of who gets in. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, well, I can't-on a clear day you can see the 

World Trade Building in New York City. 

Since I have all this extra time, I will get right to the questions, 

Mr. Chairman. New Jersey has some nice places, too. 

Let us see, on the refuges at the present time there is hunting 

and fishing on a number of the refuges? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes, about half. 

Mr. GILCHREST. How does the Federal Government work with 

the state to determine the length of the season for whether it is 

Canada geese or whether it is deer or whatever it is, and who determines the bag limit? Do you comply with the state regs on that? 

Ms. BEATTIE. Yes, may I refer that question to the person to my 

left who so far hasn't earned his pay this morning? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Typically the regulations are consistent 

with state regs. In some cases where there may be an additional 

conflict on a refuge with another management purpose, they may be more restrictive or they may not be open as many days, but 

typically it is the same, certainly no less restrictive. 

Mr. GILCHREST. But in the case situation, for example, on the 

Eastern Shore of Maryland where we-over the last number of 

years we began to reduce the season and the bag limit for Canada 

geese. It was more restrictive than what the Federal Government's 

criteria was. In those instances where the state is more restrictive, 

are they allowed to be more restrictive? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Yes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. On the refuges as well? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Yes, in the case of the Canada geese or 

other migratory birds, those regulations are set through a national 

process and through flyways, not specifically for refuges. So states 

can be more restrictive than-the Federal Government sets the 

framework within which the state--

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER [continuing]. sets its regs. 
156 

Mr. GILCHREST. If-how likely is it, and I know this is probably impossible to predict. Is it likely that hunting as a result of recent 

events could be restricted on refuges, Federal refuges? 

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. As a result of which event? 

Ms. BEA'ITIE. What kind of recent events, Congressman? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, I just read it in here. Let me find it again. 

Well, let me just say is it likely-and I am assuming this legislation is being brought forth to add some consistency to the fact that 

you can hunt on a Federal refuge and you can hunt and fish on 

Federal refuges. And maybe I shouldn't make the assumption that 

the bill is brought forward to make sure that that stays in effect, 

so your reaction, I would assume, is such that it is unlikely that 

there will be restrictions to hunt on a Federal refuge? 

Ms. BEA'ITIE. Congressman, it is not just our reaction. It is our 

history. Congressman Studds referred to this compatibility review 

that we recently did, and so far there are still a few questions outstanding and I don't expect to be-to have any conflicts there, but 

so far through a use of many thousands of-a review of many thousands of uses, we found one incompatible, what we would call incompatible, hunting program on 30 or 40 acres in California, and 

the state agreed that it was incompatible as well. So it was a rather non-controversial closing. So our history shows that it is unlikely 

t<r-that we will find hunting and fishing incompatible. Our history 

also shows, however, that we need to retain the discretion to make 

that decision. 

Mr. GILCHREST. If I could just ask for 30 seconds, since the gentleman from California gave me two minutes. What would this bill 

do that you don't already do as far as hunting and fishing on Federal refuge? 

Ms. BEATTIE. I can't answer directly, again. We haven't-we are 

not responding to the bill and look forward-in detail, and we look 

forward to working with it with the committee and other interests 

over the next few weeks, but generally the situation that we think 

is necessary to avoid is a situation which any use of refuges is effectively declared unreviewable, that it is a blanket permission for 

a use of refuges anywhere such that we lose the discretion to limit 

or, in rare cases, eliminate that use if it is conflicting with the purpose for which the refuge was set aside. And that is the situation 

that we think would put us backwards rather than forwards in trying to find a guide to administering the National Wildlife Refuges. 

If we had, in the rare case, a situation where one conflicted with 

the other, we need the discretion to be able to say the migratory 

birds for which this refuge is set aside have to prevail. And I think 

most conservationists would agree with that. But to set any use in, 

bird watching or fishing or anything else, as a purpose of the refuge system makes it impossible for us to resolve the conflicts in 

favor of wildlife if such conflict, although rare, could develop. And 

that to us is a-it wouldn't put us much farther forward. In fact 

it would put us backward from where we are today. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the gentleman for the questions. And, Ms. Beattie, I would like to thank 

you for your testimony this morning. There may be other questions 

that members of the committee have which we will be happy to 
157 

submit in writing. And if you would respond in kind, we would appreciate it. 

Ms. BEA'ITIE. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. SAXTON. Before I introduce the next panel, I would like to 

announce that the gentleman who represents the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland, who was born in New Jersey, who loves Vermont and 

other place, is going to slide over here and take my place for a little 

while. And I will introduce the next panel. Mr. Bill Horn, who is 

Director of the National Affairs of Washington Counsel for the 

Wildlife Legislative Fund of America; Mr. Richard Parsons, Counsel for Government Affairs, the Safari Club International; Ms. 

Susan Lamson, Director of Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources Division of the NRA; Mr. Max Peterson, Executive Vice 

President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies; Mr. Rollin Sparrowe, the President of the Wildlife Management Institute. If you would all take your places, we would appreciate it. I would remind you that we are operating under the 

five-minute rule and we will proceed accordingly. 

OK, Mr. Torkildsen doesn't have time constraints. Apparently 

the gentleman from Maryland does have time constraints, so Mr. 

Torkildsen will be taking my place here temporarily. Thank you. 

You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 

AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON COUNSEL, WILDLIFE LEGISLATIVE 

FUND OF AMERICA 

Mr. HoRN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. On behalf of the Wildlife 

Legislative Fund of America, I appreciate the invitation to appear 

today and present our views on this legislation affecting the Wildlife Refuge System. We strongly endorse H.R. 1675 and applaud 

the leadership of the Resources Committee and the Congressional 

Sportsmen's Caucus for introducing this bill. Quick enactment will 

serve the interests of wildlife conservation, the refuge system and 

America's first and foremost conservationists, the sporting community. 

Wildlife related recreation on the 92 million acre refuge system 

is thriving. Fully compatible hunting and fishing and activities now 

occur on over 260 units of the system, and migratory bird hunting 

occurs on nearly one-third of refuge units. Hunters log over 1 million visits annually to the system, and these public refuge lands 

play a critical and increasingly important role in providing fishing 

and hunting opportunities to America's anglers and hunters. 

Congress has long recognized this important role for the refuge 

system. The enactment of the Refuge Recreation Act and Refuge 

Administration Act nearly 30 years ago outlined that support and 

we were extremely pleased to see that the author of those landmark measures, Representative John Dingell, has joined H.R. 1675 

as a co-sponsor. 

The arrangement under those statutes, though, was a closed 

until opened situation, and frankly it worked quite well for nearly 

30 years. It worked because of the effective consensus that had existed among the Fish and Wildlife Service, state fish and game 

agencies and the interested public that hunting and fishing were 
158 

fully compatible activities and contributed to the conservation of 

fish and wildlife. 

Unfortunately, that consensus is gone. Many interests are now 

hostile or indifferent to hunting and fishing. They would use the 

closed until open regime to erect administrative barriers, making 

it more difficult, if not impossible, to keep units open to traditional 

pursuits. 

We think it is time for Congress, through this bill, to express 

again its support for appropriate wildlife-dependent recreation including fishing and hunting on refuge units. And it is time to 

change the presumptions in law so that wildlife-dependent recreation would be permitted in the absence of compelling reasons to 

adopt specific closures. 

Let me add that Interior Secretary Babbitt articulated, at least 

last year, his support for an open until closed approach at a Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus breakfast he attended last September. At that time, he stated his belief that the burden of proof 

should be on those seeking to close units to wildlife-dependent 

recreation. This organization obviously hopes that the Secretary remembers his remarks and will work with this subcommittee and 

support at least these features of H.R. 1675. 

Let me add, too, that there has been some concern about whether 

this bill, by making wildlife-dependent recreation a purpose of the 

system, strips the agency of its management discretion. Our review 

of the measure indicates quite to the contrary, that the bill does 

provide the agency significant discretion to close areas where it is 

appropriate. First, the purposes language says that wildlife-dependent recreation as "appropriate" is the purpose of the system. 

And it indicates further in the text that closures may be made on 

the basis of fish and wildlife management principles, whether or 

not the wildlife-dependent recreation may be inconsistent with the 

purposes of the specific refuge unit or for public safety. We believe 

that those criteria provide the director and the Service more than 

adequate discretion to regulate these types of important wildlife-dependent recreational activities and protect the fundamental conservation values of the system. 

The bill contains other important features I would like to briefly 

touch on. The specific authorization for cooperative management 

agreements with state fish and game agencies for management of 

specific refuge units is long overdue. As Federal budgets shrink, 

such agreements provide one way of conserving refuge resources 

and achieving budget efficiency, and we have every reason to believe that appropriate units can be effectively administered by state 

agencies consistent with Federal law. 

Other language reaffirming the primacy of state authority over 

resident fish and wildlife is also applauded. Creeping Federal encroachment in this traditional state field has become a growing 

concern, and the provisions in the bill will help reestablish the balance between Federal and state agencies that has served us so well 

for many years. 

Finally, we are pleased with the section regarding interim management. As discussed with Chairman Saxton, the approach of closing activities has caused some hard feelings, and the maintenance 
159 

of those traditional activities until the Service then takes steps to 

close it makes good sense. 

Let me finish by saying that on a couple of occasions members 

have raised issues and statements related to the 1993 out-of-court 

settlement on the Wildlife Refuge System. To answer those questions substantively, I would like to submit for the record a June 3, 

1994, letter signed by 20 wildlife conservation organizations submitted to then Senate Appropriations Chairman, Senator Byrd, 

which explained in some substantive detail the concerns and fears 

with the out-of-court settlement. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HoRN. I would rather have this in the record than the fundraising missives referred to before. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

[Statement of William P. Horn may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Without objection it will be included in the 

record. Thank you for staying within your time limit. Just so everyone will know, we do have a 15-minute vote on. I will ask Mr. Parsons to proceed with his testimony. Mter that the committee will 

go in recess so that we can vote, and then we will reconvene. Mr. 

Parsons. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD PARSONS, COUNSEL FOR 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. PARSONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Safari 

Club International, we would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to present our views. We consider this issue of management of the 

refuge system to be very important, and we are in support of the 

bill by Congressman Young. Young, though, clearly establishes a 

basic mission for the system itself, which is to conserve and manage fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats found within the 

system for the benefit and future generations of the people of the 

United States. Within that mission the bill sets forth several coequal purposes of the system, one of which is fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing, hunting, wildlife observation 

and environmental education. 

We think the mission statement is important because it recognizes two major things. First, conservation is the main goal of the 

system, and second, conservation must be recognized within a 

human framework and therefore it is conservation for the benefit 

of present and future generations that is the main goal of the system. This is critically important and makes this an excellent mission statement. 

Conservation for some esoteric or altruistic reason removed from 

a human framework is never likely to have the financial and political support necessary to succeed, but when it is recognized that the 

mission is conservation of wildlife with the purpose of benefiting 

people, then the refuge system becomes a relevant and important 

thing to many groups of people, one of the most important of which 

is the sportsmen's community. 

It is our belief that the lack of a general statement of mission 

and purpose has been a major factor in the long, sad and often 

wasteful debate over the continuation of hunting and fishing in the 

refuge system. We think it is appropriate now for the Congress to 
160 

speak to the issue, since these are national public lands and since 

we have seen so much turmoil over the goals and purposes of the 

system. We also think it is important to recognize the contribution 

and continuing role of the sportsman in the refuge system and in 

wildlife conservation in general. The sportsman has been a prime 

mover for wildlife conservation in this country and all around the 

world for over a century. 

In the United States, just as in the rest of the world, this century 

has seen people abandon rural areas and the farms and move to 

the cities. Our population is almost entirely urbanized. Very few 

people have an appreciation for the outdoors or an understanding 

of the complexity of the issues involved with conserving wildlife in 

its habitat. While most people care about wildlife and the environment, it is in a removed and superficial way. They simply do not 

have the time or interest to take more than a passing interest in 

wildlife conservation. 

But sportsmen and sportswomen are different. To them, the outdoors and the pursuit of fish and game animals are essential parts 

of life. The kind of deep involvement in the rhythms of nature that 

are required of the sportsman also make the sportsman a major 

supporter of conservation efforts such as the National Wildlife Refuge System. Sportsmen realize the importance of bringing a critical 

watershed, for example, into the public trust so that the wildlife 

values will be preserved. Because of their use and enjoyment of the 

outdoors, they have an abiding interest in conserving it. They 

spend billions of dollars every year in the pursuit of their interests, 

and this in itself creates a vested interest to assure that we maintain both the quality and quantity of key lands. 

As we move into the 21st century, there is nothing to indicate 

that this trend of urbanization will stop. In fact, the urban areas 

are becoming so large and their dependence on natural resources 

such as water are so great, that they themselves often become serious issues for wildlife conservation. At the same time, human conflicts with wildlife are increasing as wildlife becomes better adapted to humans in their surroundings. Deer and coyote are a few 

good examples. The role of the sportsman becomes more important than ever in 

this kind of setting. The sportsman forms the hard and abiding 

core of the people who care enough about wildlife conservation to 

pay the necessary expenses and support the necessary governmental activity to assure that wildlife has a continuing place in the 

landscape. It is the sportsman who has the background and knowledge to follow the twists and turns of the complicated issues surrounding wildlife conservation and then appear in governmental forums to assure that the necessary things are done. It is also the 

sportsman who will, year after year, support wildlife research, assuring that we have the knowledge we need to conserve wildlife. 

And it is the sportsman who will contribute to poacher hotlines and 

other law enforcement activities to assure that the wildlife resource 

is not abused. 

It is unfair, tc say the least, to deny the use of this wildlife refuge system to sportsmen who have been its primary supporters. 

With the challenges facing the system today, it would be unwise to 

alienate this large and active group of supporters. An example of 
161 

the support given by sportsmen is occurring right now in Washington, D.C., where our group, along with a number of others, have 

set up a cooperative alliance for refuge enhancement. This group 

is looking at the funding situation of the refuge system and considering ways to improve it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Safari Club International may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Parsons, for your testimony 

and for also staying within the five-minute limit. This committee 

will be in recess and will reconvene after the vote. 

[Recess] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. The hearing will reconvene. Now we will hear 

testimony from Ms. Lamson. Please proceed, Ms. Lamson. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN LAMSON, DffiECTOR OF CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION 

Ms.LAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Rifle Association of America appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

future management of our National Wildlife Refuge System. We 

wholeheartedly support H.R. 1675 because it recognizes the important role of the hunting community and its contributions to the 

management of the system as well as to all of our national fish and 

wildlife resources. Over 70 percent of our membership hunt and engage in other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The prime sponsor of the bill has had the foresight to take last 

year's organic legislation and skillfully improve upon it. While retaining many of the core elements of that bill, H.R. 1675 addresses 

the two major concerns that the NRA expressed in testimony last 

year. The first was a lack of recognition for the rightful place of 

wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education as a 

primary purpose of the system. The second concern was over the 

increased fiscal burden that the bill would have placed on already 

scant resources for no apparent natural resource gain. By making 

wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education a primary purpose, H.R. 1675 recognizes people as a primary, not a secondary or a subsidiary component of the refuge system. 

We fully agree with Chairman Young in his statement upon the 

introduction of H.R. 1675 that the American people have the right 

to enjoy the benefits derived from the investment they make 

through their tax dollars, Federal duck stamp purchases and entrance fees. 

Elevating these activities to a primary purpose is also supported 

by the comprehensive review of all secondary uses on refuge lands 

recently completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Out of 526 

hunting and fishing programs being conducted on refuge lands, 

only one hunting program and one fishing program were identified 

as being potentially incompatible with the purpose of a particular 

refuge unit. It should be noted that elevating these activities to a 

primary purpose does not give carte blanche for these types of activities to occur on all refuges, nor does the bill mandate that the 

Service ensure that all other primary purposes of the system be applied on all refuges. This point is reinforced in the requirements for 
162 

preparing comprehensive conservation plans whereby the purposes 

of the system applicable to a particular refuge must be defined and 

described. 

Under the compatibility process required by H.R. 1675, we find 

that it supports wildlife-dependent recreation activities as a primary purpose of the system in four ways. First, the bill recognizes 

these activities as presumptively compatible with the purposes of 

the system. Secondly, it requires the Secretary to permit hunting 

and fishing activities on refuge lands if such activities are found to 

be compatible, using clearly defined and unbiased criteria. Third, 

it allows hunting and fishing activities to continue on newly acquired lands unless such activities are determined incompatible, 

thereby establishing what I believe to be a very good, "good neighbor" policy during the transition in landownership. Fourth, the bill 

subjects these activities to a less demanding review process than 

for secondary uses, thus ensuring that the process is not exhaustive fiscally and administratively on the system. 

H.R. 1675 also subjects the evaluation and reevaluation of uses 

within the refuge system to a public review and comment process. 

The NRA supports this process and recommends that it be applied 

to the reevaluation of fish and wildlife-dependent activities, which 

I think is an oversight in the drafting of the bilL 

Now, the NRA's second concern with last year's bill was its failure to recognize the significant fiscal constraints currently experienced throughout the refuge system. By not subjecting wildlife-dependent activities to fiscally burdensome compatibility determinations, H.R. 1675 will assist the Service in conserving its limited fiscal resources, not further exacerbating the problem of the System's $400 million operations and maintenance deficit. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to assisting in the process of 

making this bill into law. Thank you. 

[Statement of Susan Lamson may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Lamson. 

Now we will hear from Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF MR. R. MAX PETERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would accept 

my longer statement for the record, I will brief it in the interest 

of time. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. That will be much appreciated. 

[Statement of R. Max Peterson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency was founded 

in 1902. It represents the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies, so 

some discussion here today about the relationship between this bill 

and the state fish and wildlife agencies I would be glad to address. 

But first, let me say that we support this bilL 

We have been working through several Congresses now to try to 

agree on an organic act for the refuge system. We believe this 

builds on the efforts of last year with Senator Graham's bill. It addresses some of the concerns that were expressed in the House, including by Chairman Dingell. And I would recommend that mem-
163 

hers of the committee might go back and read Chairman Dingell's 

testimony of last year, because it outlines the historical context of 

how we got where we are and some of the, I think, misinterpretation of the 1962 and 1966 Act in which it is clear that refuges purposes historically included compatible wildlife-dependent types of 

recreation as distinguished from other kinds of secondary recreation that came in later in the 1960's. 

Let me say that when we looked at this bill we looked at three 

different criteria for deciding whether to support the bill. First is 

whether it recognizes the appropriate role of the state fish and 

wildlife agencies; and needed coordination and cooperation between 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states. We have said many 

times these refuges are not islands. They don't exist out there by 

themselves. They exist within now what we commonly call the 

ecosystems or larger areas. And so there needs to be and has to be 

coordination with what is happening around them to be fully successful. That has generally happened. This bill makes it clear that 

that is intended to happen as a matter of practice when planning 

goes on. 

The second thing we looked at in the bill, does it really ensure 

that among the purposes of the system, and there are some six purposes stated on page 5 of this bill, do those purposes include appropriate and compatible wildlife related recreation and environmental education. 

The third is that we want to be sure that when we write processes into law, that they are not so time consuming and onerous 

that they cause the expenditure of enormous amounts of time of 

people that are out there that we expect to manage the system, because we can create processes that use up so much time that the 

person can't manage the system for running the process. 

We believe that this bill meets all three of those criteria. The 

other thing that we believe it does is it makes it clear that when 

a refuge is established you don't have to stop the world that day. 

We have had a great deal of unhappiness of people when suddenly 

a refuge is created and all the uses have to stop for some indeterminate length of time while people prepare a plan. If you remember, that became an issue in establishing the refuge in Arkansas 

a couple of years ago so the proposed legislation clearly says that 

existing uses are to continue until there is an evaluation been 

made of them. This bill says you don't stop the world until you 

complete a long planning process, you can allow those uses to continue on an interim basis. The Secretary can immediately stop any 

of them that he wants to stop. He is not required to stop them, 

though, until he goes through a planning process. 

It is very difficult for people who have been supporting a refuge 

through land acquisition, which is the way most refuges are now 

created, which requires the consent of the governor of the state. So 

the governor consents to an acquisition of land and everybody says 

oh, great, this is going to be a nice, big wildlife refuge, and then 

the next day they find out they can't use the area because it is now 

closed. You say well, why is it closed? Well, we have just always 

done it that way! There isn't any good reason but under statute we 

are required to close it until we go through a planning process. 
164 

That is just not understandable to common, ordinary people who 

help put their money into the refuge. 

We have some other suggestions in the bill. We do not believe 

that a use ought to be allowed to continue that is detrimental. The 

Secretary ought to have the clear authority to stop a use that is 

considered detrimental. And we may want to reinforce that in the 

bill itself or the report to make it clear the Secretary retains that 

responsibility. 

The state fish and wildlife agencies have been one of the strongest supporters of the refuge system historically and expect to continue to be. The provision in the bill for some cooperative management, we think, needs to be in the statute. So what is going on out 

there now in some places, such as cooperative law enforcement, cooperative environmental education, cooperative planning, ought to 

be allowed to continue. The extent to which it is done should be 

dependent on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. Chairman, that ends my summary. 

Mr. ToRKJLDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for your testimony. 

Now we will hear from Mr. Sparrowe. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROLLIN SPARROWE, PRESIDENT, 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. SPARROWE. Thank you. We at the Wildlife Institute have a 

long history of working with the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

including fairly recently trips into the field to look at activities and 

programs on specific refuges in the midst of all of this dialog. 

We participated in extensive discussion with groups on each 

piece of legislation over the past few years and would simply comment that we have gone from what we viewed as perhaps too 

green, too restrictive, too protective, to now teetering on the verge 

of maybe going a little too far the other way on behalf of the hunting and fishing community. I say that being one who is frequently 

associated with that community myself. The intent here is to improve the National Wildlife Refuge System. Since last year's turmoil, many of the groups participating in 

discussions of refuge legislation and the future of the refuge system 

have sat down with the Fish and Wildlife Service, including the 

new coalition that was mentioned earlier in testimony here. We 

know a lot more about the refuge system. We know, in fact, that 

there are serious problems of money and staff shortages and operational budgets. 

I would simply point out that last year's concern by the hunting 

and fishing community was predicated on the Fish and Wildlife 

Service trying to cope with the 4 to 5 million dollar shortfall in 

funding. What is likely to happen, based on the tea leaves and the 

proposals for appropriations of '96, is that the refuge system, if it 

takes a proportional cut by the Service, would take at least three 

times that much reduction. I see no way we are not going to be 

faced with some of these same choices again with limited budgets, 

and we are going to be back in the same fix. Some of that doesn't 

seem to match with the mandates to be more liberal with recreation for the future. 

We agree there is a need for systemwide purposes. Originally the 

Institute, when this dialog started, did not feel a need to support 
165 

wildlife-dependent recreation as a purpose. The loss in public confidence brought about by all of this turmoil, we feel now, may lead 

to a situation where we ought to support that. We can go either 

way and think that the agency can manage the refuge system with 

it. We say that even though we are firmly convinced that the furor 

about possible loss of hunting opportunity was vastly overstated 

and the facts and the outcomes prove that. On the other hand, 

maybe in the future with changes in attitudes and so on, if it can 

be stated clearly, it can work as a purpose. 

Now, I say that with a caveat. One of my predecessors, who was 

the first director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ira Gabuelson, 

had a major role in building the refuge system, and I reviewed his 

book on wildlife refuges just yesterday. The record shows clearly 

that refuges were not established to provide hunting opportunity, 

but rather to provide a base of habitat which helps maintain a resource that can be hunted if managed properly. 

This ifl a fundamentally different statement of purpose than saying we are buying these refuges to provide hunting opportunity. 

The other purposes must come first. We must have wildlife and 

carry out the primary purpose of the refuges if recreational activities are going to be pursued. I think we have got to keep that in 

mind for this legislation or any other to be effective. 

Further, each purpose of the system, whether protection for an 

endangered species or allowing wildlife-dependent recreation, can't 

necessarily or automatically be a purpose of every refuge unit or 

every acre on every refuge. There has to be discretion by managers. 

One of our deep concerns is that this furor has led to a loss of confidence in the managers of our national wildlife refuges, and I 

think we cannot afford that. In the long run, we have to have their 

support and give them the kind of guidance and laws that let them 

carry out their management and provide things that people and 

wildlife need from refuges. 

We generally support the planning system as laid out in the bill 

and think it could be very effective. There are refuges that need 

plans that don't have them. We are a bit concerned that there is 

not mentioned a need for some sort of a broad, comprehensive document that lays out, at least at ten or 15 year intervals, where the 

refuge system is going. This would be most useful in addressing 

such things as land acquisition needs on a broad basis and balancing those with fiscal situations and so on. So something like the 

NEPA process and an EIS would be useful. 

We would also comment that the government seems to have a 

problem getting that document out. We have all been waiting for 

it, and maybe they could use a boost from this committee. 

Finally, we are concerned about a few of the specific provisions 

such as transferring management to states. We have a major role 

in evaluating state programs, and we don't see them very flush 

with opportunity to just wholesale take on more lands. So any of 

these fundamental changes in the way refuges are managed should 

be approached cautiously. 

We would be pleased to work with the committee and any other 

parties in the future and debate details and provide more information and appreciate the chance to be involved in this hearing. 

Thank you. 
166 

[Statement of Rollin Sparrowe may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Sparrowe. 

Because of time constraints, I will not be asking the panel any 

questions today. I would ask that all the witnesses be available to 

respond in writing to questions, not only that I may submit but 

that any member may submit. And if there is no objection, I will 

ask that the record remain open for those questions and responses. 

I thank all of the witnesses from this panel for their testimony 

today and ask the next panel to please assemble. 

Ms. MERCHANT. Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that I am the 

first speaker listed on this panel, I would like to ask that Mr. 

Gottschalk be allowed to go first in the interest of the short time. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Certainly, I have no objection to that. I would 

like to introduce the entire panel right now. Our final panel has 

Ms. Ginger Merchant, Executive Vice President of the National 

Wildlife Refuge Association, who is being accompanied by Mr. Robert Herbst of the National Wildlife Refuge Association Board, Mr. 

John Gottschalk of Arlington, Virginia, and Mr. James Waltman, 

the Director of Refuges and Wildlife Programs for the Wilderness 

Society. And certainly, Mr. Gottschalk, if you would like to start, 

please do. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHNS. GOTTSCHALK 

Mr. GoTTSCHALK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My prepared statement is available for the record. I guess I should say at 

this point that I was the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife from 1964 to 1970. Then I was the earliest "Max Peterson" with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, and during that period have maintained a very close association with the Wildlife Refuge System, in recent years not as 

close officially, but as one who participates in all of the many benefits that wildlife refuges provide to the American public. 

To brief my statement, the first point is that I think we are approaching a situation in which we are going to cause a great deal 

of problems for the system if we equate uses of the system with 

purposes of the system. I would like to associate myself with the 

remarks of Mr. Studds, who made a point out of the fact that the 

refuge system, the National Wildlife Refuge System, has only one 

basic purpose, and that is to provide a foundation for the conservation of wildlife throughout the United States. It does not mean that 

there are not many opportunities for uses, and the so-called purposes which the legislation would identify as purposes with equal 

standing are actually, in effect, uses rather than purposes. I would 

like to make that my cardinal comment with respect to the legislation as a whole. 

The second major point that I have has to do with the question 

of the relationship between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

respective state fish and game departments. This has been discussed in previous testimony, but from the standpoint of principle, 

I think we all have to recognize that the old adage that no man 

can serve two masters applies here. This is a national system. It 

is very difficult to conform a national system and all its parts to 

the responsibilities and requirements that occur only in a single 

state. And I think to provide the-I should say to place the respon-
167 

sibility for management decisions in the state fish and game department for a program which is national in scope is a serious mistake. And I would object very strongly to that and suggest that if 

the legislation proceeds as it is, flying in the face of all the history 

which is in the books on the development of conservation principles 

in America, we are going to see a long period of legal dispute that 

I would have to say I thought we settled when I was the director. 

At that time this whole question came up in respect to hunting 

and fishing on national parks and other Federal lands. We worked 

out an agreement then under which we agreed that whenever an 

area on a national wildlife refuge would be open to hunting, it 

would be opened under state regulations. As far as I know, that 

basic premise is still in effect and I would say that to change that 

now with this law would create a tremendous amount of litigation 

which nobody wants to see. 

My other comments are not as germane as those two main 

points, and I will stop with this. Thank you very much for this opportunity to come over today. 

[Statement of Mr. John S. Gottschalk may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gottschalk, for your testimony 

and providing an alternative viewpoint. Is there any preference between the witnesses with who will testify next? Ms. Merchant. 

STATEMENT OF MS. GINGER MERCHANT, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MERCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to go 

next and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Robert Herbst, 

a member of our Board of Directors who was with me, unfortunately had to leave. Mr. Herbst was also a former Commissioner 

of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and a former 

Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior for Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. I am submitting for the record today a letter from Mr. 

Herbst and former Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, Nathaniel Reed. At this point, I--

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Well, without objection they will be included in 

the record. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Ms. MERCHANT. Thank you. At this point I would like to summarize Mr. Ashe's testimony, which was submitted to the committee, 

in his absence. 

[Statement of William Ashe may be found at end of hearing.] 

Ms. MERCHANT. Before beginning to discuss how the refuge system should be administered, I think it is important to again emphasize that it is the only system of lands established primarily to 

conserve and manage the nation's fish and wildlife. That fact is especially significant in the lower 48 states where refuges comprise 

less than one rercent of the land base. 

Mr. Dingell s National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 is a good and sound law. We believe that the only reasons that it should be amended are to flesh out more comprehensive guidance that builds appropriately upon its solid foundation. 

For example, one of the most important reasons for enacting an organic act is to clarify the duties of the Secretary of Interior with 
168 

regard to refuges. The Secretary of Interior manages multiple and 

often competing agencies. Specifically, the Secretary should be explicitly directed to protect the ecological integrity of the system and 

its component units as well as to administer them to fulfill their 

purposes. 

The test of compatibility for determining whether or not secondary recreational and economic uses should be permitted on refuges 

should not be weakened. Existing refuge law, both the Administration Act and the earlier Recreation Act, contain a simple and appropriate standard that uses will be or are compatible with the primary or major purposes for which refuges were established. 

While the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

does not explicitly state the purposes of the refuge system that it 

established in 1966, it does open with the statement, "For the purpose of consolidating the authorities relating to the various categories of areas that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife .... " This statement 

strongly indicates, and the subsequent 1968 Leopold Report concurred, that the fundamental purpose of the system is the conservation and management of fish and wildlife. To change this fundamental premise is to forever change the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. We therefore urge that the systemwide purposes be limited 

to conservation. 

It is clear from the history of the administration of the refuge 

system that ensuring the compatibility of secondary economic and 

recreational uses with the primary wildlife conservation purposes 

of refuges has been problematic. There can be little doubt that the 

elevation of secondary uses, such as wildlife-dependent recreation, 

to a systemwide purpose equal to the conservation purposes will 

further impede the conservation and management of fish and wildlife, if not subjugate it entirely. 

Moreover, in attempting to promote hunting and fishing in particular, the bill erodes the ability of refuge managers to ensure that 

any form of wildlife-dependent recreation will remain compatible. 

We are not opposed to hunting and fishing. These are necessary 

and appropriate secondary recreational uses of refuges that many 

of our members avidly pursue and enjoy, but any use, however inherently compatible it may seem, can get out of hand and become 

incompatible with the refuge's primary purposes. 

And lastly, we support H.R. 1407 regarding the Fort Devens 

lands and the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge introduced by Representative Meehan and commend him for doing so. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Ms. Merchant, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Waltman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES R. WALTMAN, DIRECTOR OF REFUGES AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. WALTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 

testify before you this morning on behalf of The Wilderness Society. 

In addition, the National Audubon Society has requested that they 

also be associated with my written statement. 

My written testimony explains in some detail what we believe 

should be the principles behind refuge legislation and some of the 
169 

major concerns we have with H.R. 1675. Rather than restate what 

is in that testimony, I would like to make four basic points. 

First, while we understand that there is new leadership in Congress, it is important for the members of this new subcommittee to 

know that a great deal of effort has been put into developing refuge 

legislation over the last four years. The individuals at this table 

and at least four of the organizations represented on the last panel 

worked exceedingly hard, over the last two years in particular, to 

develop legislation that would form a consensus. In fact, last fall 

we were able to reach agreement on legislation introduced and 

amended by Senator Bob Graham, the National Wildlife System 

Management and Policy Act, S. 823, an agreement, I should add, 

that few people believed possible when we started that process. 

Unfortunately, the legislative clock ran out on us last year before 

we could reach closure on the bill, but it was not without having 

at least six of the organizations that you heard from today give 

that legislation their blessing. Our groups negotiated in good faith. 

We are, to be honest, frustrated and concerned that the legislation 

before you now is so fundamentally different than that we worked 

on last year. 

Second, in its deliberations on this legislation, it is essential that 

the members of the subcommittee look beyond the rhetoric about 

perceived threats to refuge hunting and fishing programs and look 

at the real issues. Perpetuating these fears that the Fish and Wildlife Service or someone else is going to shut down refuge hunting 

and fishing programs, may make for big headlines and effective 

fund-raising, but they are baseless. In contrast to some of this rhetoric we have heard, opportunities for hunting and fishing in the 

refuge system have been expanded under the current Administration and its predecessors. I am reminded of the old commercial for 

the Wendy's fast food chain: ''Where's the beef?" We hear these 

complaints over and over again. 

A court challenge aimed specifically at refuge hunting under the 

existing legislation was rejected during the 1980's. The lawsuit 

that National Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society and other 

groups filed last year and the subsequent settlement to that lawsuit resulted in a very small handful of changes to refuge hunting 

and fishing programs. In contrast, the actions by the Service to 

modify and phase out harmful economic and non-wildlife oriented 

recreational uses in compliance with that settlement have been embraced by local sportsmen and other conservationists across the 

country. 

Third, while we continue to believe that new legislation can improve the refuge system, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act championed by Congressman John Dingell nearly 

30 years ago is basically a sound law. Legislation should supplement that act and not undermine it. Unfortunately, in our initial 

review of H.R. 1675 we have identified at least half a dozen provisions that we believe would undermine existing law. 

For example, H.R. 1675 would codify an administratively derived 

definition of compatibility that is a proven failure. This administrative definition states that a use will be compatible if it does not 

materially interfere with the purpose of that refuge. As we have 

found through a long array of reports from the Fish and Wildlife 
170 

Service, the General Accounting Office and other groups, this definition has proved unworkable. 

Another thing that the bill would do is reverse the law's current 

directive that refuges are to be managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. That directive was put in explicitly, again by Congressman John Dingell, in the 1976 Game Range Act Amendments 

to the Refuge Administration Act. 

The bill would allow new exemptions from compatibility for a 

range of activities and the bill would conflict with existing language in the law pertaining to the relationship between the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the state. In addition, the bill would remove practically all discretion of the Secretary of Interior to keep 

some refuges closed to certain activities. 

Fourth, the National Wildlife Refuge System has a long history 

that has been guided by numerous pieces of legislation, executive 

orders and other relevant documents. As it considers legislation for 

the refuge system, this subcommittee should take the time to explore all of this history to determine what has worked and what 

has not. 

What is the historic basis for the definition of compatibility in 

this bill before us? We believe that the proposed definition has no 

legitimate basis. In fact, it is a proven failure. 

What role has recreation played in the history of the refuge system? While hunting and other wildlife-dependent forms of recreation clearly have an important association with the system, we believe that there is no basis for considering these activities to be 

considered on an equal footing with wildlife conservation. In fact, 

a close examination of the history of recreation and other uses on 

the National Wildlife Refuge System might surprise many of the 

members of the subcommittee. 

While we believe that it may be appropriate to include language 

directing the Secretary of Interior as part of his responsibilities to 

provide opportunities for these activities within the system, the 

complicated network of provisions dealing with hunting and fishing in this bill are unnecessary and inappropriate. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before you and I look forward to working with you and the 

other members of the subcommittee to ensure the sound management and well-being of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. James R. Waltman may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for their 

testimony. I will just exercise my prerogative for a question or two. 

Looking at the figure of President Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, to 

my right, I am reminded that he was our first great conservationist 

president. He also was an avid hunter, as well. I would just like 

to ask the panel of witnesses do you believe that hunting is consistent with conservation? 

Ms. MERCHANT. I believe that hunting can be consistent with 

conservation and it is certainly a traditional and an appropriate 

use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The issue that, I think, 

H.R. 1675 attempts to address is how should these uses be provided for and how should the determinations be made that they are 
171 

compatible. And I think clearly President Roosevelt, in establishing 

the first national wildlife refuge as a sanctuary for birds, recognized that hunting was not always appropriate even though it generally is compatible with conservation. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Gottschalk? 

Mr. GOTISCHALK. Well, I certainly concur with those comments. 

I have been a hunter all of my life and a fisherman, too. Now mostly I am a bird watcher, but that has to do with age more than anything else. Hunting I consider to be more than just a sport. Hunting is an opportunity for an individual to become associated with 

nature in a way that no other participation in the outdoors permits 

him to become. It gets down to the root of our development as 

human beings coming from the dim, ancient past, evolving as we 

have, and as the philosophers have said, when you get so burdened 

down with the cares of the day, there is nothing better than taking 

your gun out in the field and going hunting to bring you back to 

the fundamentals of life. And I really think that hunting is an activity that has meant a great deal to the country. Its opportunities 

are going to become less as more and more of our people become 

oriented to urban objectives in life and lose that contact with the 

out of doors, which I think is unfortunate. And in that respect I 

believe that the continued use of refuges to provide opportunities 

for hunting is something that should be protected. 

But again, I would reiterate that the primary purpose is to augment our efforts to provide a sound national basis for the conservation of all forms of wildlife and that hunting should have high priority as a use but should not be considered a purpose. Thank you. 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gottschalk. Mr. Waltman? 

Mr. WALTMA.~. Yes, I would just reaffirm what has been said, 

that hunting can be an effective management tool as well as an appropriate recreational activity when it is carefully managed and 

controlled. And I would also like to add that my organization and 

Audubon and the other groups we have worked with through the 

years on this issue have worked very closely with hunters and fishermen across the country when we deal with individual refuges. 

We worked closely with the California Waterfowl Association and 

others in California to ensure that refuges in the Central Valley 

got their adequate fair share of water. We worked with fishermen 

in the Keys in Florida to keep jet skis out of there that were 

harassing the birds and harassing the fish that the fishermen were 

going after. We have worked with hunters and fishermen in the 

plains states to try to stem some of the overgrazing that has been 

a problem, not just for the species that some groups might like to 

go look at, but others that enjoy hunting. 

So yes, there is a long tradition here, but again, these are uses, 

not purposes. And I don't know how more clearly you can get than 

what is written in the Refuge Administration Act. The existing law 

says the Secretary is authorized under such regulations as he may 

prescribe to permit the use of any area within the system for activities including, but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation 

and accommodations when he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which the areas were established. I don't know how much clearer you can get than that. 
172 

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Thank you. Again, I thank the panel for the 

testimony. I would ask that you be available to answer questions 

in writing from any member of the committee. And if there is no 

objection, the record will remain open to reflect and record those 

questions and responses. Also, if there is no objection, all members 

will have five days to revise and extend their remarks. I thank all 

the witnesses for their testimony today and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
104TII CO:\GRESS 1 :-)1' SE:-):-)10:'\ 

173 

H. R.l675 

To amend the :\ational Wildlife l{efuh'C System Administration Act of 1 !)(i(i 

to irnprm·e the manag·ement of the Xational Wildlife Hefug·e System, 

and for otlu~r puq>oses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

:VJAY lH, l!H);) 

:\lr. Ym·:-;(; of Alaska (for himself, :Vir. DI:\'UELL, :\Jr-. IIA:\'~E:\', :\lr. BHE\\'-

~TEI\, :\Ir. DooLITTLE, :\Jr. TAl'ZI:\', }Jr. !'En: GE!\E:\' of Texas, :\Jr. 

liALLEOLY, :\Jr. IIAYE~, :\Ir. CALVERT, :\lr. 01\'l'IZ, :\!t·s. L!:\'('OL:\', :\Jr. 

IIAY\\'01\TII, :\lr·. Cl\E:\IEA:\'~, :\Irs. Cl'lll:\', :\Ir. CoOLEY, :\Jr·. S!L\DEGU, 

:\Jr. WATTS of Oklahoma, and :\Ir. Tl!Ol\:\'BEI\I\Y) introdu<'ed thl' following- bill; whieh was referred to the Committee 011 !{c•soun·l's 

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Aet of 1966 to improve the management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted f1y the Senate and House of Representa2 fives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES. 

4 (a} SIIOHT TITLE.-This Aet may be eited as the 

5 "National Wildlife Refuge Imprm·ement Aet of 1995". 

6 (b) REFEREXCES.-Whenever in this Aet an amend7 ment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment 
174 

2 

to, or repeal of, a section or other pt·oyision, t he refe rence 

2 shall be considered to be made to a seetion or provision 

3 of t he National \Yildlife J{efuge System Administration 

4 Act of 1966 (lG CS.C'. 688dd et seq.). 

5 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

6 (a) 1:\ GE:'\EIL\L.- Se<:tion a ( 16 U .S.C. 6(j8ee) ts 

7 amended to read as follo\l·s: 

8 "SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. 

9 "For purposes of this Act: 

10 " {1 ) The term 'compatible use' mea ns a use 

11 tha t will not haw a materially detrimental effect on 

12 the fulfillment of the purposes of a refu ge or the 

13 purposes of the ·s m specified in scetion 4(a)(3), 

14 as determined by sound rcsouree ma nagement, and 

15 based on reliable scientific information. 

16 " (2 ) The terms 'conscrYing', 'consm·vation', 

17 'ma nage', 'managing' , and 'management' , when used 

18 with respect to fish and wildlife, mean to use, in ac19 corda nce with applicable F ederal and State law:-; , 

20 methods and procedures associated with modern :-;ci21 entitle resource programs inelmliug protet:tion , re22 search, census, law enforcement, habitat manag·e23 ment, propagation , live trapping and t mllsplan24 tation , and reg·ulated taking. 

•HR t675 m 
175 

i3 

"(3) 'I'he term 'Director' means the Director of 

2 the United States l<'ish mal Wildlife Service. 

3 "(4) The terms 'fish', 'wildlife', and 'fish and 

4 wildlife' mean any wild member of the animal king5 dom whether alive or dead, and regardless of wheth6 er the member was bred, hatched, m· born in cap7 tiv:ity, including a part, product, egg, or offspring of 

8 the member. 

9 " ( 5) The term 'person' means any individual, 

10 partnership, corporation or assoeiation. 

11 "(()) The term 'plant' means any member of the 

12 plant kingdom in a wild, unconfined state, ineluding 

13 any plant community, :-;eed, root, or other part of a 

14 plaut. 

15 "(7) 'I'he terms 'purposes of the refuge' and 

16 'purposes of each refug·c' mean the purposes speci17 fied in or derived from the law, proclamation, execu18 tive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

19 doeume11t, or administrative memorandum establish20 ing, authorizing, or expauding a refuge, refug:e unit, 

21 m· refuge subunit. 

22 "(8) The term 'refuge' means a designated area 

23 of land, water, or all interest in land or water within 

24 the System, but do('S not inelude navigational ser25 vitudes. 

•HR 1675 IH 
176 

4 

1 "(9) 'l'he term 'Secr·etary' means the Secretary 

2 of the Interior. 

3 "(10) The terms 'State' and 'United States' 

4 mean the several States of the United States, Puerto 

5 Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and 

6 Guam. 

7 "(11) The term 'System' means the National 

8 Wildlife Refuge System designated under section 

9 4(a)(1). 

10 "(12) The terms 'take', 'taking', or 'taken' 

ll mean to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, 

12 or to attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, col13 lect, or kill.". 

14 (b) COXFOIL\1IXG A:-.IgXD:\IEXT.-Section 4 (16 

15 U .S.C. 6H8dd) is amended by striking "Secretary of the 

16 Interior" each place it appears and inserting "Secretary". 

17 SEC. 3. MISSION AND PURPOSES OF THE SYSTEM. 

18 Seetion 4(a) (16 U.S.C. H68dd(a)) is amended19 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 

20 paragraphs (5} and (6), respectively; 

21 (2) in clause (i) of paragraph (6) (as so r·edesig22 nated), by striking "paragnlph (2)" and inserting 

23 "paragraph ( 5) "; and 

24 (:3) by inserting after paragTaph (1) the follow25 ing new paragraphs: 

•HR 1675 m 
177 

5 

1 "(2) The overall mission of the S,ystem is to conserve 

2 and manage fish, ·wildlife, and plants and their habitats 

3 within the System for the benefit of present and future 

4 generations of the people of the United States. 

5 "(3) The purposes of the System are equally6 "(A) to provide a national network of lands and 

7 waters designed to conserve and manage fish, ·wild8 life, and plants and their habitats; 

9 "(B) to conserve, manage, and where appro1 0 priate restore fish and '''ildlife populations, plant 

11 communities, and refuge habitats within the System; 

12 " (C) to conserve and manage migratory birds, 

13 anadromous or interjurisdictional fish species, and 

14 marine mammals '"ithin the System; 

15 "(D) to provide opportunities as appropriate for 

16 fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, including 

17 fishing and hunting, wildlife observation, and emi18 ronmental education; 

19 "(E) to preserve, restore, and recover fish, \vild20 life, and plants within the Hystem that are listed m· 

21 are candidates for threatened speeies or endangered 

22 species under section 4 of the Endangered Speeies 

23 Act of H)78 (Hi U.H.C. 153:1) and the habitats on 

24 which these speeies depend; and 

dffi 1675 IH 
178 

6 

1 "(F) to fulfill as appropriate international trea2 ty obligations of the United States \Vith r·espect to 

3 fish, wildlife, and plants, aud their habitats.". 

4 SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM. 

5 (a) An:m:-..:ISTRATIO:\', GE:\'ERALLY.-Scction 4(a) 

6 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) (as amended by section 3 of this 

7 Act) is further amended by inserting after new paragTaph 

8 (3) the follO\ving new paragraph: 

9 "( 4) In administering the System, the Seerctary 

10 shall11 "(A) ensure that the mission and purposes 

12 of the System deseribed in paragntphs (2) and 

13 (3), respective!~·. and the pmposes of eaeh ref14 uge are carried out, exeept that if a conflict ex15 ists between the purpo!-ies of a refuge and any 

16 purpose of the Sy:,;tem, the eonfliet shall be re17 solved in a manner that first proteetfl the pur18 pofles of the refuge. and, to the extent prae19 ticable, that abo nehien's the purposes of the 

20 System; 

21 "(B) pro\·ide for eonservation of fish and 

22 wildlife and their habitats \\·ithin the S~·stem by 

23 ensuring effectin· eoordination, intenwtion, and 

24 cooperation with owners of land a(\joining· ref25 nges and the fish and \\·ildlife agem·~· of the 

•lffi 1675 IH 
179 

7 

1 States in which the units of the System are lo2 cated; 

3 "(C) assist in the maintenance of adequate 

4 water quantity and water quality to fulfill the 

5 purposes of the System and the purposes of 

6 each refuge; 

7 "(D) acquire under State law through pur8 chase, exchange, or donation water rights that 

9 are needed for refuge purposes; and 

10 "(E) plan, propose, and direct appropriate 

11 expansion of the System in the manner that is 

12 best designed to accomplish the purposes of the 

13 System and the purposes of each refuge and to 

14 complement efforts of States and other Federal 

15 agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their 

16 habitats.". 

17 (b) POWERS.-Section 4(b) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(b)) is 

18 amended19 (1) m the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 

20 striking "authorized-" and inserting "authorized to 

21 take the follovving actions:"; 

22 (2) in paragraph (1) by striking "to enter" and 

23 inserting "Enter"; 

24 (3) in paragTaph (2)-

•HR 1675 m 
180 

8 

(A) by striking- "to aeeept" and inserting 

2 "Aeeept"; and 

3 (B) by striking '', and" and inserting a pe4 riod; 

5 ( 4) in paragraph (:3) by striking "to aequire" 

6 and inse1ting "Aequire"; and 

7 ( 5) by adding at the end the following new 

8 paragraph: 

9 "( 4) Ente1· into eooperatiYe agreements with 

10 State fish and ,,·ildlife ageneies, pursuant to stand11 ards established by the Direetor, for the manage12 ment of all or parts of a unit or units \Vithin the 

13 System consistent with this Aet.". 

14 SEC. 5. COMPATIDILITY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES. 

15 Section 4(d) (16 F.S.C. 668dd(d)) is amended by 

16 adding at the end the following new para~'1·aph: 

17 "(3)(A)(i) On all(l aftt•r the date that is 3 years 

18 after the date of the Cllaetment of the ~a tiona! 

19 Wildlife Refuge Improwment Ad of 1995, the See20 retary shall not initiate or permit a m•w use of a ref21 uge or expand, rene\\', or (•xteml au existing· use of 

22 a refuge, unless the Seeretar,\· has detl·rmined that 

23 the use i:-; eompatihle \\'ith the purposes of the refuge 

24 and the purposes of the System SJll'<·ified in snb25 section (a)(:3). 

•HR 1675 m 
181 

9 

"{ii) On lands added to the System after the 

2 date of the enaetment of the National Wildlife l{ef3 uge Improvement Act of 1995 existing: uses of any 

4 rpfuge, induding fishi11g and hunting, shall be per5 mitted to c:ontinue 011 an interim basis nntil the See6 retary determines that these uses an· not eompatihle 

7 with the purposes of the refug·c or with the purposes 

8 of tht• System speeified in subse('tion {a)(:1) or are 

9 otherwise ineonsiste11t with this Aet. 

10 "(iii) The Secretary shall permit fishing and 

ll hunting 011 a refuge if the Neeretar.v determines that 

12 the aetivities are eonsistent with the prineiples of 

13 sound fish and wildlife managenwnt, an~ eompatible 

14 with the purposes of the refugl~ and the purposes of 

15 the System specified in xubscetion (a)(:3), and are 

16 consistent with public safety. No otlwr detennina17 tions or finding-s, except the determination of eon18 sisteney with State laws and reg1llatiom; JWm'ided for 

19 in subseetion (m), are required to lw made for fish20 ing and hunting to occur. The Secretary may make 

21 the determination referred to in this paragTaph for 

22 a refuge eoncunently with the development of a eon23 servation plan few the refug·e under subseetion (c). 

24 "(B) Not later than :.-:4 months after the date 

25 of the enactment of the :\ntional Wildlife Refuge 

Ill-\. Hi7iJ III--2 
182 

10 

1 Improvement Act of 1995, the Secretary shall issue 

2 final regulations establishing the process for deter3 mmmg a compatible use under subparagraph (A) 

4 that5 "(i) designate the refuge officer responsible 

6 for making initial compatibility determinations; 

7 "(ii) require an estimate of the timeframe, 

8 location, manner, and purpose of each use; 

9 "(iii) identify the effects of each use on 

10 refuge resources and purposes of each refuge; 

11 "(iv) require that compatibility determina12 tions be made in \\Titing; 

13 "(v) provide for the expedited consider14 ation of uses that will likely have no materially 

15 detrimental effcet on the fulfillment of the pur16 poses of a refuge or the purposes of the System 

17 specified in subsection (a)(3); 

18 "(vi) provide for the elimination or modi19 fication of any use as expeditiously as prac20 tieable after a determination is made that the 

21 use is not compatible; 

22 "(vii) require, after an opportunity for 

23 public comment, reevaluation of each existing 

24 use, other than those uses specified in clause 

25 (viii), when conditions under which the use IS 

•HR 1675 m 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

183 

11 

permitted change significantly or when there is 

significant new information regarding the ef'-

feets of the use, but not less fr·equently than 

once every 4 years, to ensure that the use r·emains compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the purposes of the System specified in 

subsection (a)(3); 

"(viii) require reevaluation of each fish and 

wildlife-dependent recreational use when conditioHs under which the usc is permitted change 

sibrnificantly or when there is significant new information regarding the effects of the use, but 

not less frequently than in eonjnnction •vith 

each preparation or revision of a conservation 

pla n under subscetion (c) or at least every 15 

years; 

" (ix) provide an oppor-tuuity for· public review and comment on each evalu ation of a usc, 

unless an opportunity for public review and 

comment ou the evaluation of the use has already been provided during the development or 

revision of a conservation plan for the refuge 

under subsection (e) or has otherw·ise been provided during routine, periodic determinations of 

•HR 1675 m 
184 

12 

<:ompatibility for fish- and wildlife-dependent 

2 r·ecreational uses; and 

3 "(x) provide that when managed in aeeord4 anee with prineiples of sound fish and \\ildlife 

5 maHagement, fishing- and hunting in a refuge 

6 are generally eompatihh• with the conser-vation 

7 of fish and wildlife and plants and their lmbi8 tats and haw no materially detrimental effect 

9 011 the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge 

10 and the purposes of tlw :->ystem. 

11 "(4) The provisions of this Ad relating to (h~-

12 terminations of the eompatibilit~· of a use shall not 

13 apply to14 "(A) on•rf1ights within the airspace of a 

15 refuge, except as other·wise provided by law or· 

16 a memorandum of understanding with the Sec17 retary; 

18 "(B)(i) a Federal mwigation or cornmu19 nication aid that exists on any refug·e on the 

20 date of the enactment of the :-rational Wildlife 

21 Hefug·e Improvement Ad of 1995 or on lands 

22 at the time the lands are added to the System; 

23 

24 

25 

or 

"(ii) the routine maintenance of established access to, and replaeement of, such an 

•HR 1675 IH 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

185 

13 

aid, if replacement of the aid has no greater impact on wildlife resources than the original aid 

and utili?.es no more land; 

"(C) a highway right-of-way m existence 

within any refuge on the date of enactment of 

the National Wildlife Hcfuge Improvement Act 

of 1 ~)95 and routine maintenance of the rightof-way, if to the maximum extent practicable 

the right-of-way is managed and maiHtained so 

as to be compatible with the purposes of the 

refuge; aml 

"(D) activities autlwri?.ed, funded, or eonducted by a Fedeml ageney (other than the 

United States Pish and Wildlife Service) which 

has primary jurisdiction over the refnge or a 

portion of tlH~ refuge, if the management of 

those activities is in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary 

and the head of the Federal ageney with primary jurisdiction over the refuge governing the 

use of the refuge.". 

22 SEC. 6. REFUGE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRAM. 

23 (a) I;,; GE:\TERAIJ.-Section 4 (16 U.S.C. G68dd) 1s 

24 amended-

•HR 1675 m 
186 

H 

( 1) hy redesignating· snbsections (e) thmnglt ( i) 

2 as snbse<·tions (f) through (j), respeetiwly; and 

3 (2) hy inserting aftPl' :·mbsedion (d) the folhm·-

4 ing new subseetion: 

5 "(e)( 1 )(.\) E::-.;c·ept with l't•speet to refuge lands in 

6 Alaska (which shall he g·m·c·rned hy the refuge planning 

7 provisions of tlw Alaska 1\ational Interest Lands Con8 servation Ad (lG U.S.('. !HOI c•t seq.)), the Se<:retary 

9 shall--

10 "(i) propose a <·omprelwnsiw conseiTation plan 

ll fo1· e;wh refuge• or related <:olllplex of rcfugl's (re12 ferred to in this suhsel'tion ilS a 'planning u11it') in 

13 the S~·stem; 

14 ''(ii) publish n nntif·<' of opportunity for publie 

15 eomment in the Fed em] Heg·ister on ea<:h proposed 

16 emlSPJTation plan; 

17 " (iii) issue a final eonst>J'\"at ion pia ll for t•aeh 

18 planning unit <·onsistPnt with the provisions of this 

19 Aet and with fish and wildlife eonsen·ation plans of 

20 the State in whieh the refug·e is ]()(·ated; a11d 

21 "(i,·) not less frequently than 15 years after the 

22 date of issnanee of a eonservation plan under clause 

23 (iii) and eYery 15 years thereafter, revise the eon24 ser'Vation plan as may be neeessary. 

diR 1675 IH 
187 

15 

"(B) The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive 

2 conservation plan under this subseetion for each refug·cs 

3 within 15 years after the date of enactment of the Na4 tiona! Wildlife Refuge Improvemeut Act of 1995. 

5 "(C)(i) The Secretary shall manage each refuge or 

6 planning unit undet· plans in effect on the date of cnact7 ment of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 

8 1995, to the extent such plans are consistent with this 

9 Act, until such plans are revised or superseded by new 

10 comprehensive conservation plans issued undet· this sub11 seetion. 

12 "(D) Uses or activities COJ1sistent with this Aet may 

13 occur· on any refuge or plmming unit before existiug plans 

14 are revised or new comprehensive conservatio11 plans arc 

15 issued under this subsection. 

16 "(E) Upon completion of a comprehensive conserva17 tion plan under this subsection for a refuge or planning 

18 unit, the Secretary shall manage the refuge or planning 

19 unit in a manner consistent with the plan and shall revise 

20 the plan at any time if the Secretary determines that con21 ditions that affect the refuge or planning unit have 

22 changed significantly. 

23 "(2) In developing each comprehensive conservation 

24 plan under this subsection for a planning unit, the Sec-

•HR 1675 m 
188 

16 

1 retary, acting through the Director, shall identifY and de2 scribe3 "(A) the purposes of each refuge comprising 

4 the planning unit and the purposes of the System 

5 applicable to those refuges; 

6 "(B) the distribution, migration patterns, and 

7 abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations 

8 and related habitats within the planning unit; 

9 "(C) the archaeological and cultural values of 

10 the planning unit; 

11 "(D) such areas within the planning unit that 

12 are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor 

13 facilities; 

14 "(E) sig·nificant problems that may advcr·sely 

15 affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, 

16 and plants \Vithin the planning unit and the actions 

17 necessary to correct or mitigate such problems; and 

18 "(F) the opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dc19 pendent recreation, including fishing and hunting, 

20 environmental education, interpretation of the re21 sources and values of the planning unit, and other 

22 uses that may contribute to refuge management. 

23 "(3) In preparing each comprehensive conservation 

24 plan under this subsection, and any revision to such a 

25 plan, the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, to 

•HR 1675 m 
189 

17 

the maximum extent practicable and consistent with this 

2 Act3 "(A) consult \vith adjoining Federal, State, 

4 local, and private landowners and affected State con5 servation agencies; and 

6 "(B) coordinate the development of the con7 servation plan or revision of the plan \vith relevant 

8 State conservation plans for fish and wildlife and 

9 their habitats. 

10 "( 4)(A) In accordance with subparagTaph (B), the 

11 Secretary shall develop and implement a proeess to ensure 

12 an opportunity for active public involvement in the prepa13 ration and revision of comprehensive conservation plans 

14 under this subsection. At a minimum, the Secretary shall 

15 require that publication of any final plan shall include a 

16 summary of the comments made by States, adjacent or 

17 potentially affected landowners, local governments, and 

18 any other affected parties, together with a staternent of 

19 the disposition of concerns expressed in those comments. 

20 "(B) Prior to the adoption of each comprehensive 

21 conservation plan under this subsection, the Secretary 

22 shall issue public notice of the draft proposed plan, make 

23 copies of the plan available at the affected field and re24 gional offices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv25 ice, and provide opportunity for public comment.". 

•HR 1&7& m 
190 

18 

SEC. 7. EMERGENCY POWER; STATE AUTHORITY; WATER 

2 RIGHTS; COORDINATION; AUTHORIZATION OF 

3 APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 6G8dd) is further amended by 

5 adding at the end the following new subsections: 

6 "(k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act 

7 the Secretary may temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate 

8 any activity in a refuge in the System in the event of any 

9 emergency that constitutes an imminent dauger to the 

10 health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife populi lation. 

12 "(!) Nothing in this Aet shall be C(mstrncd to author13 ize the Secretary to eontrol or n•g1tlate hunting or fishing 

14 of fish and resident wildlife on lands or waters not within 

IS the System. 

16 "(m) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affect17 ing the primary authority, jurisdic·tion, or responsibility of 

18 the several States to manage, eontrol, or reg11latc fish and 

19 resident wildlife under State law or reg<dations in any area 

20 within the System. Reg11lations permitting- hunting or· fish21 ing of fish and resident wildlife ~within the System shall 

22 be, to the e:..'tent practicable, consistent \\ith State fish ami 

23 v.rildlife laws and regulations. 

24 "(n)( 1) Nothing in this Act shall create a reserved 

25 water right, express or implied, in the United States for 

26 any purpose. This Act does not affect any Federal or State 

•HR 1675 IH 
191 

19 

law in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act 

2 regarding water quality or water quantity. 

3 "(2) Adjudication of water rights, if any, that may 

4 exist appurtenant to refuge units shall be pursued initially 

5 in available State administrative or judicial forums. 

6 "(o) Coordination with State fish and wildlife agency 

7 personnel or with personnel of other affected State agen8 cies pursuant to this Act shall not be subject to the Fed9 eral Advisory Committee Act.". 

10 SEC. 8. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

11 Section 4(a)(:3)(i) {16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3)(i)) is 

12 amended by striking "paragraph (2)" and inse1ting "para13 gTaph (5)". 

0 
192 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS H. 1675, 

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEt1ENT ACT OF 1995 

Section 1. Short Title. References. The short title of the 

is "The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 

Wl1en the bill makes amendments to existing law, it is 

amending the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966. 

Section 2. Definitions. This section contains definitions for 

tenns used in the Act including "compatible , "fish and 

wildl:ife 01 1 and Hpurposes of the refuge~~. 

Section 3. Mission and Purposes of the System. The mission of 

the System is to conserve and fish and Wlldlife and their 

habitats found within the System the benefit of present and 

future generations. 

The purposes of the System are to: 

• conserve and manage fish, wildlife and plant populations and 

their habitat within the System. This includes conservation 

and management for migratory birds, anadromous or interjurisdictional fish species, and marine mammals found within 

the Systemi 

• to provide opportunities for fish· and wildlife-dependent 

recreation; 

• to preserve threatened, endangered or candidate 

the habitats important for those species within 

and 

• to fulfill international treaty obligations regarding fish, 

wildlife, plants and their habitats. 

Section 4. Administration of the System. The Secretary shall: 

• ensure that the purposes of the refuge and the System are 

carried out. The purposes of the refuge are to be met 

first, and then the purposes of the System the extent 

practicable. 

• ensure effective coordination, inter-action and cooperation 

with adjoining landowners; 

• maint.ain adequate water supplies by acquiring water rights 

through purchase, exchange or donation in accordance with 

State law; and 

• expand the Refuge System in a manner which accomplishes the 

goals of the System and complements the efforts of other 

State and Federal conservation efforts. 
193 

- 2 -

The Secretary may enter into an agreement allowing the 

States to manage parts of the System. 

Section 5. Compatibility Standards and Procedures. 

The Secretary shall: 

• not expand, renew or extend any existing use unless it is 

determined to be compatible with the purposes of the refuge 

and the System; 

• allow existing uses to continue until the Secretary 

determines that such uses are not compatible; 

• permit fishing and hunting on a refuge when those activities 

are consistent with sound fish and wildlife management, 

compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the System, 

and consistent with public safety; and 

• issue regulations establishing the process for determining 

whether a use is compatible. 

Overflights within the airspace of a refuge, existing 

Federal navigation and communication aids, highway rights-of-way, 

and actions of Federal agencies, other than the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which have primary jurisdiction over the refuge lands 

are not subject to compatibility determinations. 

Section 6. Refuge Conservation Planning Program. The Secretary 

shall prepare a conservation plan for each refuge. A public 

comment period must be held on the draft conservation plan, and 

the plans must be reviewed every 15 years. 

Units are to be managed under existing plans until new plans 

are written. Activities consistent with the Act may occur before 

existing plans are revised or new plans prepared . 

Plans shall identify and describe: 

• the purposes of the refuge; 

• the fish, wildlife and plant populations, their habitats, 

and the archeological and cultural values found on the 

refuge; 

• significant problems that may adversely affect the wildlife 

populations and habitats, and ways to correct or mitigate 

those problems; 
194 

• areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor 

facilities; and 

• opportunities fox, fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Secretary must ensure adequate public involvement in the 

preparation of plans. 

Section 7. Emergency Powers; State Authority; Water Rights; 

Coordinations; and Authorizations of Appropriations. 

The Secretary may temporarily suspend, allow or initiate any 

activity in the event of an emergency. 

Nothing in the Act allows the Secretary to regulate hunting 

or fishing outside the System, affects the fish and wildlife 

management authority of the States, or creates a reserved water 

right for the United States. 

The bill authorizes such sums as are necessary to carry out 

the purposes of the Act in the futu re. 
195 

testimony by 

NORMAN Y. MINETA, M.C. 

before 

House Comminee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

May 25, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, for the opportunity to testify today before your Subcomminee. 

As you know, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1253, to re-name the San Francisco 

Bay Wildlife Refuge after our former colleague Don Edwards. This legislation, which I 

introduced on March 15, currently has 44 cosponsors. As your Subcommittee considers changes 

to the National Wildlife Refuge System, I appreciate your keeping my legislation in mind. 

Mr. Chairman, Don Edwards began his extraordinary career in Congress when he was 

flrst elected to the House in 1962. Don served ably and honorably through 1994, representing 

the needs and the wishes of the people in and around San Jose, California. I am proud that I had 

the privilege to have served with him. 

Undoubtedly, one of Don's lasting achievements is the creation of the San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge. Don's legacy will forever be tied to the Refuge and, Mr. Chainnan, I 

can think of no more appropriate way to honor Don Edwards for his many years of distinguished 

service to this body and to his constituents than to name the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge after him. 

Today, the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is one of our Nation's most 

treasured natural resources. Currently measuring more than 23,000 acres, this land is home lSJ numerous plant and wildlife species and provides critical habitat for species that are threatened 

and endangered. The refuge protects thousands of acres of threatened wetlands around the San 

Francisco Bay, and it is a center for recreation and education. 

The existence of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is due to the persistent 

work of one man -- Don Edwards. From the time he entered Congress, Don worked tirelessly 

for the protection of the Bay. 

In 1972, Don was successful in passing legislation to establish the refuge. That 

legislation authorized the Federal Government to acquire 20,000 acres around the Bay to stop the 

development that was harming the area's ecological balance. 

In the years that followed, Don continued to work to secure appropriations for land 

acquisition for the refuge, and to expand the authorization of the refuge. In fact, in 1988 Don 

introduced legislation to double the size of the refuge. Later that same year President Reagan 

signed the bill into law, leading to what is now the largest urban refuge in the United States. 

Throughout his time in Congress, Don Edwards maintained a close working relationship 

with local community and environmental groups in the Bay Area. I can think of no more fitting 

tribute to Don's work that to re-name the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in his 

honor. 

I hope that your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, will see flt to move H.R. 1253 as a 

stand-alone bill or as part of a larger package relating to wildlife refuges. Again, thank you for 

allowing me to testify before you, and I look forward to working with you on this and other 

issues in the future. 
196 

Testimony ror the Honorable John D. Dingell 

Before 

Subcommittee on Fisheries. Wildlire and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

May 25. 1995 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this Subcommittee. 

I am especially pleased to be here to testify on H.R. 1675, the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995. One of the highlights of my service 

in the Congress has been my close association with our Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

As you know, I authored the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 and played a leading role in the passage of the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. [ have also served for the past 25 years as a 

Congressional member of the Migratory Bird Commission where we have 

worked to acquire more than 600,000 acres of habitat for countless migratory 

birds and other wildlife. 
197 

II 

This nation clearly owes mu~h of its strength and tradition to its bountiful 

fish and wildlife heritage. The National Wildlife Refuge System is vital to the 

preservation of this heritage. Since its humble beginnings at the turn of the 

century. the System has helped to assure that this Nation's fish and wildlife 

resources endure for future generations. 

During our discussion of this issue, it is important to note that prior to 

1966, no single law governed the administration of our wildlife refuges. At 

that time, it was recognized by Congress that this country's expanding 

population and the spread of urbanization would require greater coordination 

and management to protect many species of fish and wildlife. The original Act 

met this need by providing the Secretary of the Interior with the authority and 

the enforcement tools required to manage our national wildlife refuge system. 

It also established procedures governing the acquisition of new areas and the 

expansion of existing refuges. 
198 

III 

Th~ results of this statute clearly ~peak for thems~lves. The System has 

grown considerably from 300 refuges totalling 28 million acres in 1966 to 506 

refuges totaling more than 91 million acres today. In addition, a broad 

spectrum of public interests and values that were identified as vital objectives at 

the time of passage have been met. 

These achievements include the conservation, protection and propagation 

of native species of fish and wildlife threatened with e;r;tinction. We have also 

been able to preserve the diversity of our environment, and to protect fragile 

ecosystems that serve as prime locations for wildlife-related recreations such as 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography. 

In recent years, many have begun to argue that increasing pressures for 

economic uses of refuges and advancements in the field of wildlife management 

techniques require the Act to be updated. Several studies conducted by the 

General Accounting Office and the Fish and Wildlife Service have identified 

problems on our refuges ranging from overuse and toxic contamination to lack 

of funding and proper management. 
199 

IV 

There are certainly positive reforms we can implement by enacting an 

organic act. However, I firmly believe that our efforts to improve the 

administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System must not result in the 

baby being thrown out with the bathwater. 

That is why I am here today to voice my support for H.R. 1675. 

Chairman Young has introduced a responsible and well-reasoned measure to 

guide our wildlife refuge system into the next century. The bill, which I have 

cosponsored, embraces many of the strengths associated with out current 

wildlife refuge system. It also enumerates a clear mission and statement of 

purposes for the system while providing for a comprehensive and workable 

planning mechanism to further the management and care of our refuges. 

I am open to these changes. Howeve.r, we must ensure that the flexibility 

of the current system, which relies on the professional judgements of refuge 

managers to determine how best to administer a refuge, is not subsumed. 

As an avid sportsman, I am pleased that H.R. 1675 wisely recognizes 

that wildlife-dependent recreations, such as hunting and fishing, occupy a 

unique and protected role in relation to our wildlife refuges. Through the 
200 

v 

years, hunters have been a driving force behind the establishment of this 

Nation's wildlife refuges. In addttion to offering financial support through the 

purchase of duck stamps, they have helped to preserve the ecological balance 

on many of our refuges. For thi~ and many other reasons, we must guarantee. 

through a proper regulatory framework. that these lands are readily available to 

them for proper use. After all, they pay a maJor part of the acquisition costs. 

As I have noted, H.R. 1675 is a good bill in many respects. 

Nevertheless, there are several areas, such as the sections relating to the 

administration of the System, and compatibility standards and procedures, 

which can be improved and strengthened. Chairman Young has expressed to 

me his willingness to work to make these modifications. and I look forward l:J 

working with him. 

In the final analysis, I believe that any legislation that is approved by 

Congress must meet one important requirement. It must contribute to sound, 

professional wildlife management that is built on a strong foundation of past 

successes, while dealing with some of the difficult problems of incompatible 

use. 
201 

VI 

H. R. 1765 clearly moves us in the proper direction with regard to 

improving the Administration of our wildlife refuge system. I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Committee to 

advance our shared interests. In doing so. we will preserve our refuges. as 

well as the species of flora and fauna that occupy these national treasures. for 

our decedents. I can think of few more worthwhile endeavors. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to present my views to the 

Subcommittee. 
202 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

The Honorable Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Statement of The Honorable Wally Ilerger 

May 25, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for this 

opportunity to testify on behalf of the families in the Tulelake region of my district. 

My district includes much of the northern portion of the state of California and 

encompasses three national wildlife refuges ~ the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge, 

the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and the Clear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. It also borders the district represented by my good friend from Oregon, 

Rep. Cooley, who is also testifying before the subcommittee this morning. 

These refuges are an important part of the Pacific Flyway, the corridor along 

which waterfowl travel from summer abodes in Canada to winter homes in Mexico. 

They are also the home of over 1300 families who farm over 22,000 acres of refuge 

land under federal leases. Although I support the objectives of the refuges, I have 

serious concerns regarding the duplicative and extremely burdensome restrictions the 

Department of Interior is placing on leased land farming, particularly in the area of 

pesticide use. 

In 1905, the State of California ceded to the Federal government nearly 

160,000 acres specifically for purposes of reclamation, irrigation and homesteading. 

Consistent with this grant, the Federal government helped construct the Klamath 

Project for irrigation purposes and made available a small portion of this land for 

homesteads. Also consistent with this grant, in 1908 and then in the 1920s and 

1930s, the Federal government, by Executive Order, withdrew from entry lands to 

form the three area wildlife refuges, with the limitation that lands suitable for 

irrigation would be farmed. The Bureau of Reclamation leased land for farming that 

had been included within the boundaries of the Tulelake and Lower Klamath Wildlife 

Refuges. 

My biggest concern is over these 22,000 acres of prime farm land in the . Tulelake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges that were designated for lease 

by the Bureau of Reclamation for farming. These lands had been farmed for decades 

and area residents always anticipated that they would someday be available for 

homesteads. Rather than provide these lands for homesteading, however, the 1964 

Kuchel Act retained federal ownership while dedicating these lands to fanning in 

perpetuity. Under the Act, the Federal government retained title to the land with the 

explicit instruction that it did not have the right to redefine the purpose of the ceded 

lands which could be irrigated. 

Although the Kuchel Act did not open refuge land up for homesteading, it did 

provide that farming could continue on these lands under federal leases in perpetuity. 

Today these leased lands annually generate row and grain crops valued at nearly $16 

1 
203 

million. These crops also provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of local and state 

tax revenues and nearly two million dollars in lease receipts to the federal 

government. 

The Kuchel Act specifically gave agricultural undertakings on leased lands a priority equal to the preservation of refuge habitat. Indeed, farming on these lands is 

one of the foremost purposes of the refuges. Unfortunately, however, farmers are 

now forced to contend with a morass of federal regulations and requirements that are 

literally shutting down their operations. Most of these regulations stem from a Department of Interior pesticide policy which prohibits farmers from using a number 

of substances that, in fact, pose no actual threat to fish or wildlife in the area. These 

are pesticides that have been approved under federal and state law and have 

undergone rigorous testing and review. Yet, notwithstanding these safeguards, 

farmers are still prohibited from using them. This duplicative and excessive 

regulation unnecessarily exposes crops to destruction by harmful pests. As a result, 

farmers are less able to obtain bank financing, their crop yields are significantly 

reduced, and their families are put under severe economic stress. As we speak many 

families that have been farming in the region for four and five generations are in 

jeopardy of losing everything they have. 

The Depart~ent of Interior's pesticide policies have created confusion, fear 

and distrust among farmers in the Klamath Basin. These farmers are mystified as to 

why, although they have substantially reduced their use of pesticides over the years 

and generally do not apply pesticides when migratory birds are present, the 

Department continues to penalize them. Often, the Department rejects pesticides 

without consideration of such things as careful application procedures or the cost and 

availability of alternatives. When alternatives are suggested, they are at times more 

dangerous to fish and wildlife than the rejected chemicals. 

Studies by the California Environmental Protection Agency and Department of 

Food and Agriculture confirm that pesticides currently used by Tulelake farmers have 

not been harmful to flora or fauna and have not resulted in any documented fish or 

bird kills as a result of their application. In fact, farmers in the area have been very 

proactive in their efforts to promote the recovery of endangered species. It appears 

that the Department of Interior is simply abusing its regulatory authority based on an 

inherent distrust of pesticides and other traditional farming practices and to 

accommodate extreme environmentalists who wish to eliminate row cropping in the 

area. 

Changes to the way we manage our wildlife refuges, and particularly the 

leased land within the Klamath Basin refuges, are long overdue. We must quit 

treating leased lands as simply an extension of the larger refuge. Rather, we should 

regulate them in a way which reflects their unique status and which adequately 

protects not only habitat but also farmers and their families. I urge this committee to 

take the appropriate steps toward restoring this balance as it considers amendments to 

the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act in the weeks ahead. Thank you. 

2 
204 

BACKGROUND ON LEASED LANDS IN KLAMATH BASIN 

May 19, 1995 

Current Situation 

For the last several years, leased land farmers in the Tulelake and Lower Klamath 

National Wildlife Refuges have been constrained from using the full array of tools necessary 

to productively grow their agricultural crops. The Department of the Interior, through the 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), has primarily 

restricted farmers' use of pesticides, many of which are crucial to protecting the row crops 

grown on the lands. These restrictions are handled in the form of Pesticide Use Proposals 

(PUPs), which farmers and the County Departments of Agriculture must submit to the local 

Bureau of Reclamation office. The PUPs implement the Department's pesticide policy, which 

seeks to select the "least hazardous material when chemical control measures are warranted" 

for use on federal lands. The PUP process has been evolving over the last year and this has 

led to added confusion. 

In the last year, the Department has attempted to streamline the PUP process while 

"educating" local and regional personnel to better understand the Department's policy. This 

has resulted in the submittal and subsequent approval of fewer PUPs. For example, in 1992 

260 PUPs were approved for use in 1993, The County Ag Departments reduced the number 

of applications to 97 for !993 and the Department rejected 24 (73 approved), In 1995, I 02 

were submitted and the Department rejected 36 (66 approved). 

Before 1994, the PUP review process required three levels of Agency/Bureau review 

and two levels of Department (Washington, D.C.) review. This meant that the process was 

lengthy and that Washington often overruled locally made decisions, frustrating and confusing 

local farmers. In 1994, the Department began to shift more responsibility to the region and, 

instead of requiring two levels of D.C. review, consolidated a great deal of authority with Dr. 

Linda Lyon, Fish and Wildlife Service National Integrated Pest Management Coordinator 

(D.C.) and Allen Ardoin, Bureau of Reclamation Pesticide Specialist (Denver). 

Allen Ardoin recently retired under disability and Dr. Lyon has been attempting to 

shift greater amounts of responsibility to the region while ensuring that the region maintains 

her (and the Department's) very high standards for use of pesticides on Federal lands. The 

local and regional offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation now 

establish an interdisciplinary team (IDT) to review all PUP applications and send those with 

potentially severe environmental effects to Dr. Linda Lyon for final approvaL This still 

means that Washington rejects applications that are approved locally. Farmers, local ag 

officials, and California ag and environmental officials believe this is because the Department 

is not sensitive to the needs or aware of the careful application methods of leased land 

farmers. 

Congressman Herger has written numerous letters to the Department requesting a 

2 
205 

better description of the PUP approval process and reasons why pesticides approved locally 

are then rejected in Washington (the recent response is artached). Those rejected have tended 

to be on the Department's Table I list, which includes those pesticides considered acutely 

toxic to fish and wildlife. California officials and farmers believe this list does not consider 

actual risks of exposure and rather rejects chemicals based on their straight toxicity. 

California's pesticide approval laws are more strict than Federal laws, and all pesticides used 

on crops have been rigorously tested and approved for use. 

The PUP process and the rejection of key pesticides remain unsatisfactory to leased 

land farmers, who are frustrated by the Department's apparent disregard for their cropping 

needs. It is important to note that the current regime stems in part from the Department's 

decision to more heavily scrutinize farming activities on the leased lands and environmental 

group pressures to eliminate row cropping in the area (which tends to be more pesticide 

intensive). Unfortunately, it seems that the Department of the Interior is moving in this 

direction as well. 

Regional Interior officials held a meeting with environment groups in late January and 

farmers obtained notes from this meeting through the Freedom of Information Act. The notes 

indicate that environmental groups do not want row cropping on the leased lands within the 

refuge and believe only those crops that provide benefits to waterfowl (grains) should be 

grown (17% of the acreage is row crops but they amount to 67% of the sales value). 

Unfortunately, a FWS official indicates that the way to accomplish this is by restricting 

pesticides because this would make row crops less attractive. 

The Department further contends that if its pesticide policy were applied literally to 

the leased lands, they would have to shut down farming. They claim their restrictions on 

pesticide use arc more related to Acts of Congress, namely the Endangered Species Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Kuchel 

Act. 

In 1905, the States of California and Oregon ceded to the Federal government 160,000 

acres of land for purposes of reclamation and irrigation. The Federal government slowly 

allocated an amount of these lands for irrigation and reclamation (not before California 

threatened to take their lands back because of the slow pace), and dedicated those lands 

unsuitable for farming to the four area wildlife refuges: the Lower Klamath National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Upper Klamath Wildlife Refuge, the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge, and the 

Clearlake National Wildlife Refuge (all by Executive Order). The government included a 

22,000 acre portion within the Lower KJamath and Tulelake National Wildlife Refuges 

(mostly Tulelake) but made it available for leasing by farmers. As this was prime farm land, 

area residents believed these lands should have been homesteaded while the Federal 

government debated within itself as to what should be done with the lands (FWS believed it 

should become purely refuge land while the BOR believed it should be fanned). 

3 
206 

In 1964, the Kuchel Act sought to resolve this issue by permanently dedicating these 

lands to be leased for farming and simultaneously maintained for the benefit of waterfowl. 

An area many believed should have beeome private land to remain consistent with 

California and Oregon's reasons for ceding the land in the first place would instead be leased 

for farming in perpetuity. The operative phrase of the Kuchel Act states, "such lands shall be 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the major purpose of waterfowl management, 

but with full consideration to optimum agricultural use that is consistent therewith." 

By law, the lands are technically managed by the Bureau of Reclamation although they 

lie within the refuges. The BOR and the FWS developed an agreement in 1977 that stipulates 

that the two will share management responsibilities. Farmers annually submit bids to the 

Bureau of Reclamation to farm the leased lands and the receipts are between $1 and $2 

million dollars per year (25 percent of which goes back to the counties). In 1993, the lands 

produced crops valued at nearly $16 million. 

Environmental pressures have recently increased due to scrutiny of the entire Klamath 

Basin ecosystem, which includes among others, four endangered species, the peregrine falcon, 

the bald eagle, the shortnose sucker fish, and the Lost River sucker fish. The Department of 

the Interior has established a KJamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office in the region and 

water supplies have been restricted to help recover the fish. Environmental groups have also 

directly targeted leased land farmers in letters to the GAO and the Department requesting that 

the Department of the Interior: 1) conduct Endangered Species Act consultations on use of 

pesticides on leased lands; 2) adopt an Integrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) for the area; 

3) eliminate row crops and only allow crops beneficial to wildlife; and, 4) place further 

restrictions on use of pesticides in leases. In February 1994, the environmental groups sued 

the Department on the ESA issues and settled with the Department in late 1994. The 

Department completed its ESA consultation regarding pesticide applications in February 1995. 

Farmers in the Klamath Region feel they are in a no win situation. Despite working 

with the agencies, trying to proactively deal with criticisms and using Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) approaches to pesticide applications, they see little relief in sight. The 

Department has contracted with an independent firm to develop an !PM by January 1997 and 

farmers remain uncertain as to whether this will resolve their problems. This is why they are 

hopeful that Congressmen Herger and Cooley can assist them in obtaining relief through the 

Resources Committee reform of policies affecting the National Refuge System. 

The Ferguson Company has begun to develop possible amendments to the refuges bill 

(S. 823) which passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during the 103d 

Congress that would help to address these issues. Although, we are uncertain at this point 

what shape the Committee's legislation will take, S. 823 seemed like a good starting point. 

We will get you this information as soon as we have it formulated. We will also likely meet 

with Conunittee staff to help them to better understand these issues. 

4 
207 
208 

!].S 1! ua l~l~UF !!UH!p ¥~] ~··~··~~~~1111)1 WliU!'"l;:~ 

l:i . ~ ·~~ !alp!• J !l!;f}~!l~jij~j} ''P i'*~.l ~= ~ , i ~ •< I 

~·~ i~lH -~h!iJJ ~ ~~· 'Ia! ~c~il::~:-.,~§;.:11 ~h~'"lFU: 

HL ,, i ~H ~~ '" 'i·i' < ,~~H 8r• l!iiif&liji:JiJ!) "'"l'P ,_,! ~1 ~ I'W ntrH e p~!!>1H "'~ e ~; 3 'i..o:o ~~.!1' .:; .. ;.!I Hl,iiiJir~~~ 

n -.t • -:!. j·· ~ ~iW~i!H f 'l'~'ti11!11tiiJ1 ~ ... ~. ·r~~- 3 Ur~: " iJ' \) ~· ~ ~~3_~11~ ~~1% ! • 

~ h~l~~·~ n~;!~:fn : a IJj lllliJ••J • ~!~l~~i~i~Ji " 1W ·d ~ ~E ~ l.i~'<_,.3;. ;j.:~~ ~~ ~ ~ i '•':; ;:;:!:1 ·JaJ''5~··=~,1· 'H•a~;,;Hn " iti:~! 5~ . • ~S:.a lf!. ~ 

og. !Jw"I"'IJII' ~ "1 ~ ~~P"F· ~~iiHHi~ z ~Jli~li!i ~ ~ ~~ ~!~U ~ ~~ ~ l Hi,.Hfid!; , _I g o,aH,J1~h " ~ ! H d l -c~ la 

]"l" '1Wji-iAT- ~~~jtH Hj~1~ wp' l ~1~' ~'C:!~j Hi] ~~il!Ji-P~ 5 i !j· ii ;o;~l tf~ ;i ! h~j :}~:::1 ps; l"' 0"' ~h3fi~·~tm ~~w !HJ! 1$!~]~· 8.1 l Ji 3']' I i ~ 

~!Fl~~ ~ U!!~ ~~hii~ .. -,.. !'i~:;l ~li~i j~j3 ~-~~-t.st~ .. ~] - ll •! iii ~1 .. .c !! 9f!lJ'J~ ~"' ~~ !P"i ~~~-f~~~ ~;~~··-!]• il~ ~. tl •=>~ .. .;: B'i f '!P...- "'f"~ <_s~~-s c;!*j~~~ ~i!jl~~!~A§N~ ;]fll!; ~H~1;1 ~11· :1i~~~i !Ze~f!: 

"'•1;j':;; ~~~!l;i] ~j~~ ~~ ~-,·~· h• c. r r 1 ·- ~·i~f} aH vi; a1~~~i i§'"~~ <=oz ~j " 

mm~ ~Hi J]~~J~ft ·-~~ -~] ~i! ... i ~~5 ~-fJ z~ e t ~~~;w ~ ~ ~! ~~ ~"' E~"':9 ~!l~:i i "•"~j :~H 3'!JA . ··~· .~.·~~ ~~;~:~ ~if~~:!~.! ~·.~.,'I .- ·-1 ~lr~~- 0 'is -~ \JQ,lf~~t -·~~:!~ jbl~ 5§~~1~~~:;.) "rg·ip ~ . 1;.! s~ HP ~ r~P, ~··-·; q~riijlfhi• §.~!H.i ~um .c··e.~jE ~Hh "1" ..... i .. "' 

- !5io " o~ ~ ; •hUh iJtrui II. ... u I;- ~hfj~ r;l ,.{t ii hiHW!i 
TBSTIKOHY OP KOLLIB BBATTIB, DIRECTOR OP TKB U.S. PISB AND 

WILDLIPB SERVICE, DBPARTKBNT OP TKB INTERIOR, BEPORB TBB 

SUBCOHNITTBB ON PISBERIBS, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, KOUSB RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE, REGARDING B.R. 1675, THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTBM IKPROVEKBNT ACT OP 1995. 

May 25, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the opportunity to testify 

today on H.R. 1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Syste~ 

Improvement Act. The Subcommittee is to be commended for its high 

level of interest in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This Administration supports the concept of comprehensive 

legislation for the ~anag~ent of the Refuge Syst~. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 1675 was not introduced in ti~e for us to 

review it in detail prior to submitting this statement. For this 

reason, our comments will not address specific provisions of the 

bill. Instead, I would like to address those major concepts or 

concerns which we feel should be included in any Refuge System 

organic legislation, many of which were effectively addressed in 

the reported version of s. 823 in the last congress, which was 

not enacted. 

Working in concert with lands managed by States and other federal 

agencies, the Refuge system makes a critically important 

contribution to the conservation of this Nation's fish and 

wildlife resources. Yet the System faces many difficult 

challenges and exciting opportunities as it approaches its lOOth 

anniversary. 
210 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the Nation's only Federal 

land system with conservation of fish and wildlife as its primary 

mission. In addition, refuges provide unique opportunitie~ for 

wildlife-dependent recreation and education, attracting more than 

30 million visitors a year. The first refuge was established at 

Pelican Island, Florida in 1903. Currently, the Refuge System 

includes almost 92 million acres on 506 units, distributed across 

all 50 states and several territories. 

The principle legislation governing the management of national 

wildlife refuges is the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. Proposed amendments to this Act have 

been the subject of previous Congressional hearings dating back 

to 1990. 

I would like to cover three major concepts which we believe must 

be addressed in any legislation amending the Refuge System 

Administration Act. First and foremost, new legislation should 

serve to make this Act truly comprehensive and system-wide in 

nature by establishing a clear mission and statement of purposes 

for the Refuge System. Without legislatively defined direction, 

the System is a ship without a rudder. The current System has 

evolved into a loosely organized collection of many individual 

units, each established to achieve its own, often narrowly 

defined purposes. What is lacking is a system-wide perspective on 

the conservation role of refuges. 

2 
211 

We believe the "purposes" section of any such legislation should 

emphasize the need for a network of lands and waters managed to 

conserve the national diversity of fish, wildlife and plants. 

Those groups of species for which the Service has trust 

responsibilities should be specifically addressed. These include 

migratory birds, most threatened and endangered species, and 

certain anadromous and interjurisdictional fishes and marine 

mammals. 

The Service strongly supports the continuing role of the Refuge 

System in providing opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreation and education, where consistent with the primary 

conservation purposes of individual refuges. Many would like 

this to be a System purpose. We note that all of the discussion 

of this issue in the last congress was based upon the supposition 

that refuge-specific determinations would continue to be made as 

to whether these activities were compatible with the conservation 

purposes for which a given refuge was established. Regardless of 

how Congress deals with the role of hunting and fishing in the 

system, it is essential that such activities continue to be 

subject to refuge-specific compatibility determinations. 

While we are open to various alternatives on this issue, we would 

prefer that this concept be embodied in legislation as an 

affirmative responsibility of the Secretary to provide fish and 

wildlife-dependent activities within the system. 

3 
212 

Our second major concern is that comprehensive refuge legislation 

establish a clear stewardship obligation on the part of the 

secretary of the Interior to maintain the integrity of the Refuge 

~· Congress has clearly established the duty of the 

Secretary to maintain the National Park system for the benefit of 

future generations. This duty was best expressed in the National 

Parks and Recreation Aet of 1978. 

We believe that Refuge System legislation should likewise include 

language establishing a statutory mandate for the secretary to 

ensure for the long-term welfare and well-being of the System for 

the benefit of future generations. It should also direct the 

Secretary to carry out the purposes of individual refuges and the 

System, and to promote the conservation mission of the System. 

A third concept that should be reflected in any comprehensive 

refuge legislation relates to the management of allowed uses on 

national wildlife refuges. Both the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 and the Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962 provide a clear mandate to ensure that allowed uses are 

compatible with the purposes for which refuges were established. 

The issue of compatibility has received considerable public and 

Congressional attention over the last several years. 

A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office concluded that some 

allowed uses on refuges were harmful to wildlife and diverting 

4 
213 

attention from wildlife management. 

A lawsuit was subsequently filed in October 1992, alleging that 

the Service was violating the Refuge System Administration Act, 

the Refuge Recreation Act and the National Environmental Policy 

Act by allowing certain incompatible uses to continue. In 

settling the lawsuit, the Service agreed to review all allowed 

uses, to determine the extent of Service authority to control 

such uses, to prepare written compatibility determinations on all 

uses under Service control and to ensure compliance with the 

Refuge Recreation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The settlement also required the Service to terminate 

incompatible uses or modify them to become compatible. 

A total of over 5,600 uses were documented in the settlement 

review. Of these, 46 problem uses on 30 refuges were resolved in 

fiscal year 1994 through modifications, enforcement of existing 

regulations or terminations of uses. Another 23 uses on 18 

refuges were recommended by managers for termination or 

modification in this fiscal year as a result of the settlement 

review. The analysis of uses on another 30 refuges is still in 

progress. Of the 5,600 uses documented, the Service identified 

some 850 which it does not have full authority to regulate and 

control under the Refuge System Administration Act. 

Despite considerable rhetoric to the contrary, the compatibility 

5 
214 

reviews to date have had very minimal impact on traditional 

refuge uses, in particular hunting and fishing. In fact, only one 

hunting-related change, covering 30 acres, and three fishingrelated changes, including Tishomingo NWR, which the Subcommittee 

considered last week, are being proposed as a result of the 

review. This is, in large part, due to the fact that managers 

have been routinely reviewing these and other uses under 

longstanding policy guidance and have managed hunting and fishing 

in a professional manner to ensure compatibility. 

We believe that the debate surrounding the compatibility issue 

and the actions taken by the Service as a result of the lawsuit 

settlement have led to significant improvements in our management 

of allowed uses on refuges. We are also continuing efforts to 

enhance our policy guidance and expand training of managers. 

Yet we would support the inclusion of language in comprehensive 

refuge legislation relating to compatibility if it provides 

useful direction. For example, we support the concept of 

expanding the compatibility determination process to include 

consideration of both individual refuge purposes AnQ legislated 

purposes of the Refuge System. We would also support language 

regarding periodic recertification of compatibility, as well as 

requirements that compatibility determinations be made in writing 

and be based upon available scientific information and the best 

professional judgment of the manager. 

6 
215 

In this regard, Mr. Chairman, you have also asked several 

questions about our land acquisition process. There are 

approximately 1 million acres of unacquired land found within the 

approved boundaries of existing refuges where acquisition is 

subject to Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funding. At 

current appropriation levels, it would take 25 years to acquire 

all of these lands if all LWCF appropriations for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service were devoted to that purpose. 

Approximately 1,790,000 additional acres have been identified as 

important wildlife habitat and approved for preliminary 

acquisition planning activities. We strongly believe the States 

and the private sector have important roles to play in protection 

of much of this habitat, and do not intend to seek to add all 

such lands to the Refuge System. In most of our planning 

processes, significant portions of the lands in the individual 

study areas are not ultimately recommended for addition to an 

existing refuge or inclusion in a proposed new refuge. We, 

therefore, have no way of knowing what percent of this 1.7 

million acres would ultimately be approved for inclusion wi.thin 

the System. 

While this "backlog" may seem large, the combined acreage from 

these two categories is less than 20% of the land currently under 

Service control in the "lower 48" States, and only 3% of the 

entire Refuge System. The System is a dynamic organization of 

7 
216 

lands that will always have gaps to be filled. In order to be 

strategic with our limited funding, we have used a Land 

Acquisition Priority System since 1987 to ensure that lan~ 

acquisition budget requests are directed towards projects that 

best meet the Service's highest goals, objectives and mandates. 

I would also add that we do not necessarily seek to acquire all 

lands within a refuge boundary. In many cases the landowners do 

not want to sell, and their past stewardship of the land was what 

made it desirable for inclusion in the refuge in the first place. 

In such cases, we are more than willing to be good neighbors and 

direct our efforts elsewhere. As a matter of policy, we rarely 

utilize condemnation except as a mutually agreed-upon effort to 

settle title problems or resolve differences in land values, and 

we neither have nor seek regulatory powers over such inholdings. 

We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that you have been interested in 

ensuring that traditional uses of newly acquired refuge lands not 

be prohibited during the period between acquisition and 

completion of refuge planning. There are two basic reasons under 

current law why this has occurred. 

The first is that, legally, no activity under our jurisdiction 

may occur unless we determine that it is compatible with refuge 

purposes. This requires substantive information on the level of 

use and on all of the diverse biological resources on the refuge. 

8 
217 

This information is sometimes lacking when new refuges are 

established. On a more practical level, it takes time to staff 

new and expanded refuges, making it impossible to immediately 

collect pertinent biological information and to properly manage 

public activities to ensure public safety. 

We recognize that this situation needs correction, but we are 

concerned that the indirect effects of any legislative solutions 

be carefully considered before action is taken. To help resolve 

this problem, we propose to change our procedures to ensure that 

interim compatibility determinations are made on existing types 

of wildlife-dependent uses prior to acquisition. This would be 

accomplished as part of the pre-acquisition planning process, 

with opportunity for public review and comment. Thus, uses like 

hunting or fishing that were found compatible through this 

process prior to acquisition would be allowed to continue until a 

permanent comprehensive management plan for the refuge has been 

completed. At that point, the interim compatibility findings 

could be made permanent. We would support inclusion of 

procedural guidance along these lines in refuge legislation. 

While still on the subject of compatibility, I would like to 

bring up one additional topic. In the last Congress, the 

Administration proposed a package of amendments to Senator 

Graham's refuge bill, S. 823. These dealt with mitigation of 

adverse impacts of agency actions on refuges, clarifying control 

9 
218 

of airspace over refuges, ensuring continuation of navigational 

aids and highway rights-of-way and resolving specific problems 

with military uses at certain refuges in the southwest. Because 

these amendments were tailored to the specific wording of that 

bill, we intend to review the language of H.R. 1675 to determine 

the extent to which a similar package of amendments need to be 

offered by the Administration. We will work closely with the 

committee's staff on this matter. 

An additional concept that we would support in comprehensive 

refuge legislation for the Refuge system is planning. We believe 

that it is extremely important to have in place both clear 

purposes for the system and the planning necessary to achieve 

those purposes. Earlier legislative proposals incorporated both a 

System "plan" and procedural guidance for development of plans 

for individual refuges or groups of related refuges. We believe 

that such guidance is useful and appropriate. 

Our current Refuge system Plan and EIS, Refuges 2003, was 

released for public comment in March, 1993. A series of public 

hearings were held in throughout the country, and over 22,000 

written comments were received. 

Since the close of the comment period, we have moved ahead to 

refine our views on the "preferred alternative." Over the same 

period we have been very actively involved in several issues of 

10 
219 

direct relevance to the future of the Refuge System, including 

the comprehensive refuge legislative proposals and the 

compatibility lawsuit. In view of the evolving nature of this 

debate and the very real prospect of legislative direction, we 

have delayed release of a final Befuges 2003 document and will 

continue to do so. We are also considering alternative ways to 

format the final System plan. However, we remain committed to the 

need for a document that articulates a "vision" of the System and 

a pathway to achieve it. 

We believe that each refuge unit, or group of related refuges, 

should ultimately develop and implement_a comprehensive 

management plan, consistent with individual refuge purposes and 

the legislated purposes of the System. The provisions of a.R. 

1675 should ensure that there is substantive opportunity for 

public involvement in the planning process. 

Having addressed the concepts that we feel should be included in 

the Bill, I would like to add a word of caution about the impact 

of any piece of legislation on the day-to-day work of the Refuge 

system staff on the ground. We must avoid well-intentioned but 

unworkable or unnecessarily complicated procedural requirements 

that will make it impossible for managers and their staff to do 

their work. 

On this point, I can assure this Committee that there is no such 

11 
220 

thing as a lazy or indifferent refuge manager. Frequently rising 

before dawn and toiling well into the night, refuge staff always 

humble and inspire me with their dedication to conservation. It 

is essential that we not add to their burdens by burying them in 

new paperwork. 

The backlog of major maintenance projects on refuges is nearly 

$400 million, of which $153 million is for construction projects. 

We estimate it would require about $70 million in annual 

maintenance funding, an increase of about $23.5 million above the 

fiscal year 1996 requested level, and $18 million above the 

fiscal year 1995 enacted level, in order to prevent the backlog 

from increasing. In the next budget cycle, we hope to propose 

greater internal efficiencies, increased use of cost recovery and 

greater use of cost sharing partnerships to help meet this need. 

We are taking steps to improve the utility of our data management 

systems to ensure we are identifying and focusing attention on 

the highest priority projects. We are encouraged by the growing 

interest of the diverse community of non-governmental 

organizations who have recently come together to address these 

issues as the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). 

Perhaps the most troubling thing I learned upon accepting the 

position as Service Director is the extremely low level of 

awareness and appreciation of the Refuge System by the American 

12 
221 

public. Regrettably, the Refuge system is truly this nation's 

best kept secret, a "stealth" conservation system, if you will. 

we believe the only way to address this very real problem is 

through a comprehensive effort to share our message, to promote 

our wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities where they are 

compatible and to involve the public actively in the refuge 

management planning process. Again, this effort does not come 

without associated cost, but it is surely critical to the future 

of this unique and special System of wildlife lands. 

If, at the end of the day, new refuge legislation leaves the 

Refuge system protected with a higher standard of land 

stewardship to ensure its well-being in perpetuity, then these 

efforts will have been worth it. If such legislation, however, 

would ultimately leave the system in a weaker position than 

before, then we should consider alternative means of advancing 

refuge conservation. 

This concludes my prepared testimony. Again, Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for your interest in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and your commitment to the wise management of this 

Nation's rich natural heritage. I look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee as we seek to perfect H.R. 1675 and I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you have. 

13 
IIII'Q;/ 

~ 

222 

THE WILDLIFE LEGISLATl\'E FC)lD OF AMERICA 

Statement of 

:-.1r. William P. Horn 

National Affairs Director and Washington Counsel of 

The Wildlife Legislative Fund of America 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

\lay 25, 1995 

"atmnal AHa1r-; Olhu: 

( t>nfl<YIKUI /wermc. '\_\V 

Sune !20i! 

Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA), l 

appreciate the invitation to appear today and present our views on legislation affecting 

administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We strongly endorse 

H.R. 1675, the "National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995," and applaud the 

leadership of the Resources Committee and the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus for 

introducing this important bill. Quick enactment will serve the interests of wildlife 

conservation, the Refuge System, and America's first and foremost conservationists, the 

sporting community. 

The WLFA is an association of sportsmen's conservation organizations established 

to protect the heritage of American sportsmen to hunt, fish. and trap. Through its 

associated organizations. the WLFA represents an aggregate membership of more than 1.5 

million sportsmen-conservationists. 

The NWRS has a long and distinguished history as an institution for conservation. 

In 1903, when Teddy Roosevelt established the first Refuge at Pelican Island, he and fellow 

conservationists envisioned a network of Federal lands to specifically benefit wildlife. Since 

its early beginnings, the NWRS has effected the conservation of our nation's most valuable 

natural resources. Today, wildlife on the NWRS is thriving a tribute to the vision of 

America's conservation movement. 

Wildlife related recreation on the 92 million-acre "'WRS is thriving. Fully 

compatible hunting and fishing activities occur on over 260 units of the System and 

migratory bird hunting occurs on nearly one-third of the NWRS units. Hunters log over one 

million visits annually to the System. These public Refuge lands play a critical and 
223 

increasingly important role in providing fishing and hunting opportunities to America's 

anglers and hunters. 

Congress has long recognized this role. The enactment of the Refuge Recreation Act 

and Refuges Administration Act thirty years ago outlined that support. Provisions regarding 

the Migratory Bird Fund also specify that Refuge units must provide an appropriate 

measure of hunting opportunities. We are extremely pleased to see the author of those 

landmark measures, Rep. John Dingell, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1675. 

The "closed until open" arrangement in those Acts served well for a long time. It 

worked because of the effective consensus among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State 

fish and game agencies, and the interested public -- primarily sportsmen -- that hunting and 

fishing were fully compatible activities and contributed to conservation of fish and wildlife. 

These activities were an accepted part of Refuge system management and not a matter of 

dispute. 

Unfortunately, that consensus is gone. Many interests are now hostile or indifferent 

to hunting and fishing. They would use the "closed until open" regime to erect 

administrative barriers making it more difficult, if not impossible, to keep units open to 

traditional pursuits. That was the heart of our concern about the Administration's 1993 

refuge lawsuit settlement. 

The rise of interests hostile to traditional activities on Refuge units is a primary 

reason why H.R. 1675 is vitally needed. It is time for Congress to express again its support 

for appropriate wildlife dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing activities, on 

Refuges. And, it is time to change the presumptions so that wildlife dependent recreation, 

including fishing and hunting, is permitted in the absence of compelling reasons to adopt 

a specific closure. 

We strongly support the sections of the bill that make wildlife dependent recreation 

a purpose of the Refuge system, provide that hunting and fishing are compatible with fish 

and wildlife conservation and the principles of fish and wildlife management, and mandate 

that units be open unless there are specific reasons, such as public safety, to make a closure. 

Let me add that Interior Secretary Babbitt articulated his support for an "open until 

closed" approach at a Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus breakfast last September. He 

stated his belief that the burden should be on those seeking to close units to hunting. The 

WLFA hopes that the Secretary remembers those remarks and will support at least these 

features of the bill. 

H.R. 1675 contains other important features that we endorse . The specific 

authorization for cooperative management agreements with State fish and game agencies 

for management on Refuge units is long overdue. As federal budgets shrink, such 

agreements provide one way of conserving Refuge resources and achieving budget efficiency. 

2 
224 

We have every reason to believe that many units can be effectively administered by state 

agencies consistent with federal law. 

The language reaffirming the primacy of State authority over resident fish and 

wildlife is also applauded. Creeping federal encroachment in this traditional State field has 

become a growing concern. The statements in this bill will help reestablish the balance 

between federal and state agencies that has served us so well for so many years. 

Planning on Refuge units has been haphazard in the past. Only in Alaska has the 

Service been required to prepare comprehensive plans. Those provisions directing plan 

preparation for lower 48 units appears to parallel the Alaska requirements and should work 

just as well. 

We are also pleased with the section regarding interim management. The Service 

has created hard feelings in many locales by acquiring land and immediately closing down 

traditional compatible uses until it can complete a pian to reopen the area. This is another 

disturbing aspect of the "closed until open" arrangement. H.R. 1675's provision maintaining 

traditional uses until the Service acts to close those found incompatible is just common 

sense. It will do much to resolve many local issues and otherwise facilitate acquisition of 

lands through the use of Duck Stamp funds. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. We urge fast actions on 

H.R. 1675 and want you to know that the Committee can count on strong support from the 

nation's first and leading conservationists -- its anglers and hunters. 

3 
225 

Safari Club International 

TESTIMONY OF 

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL 

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

on May 25, 1995 

on the 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT ACT 

OF 1995 

Submitted by D. Patrick Bollman, President 

Appearing Before the Subcommittee: 

Congressman Ron Marlenee, Legislative Director 

Mr. Richard Parsons, Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

4800 WEST GATES PASS ROAD + TUCSON, ARIZONA S5745-9490 • (602) 620-1220 • FAX (602) 622-1205 • TELEX 880149 * Printed or.- recycled paper 
226 

Chairman Saxton and other members of the Subcommittee: 

Introduction and Summary 

On behalf of Safari Club lntematwnal, I would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to present the views of the one million sportsmen and women that we 

represent. We consider this issue of the management of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System to be very important 

Hunting occurs on 86.2 million acres of public lands in 272 of the refuges 

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. But since 1984, some animal rights 

groups have been trying evel}1hing within their power to terminate hunting in the 

System. Despite the fact that hunting has long been recognized as an acceptable and 

traditional usc of the public lands and that it is a legitimate and important usc from 

the wildlife conservation perspective, these people have opposed it simply because 

they want to see an end to hunting. 

Contributing factors to the continuing foment over hunting in the Refuge 

System are that the System lacks a clear statement of its mission, it lacks a clear 

delineation of purposes for the system, and it lacks a definition of what is a compatible 

use. Also. when a new refuge is added to the system. traditional hunting and fishing 

activities arc prohibited until they arc found to be compatible and a refuge plan is 

completed. This can sometimes take years. The public has no input into the 

compatibility determination process. 

The recent lawsuit brought by Audubon Society and its followers resulted in an 

out-of-court settlement in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to review 

the compatibility of all uses of the System and to judge its ability to fund various uses. 

Although the Audubon lawsuit was not aimed at hunting or fishing uses, there were 

many indications that hunting and fishing uses would be casualties of the process. 

The bill we arc here to discuss today, proposed by Congressman Don Young, 

Chairman of the Committee on Resources and entitled the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1995, solves these problems and brings sense to the management 

of these important public lands. lt: 

-clearly states the mission and goals of the System, 

2 
227 

- makes hunting and other wildlife-dependent uses statutory purposes of the 

System. 

- allows the continuation of traditional uses until the compatibility 

determinations are made, and 

- guarantees that hunting and fishing are permitted uses unless found to be 

inconsistent with public safety or with the primary purpose of a particular 

refuge. 

Safari Club International fully supports this bilL In this we are joined by the 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the 

International Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association 

and the Wildlife Management Institute. 

Conservation Activities of SCI 

l would like to take a moment to familiarize the Subcommittee with the 

conservation activities of Safari Club International (SCI) As the name implies, SCI 

is a worldwide organization of conservationists who are hunters. We represent the 

interests of more than one million sportsmen. Because our members pursue their 

interests on a global scale. we are involved in many international wildlife conservation 

issues. But the bulk of our chapters and our membership is in the United States and 

is deeply involved in conservation and education on issues of domestic concern as well 

as the international issues. 

We have more than l 15 chapters within the United States. and each one of 

them is involved with wildlife conservation at the local leveL They are each required 

to hold at least one fundraiser per year. Often these funds go to state wildlife 

management agencies for research and law enforcement. 

SCI also has major programs in conservation education. It owns and operates 

a world-class natural history museum in Tucson, Arizona. Children and visitors from 

around the country come to see SCI's state-of-the-art educational computer displays 

and dioramas depicting the role and place of wildlife in the world around us. 

SCI owns and operates a conservation education training facility on a private 

ranch in the Bridger-Teton National Forest south of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Every 

3 
228 

year we train secondary-level resource people and teachers. Besides studying basic 

concepts of wildlife conservation and ecology. they learn about the role of the private 

sector and how it interacts with the various government agencies. including the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. One element of our training program always takes 

place in conjunction with the managers of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service's 

National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole. 

Through our chapters we also carry out Sensory Safaris ("fingertip" tours of 

wildlife mounts for the sight-impaired) and Sportsmen Against Hunger donations 

(game meat donated to the homeless and the poor). 

History of the Refuge Issue 

The National Wildlife Refuge System was founded by sportsmen and has 

always been supported by sportsmen The enormous amount of acreage included in 

the System does not even begin to tell the story of its importance to wildlife 

conservation and to sportsmen·· you have to consider the wildlife value of the habitat 

included in the refuges to get a true picture of its signiHcance for conservatiOn. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 1s also an excellent example of 

cooperation between government and private sectors in assuring that important habitat 

is held as a public trust, for the benefit of aiL As an example. SCI has supported the 

transfer of lands on Kodiak Island in Alaska into the Refuge System because those 

lands represent significant wildlife habitat values for a variety of species. 

The uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System have been a contentious issue 

for many years. Some organizations have raised legitimate concerns over uses that 

were incompatible with the wildlife conservation purposes of the System. They have 

also been concerned with the perennial funding problems for operations and 

maintenance of the refuges 

Other organizations have however. since 1984. pursued a bogus and 

manipulative issue regarding the contmuation of lishing and hunting in the System. 

One of these organizations has revealed, in its long-range plan, that it's goal is to end 

hunting completely in the refuge system. This is not because hunting is inconsistent 

with wildlife conservation, but because this organization and its allies are animal 

4 
229 

rightists who simply oppose hunting. The campaign of this group has wasted an 

enormous amount of energy and money, and has distracted everyone from the truly 

serious problems facing the refuge system. 

As a result of all ofthe attention to refuge issues, both legitimate and bogus, we 

have seen the following bewildering progression of lawsuits, environmental impact 

statements and draft legislation since 1984: 

1984: Lawsuit to stop hunting in refuges (later dismissed for lack of standing) 

1986: I 0-year programmatic EIS begun by FWS 

1988: draft EIS published 

1989: draft EIS withdrawn; Congress asks for GAO study. oversight hearings 

!990: Studds bill on refuge management (HR 4948); FWS begins work on 

second ElS (Refuges 2003) 

1991: Green bill to stop hunting (HR 330); Studds refuge management bill (HR 

2881): Gibbons/Graham refuge management bill (HR 3688, S 1862) 

1992: House holds hearings: Audubon Suit over incompatible uses 

1993: Draft EIS published; FWS settles Audubon la~-suit 

1994: Gibbons/Graham bill on refuge management (HR 833, S 823); FWS 

review rumored to close hunting on many refuges: Sportsmen's groups pursue 

issue with FWS. help to form CARE to deal with funding shortfall 

1995: Congressman Don Young sponsors National Wildlife Refuge 

Management Improvement of 1995, Congressman Saxton holds hearings. 

Comments on the Bill 

As I said at the outset, SCI fully supports Congressman Young's bill. The bill 

amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. It sets 

forth a clear statement of the overall purposes of the Refuge System, calls for 

development of regulations to assure that the compatibility of uses of the system are 

evaluated, and establishes a comprehensive planning system for refuge management. 

These are important improvements in the management of the System. 

In making our observations on the bill, I will address the following specific 

issues that you raised in the invitation to testify: 

5 
230 

- the problems with the lack of a system-wide statement of purposes; 

- the Importance of makmg wildlife-dependent recreation a purpose of the 

system; 

-the continuation of hunting and fishing on newly-acquired lands; and 

- the importance of system-wide planning. 

Description of the Mission Statement of List of Purposes 

The Young bill clearly establishes a basic mission for the System, which is: 

to conserve and manage fish. wildlife and plants and their habitats found 

within the System for the benefit of present and future generations of the people 

of the United States." 

Within that mission. the bill sets forth several co-equal purposes of the system. One 

of these is "fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation. including fishing and hunting, 

wildlife observation, and environmental education." 

The mission statement recognizes two major things: first, that it is conservation 

that is the main goal of the System: and second, that conservation must be recognized 

within a human framework and therefore it is conservation for the benefit of present 

and future generations that is the main goal of the system. 

This is critically important and makes this an excellent mission statement. 

Conservation for some esoteric or altruistic reason removed from a human framework 

is never likely to have the financial and political support necessary to succeed. But 

when it is recognized that the mission is conservation of wildlife for the purpose of 

benefitting people, then the Refuge System becomes a relevant and important thing 

to many groups of people, one of the most important of which is the sportsmen's 

community. 

Moving to the statement of purposes, the mclusion of wildlife-dependent 

recreation as one of the co-equal purposes of the System recognizes the legitimacy and 

importance of those uses. This has been the consistent view of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, as stated in 1986: 

6 
231 

" . . . Service policy recognizes hunting as an acceptable, traditional and 

legitimate form of wildlife-oriented recreation." 

The Young bill requires the adoption of regulations under which compatibility 

findings will be made, and specifies the components of the regulations. This 

regulatory program will allow public input and will assure that uses are re-evaluated 

when there are significant changes in circumstances. 

Benefit of the Mission Statement and List of Purposes 

The mission statement specification of purposes and establishment of a 

regulatory program to evaluate compatibility are major improvements in the 

management of the Refuge System. They bring sense and order mto a system that has 

grown up like the legendary Topsy. 

The System began with the establishment of a single refuge in 1903. and then 

grew as opportunity allowed. No legislative attempt to address the overall 

management of the colle.:tion of refuges was even made until Congress passed the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration of 1966. But that law. for all of its good 

points. was still not an "organic act" that provided a statement of mission and purpose 

for the system. 

It is our belief that this very lack of a general statement of mission and purpose 

has been a major factor in the long, sad and wasteful debate over the continuation of 

hunting and fishing in the System. We think it is appropriate now for the Congress 

to speak to the issue. since these arc national public lands and since we have seen so 

much turmoil over the goal and purposes of the system. We also think it is 

appropriate to recognize the contribution and continuing role of the sportsman in the 

Refuge System. and in wildlife conservation in general. 

The sportsman has been a prime mover for wildlife conservation in this country 

and around the world for well over a century. In the U.S., the PittmanRobertson/Dingell-.lohnson!Wallop-Breaux funding program and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System are excellent examples. John Dingell, a champion of wildlife 

conservation in the Congress, said last year during testimony on the Graham bill, that: 

7 
232 

.. it is important that we recognize our Nation's hunters and fishermen for 

providing the constant support that has been essential to the expansion and 

well-bemg of the Wildlife Refuge System We simply cannot take he refuges 

away from the hunters and fishem1en -- who were the driving force lor their 

establishment -- and put them under glass as museums or outdoor zoos or 

junior grade national parks.. If huntmg and fishing under appropriate 

conditions is not a purpose of the Wildlife Refuge System then it seems to me 

that we have hopeless!) lost our v\a) " 

Jn the United StateS. JUSt a'i 111 the rest of the world. this century has seen people 

abandon rural areas and the farms and move to the cities. Our population is almost 

entirely urbanized. Very few people have an appreciation for the outdoors or an 

understanding of the complexity of the tssues involved with conserving wildlife and 

its habitat. While most people care about wildlife and the environment it is in a 

removed and superficial way They simply do not have the time or interest to take 

more than a passing interest in wildlife conservation. 

But the sportsman and sportswoman are different. To them, the outdoors and 

the pursuit of fish and game ammals are essential parts of life. The kmd of deep 

involvement in the rythyms of nature that are required of the sportsman also make the 

sportsman a major supporter of conservation efforts such as the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Sportsmen realize the importance of bringing a critical watershed. tor 

example. mto the public trust so that the wildlife values will be preserved. Because 

of their use and enJoyment of the outdoors. the~ have an abiding interest in conserving 

it. They spend billions of dollars every year 111 the pursuit of their interests, and this 

in itself creates a vested interest in others to assure that we maintain both the qualil) 

and quantity of key lands. 

As we move into the 21st centuf) there is nothing to indicate that the trend to 

urbanization will stop. In fact. the urban areas are becoming so large, and their 

dependence on narural resources such as water arc so great. that they themselves often 

become serious issues for wildlife conservation. At the same time, human conflicts 

with wildlife are increasing as wildlife becomes better adapted to humans in their 

surroundings. Deer are now common in great numbers in urban and suburban areas. 

They are delightful to watch. but they are a hazard to cars, eat expensive ornamental 

plants. and carry infectious diseases. 

8 
233 

The role of the sportsman becomes more important than ever in this kind of 

setting. The sportsman fonns the hard and abiding core of the people who care 

enough about wildlife conservation to pay the necessary expenses and support the 

necessary governmental activity to assure that wildlife has a continuing place in the 

landscape. It is the sportsman who has the background and knowledge to follow the 

twists and turns of the complicated issues surrounding wildlife conservation, and then 

appear in governmental forums to assure that the necessary things are done. It is also 

the sportsman who will, year after year, support wildlife research, assuring that we 

have the knowledge we need to conserve wildlife. And it is the sportsman who will 

contribute to poacher hotlines and other law enforcement activities to assure that the 

wildlife resource is not abused. 

It is unfair, to say the least, to deny the use of the system to sportsmen. who 

have been its primary supporters. Also, with all the challenges facing the System 

today it would be unwise to alienate this large and active group of supporters. An 

example of the support given by sportsmen is occurring right now in Washington, DC. 

A number of sportsmen's groups and other environmental organizations have fonned 

the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. This group is looking at the 

funding situation of the Refuge System and considering ways to improve it. 

Continuation of Hunting and Fishing on Newly-acquired Lands 

The Young bill provides for the continuation of existing uses. including hunting 

and fishing, on newly-acquired land. The uses would be allowed to continue on an 

interim basis until they are detennined to be incompatible with the purposes of the 

refuge or the purposes of the system. 

This is appropriate, particularly in regard to fishing and hunting or any other 

wildlife-dependent use. It is most likely the existence of the wildlife-dependent uses 

that would lead to the acquisition of the lands in the first place, since they are an 

indicator of the wildlife values of the land. It is also most likely that these uses are 

compatible with the conservation mission of the Refuge System, particularly 

considering that hunting and fishing would have been carried out under state 

management. Lastly, as I stated above, it is the sportsmen who are going to be one 

of the most supportive groups in terms of the goals and purposes of the Refuge 

System. 

9 
234 

System-wide Planning 

lbe bill establishes a broad, mandatorv planning program with full opportunity 

for public input. This will assure that all aspects of the uses of and impacts on these 

public lands are taken into account and that each unit in the System is being managed 

in accordance with the mission and purposes of the System and of that particular 

refuge. The planning provisions are such an obviously sensible thing that we think 

they speak for themselves. 

Conclusion 

Our organization has participated in the discussion of the Refuge System for 

over eleven years. W c think that Congressman Young has the right idea by 

establishing a clear Congressional mandate for the mission and purposes of the 

System. and by setting up a framework for compatibility determinations and for 

planning. Congress should adopt this bill and then let the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service get on with the business of managing and operating these important parcels 

of land for wildlife conservation for the benefit of the people. 

Safari Club International takes this opportunity to renew its commitment to 

work with all serious and interested parties to assure that the Refuge System is 

properly managed and adequately financed. The benefits of this System to the 

wildlife, to the sportsmen and women of America, and to the citizens in general are 

too important to important to let it continue to founder in a sea of controversy. 

I thank you agam for this opportunity to speak. 

Submitted by 

D. Patrick Bollman, President 

Presented by: Congressman Ron Marlenee. Legislative Director, Mr. Richard 

Parsons, Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

lO 
235 

TESTlMONY OF 

SUSAN LAMSON 

DIRECTOR 

CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION 

OF THE 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

REGARDING THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND POLICY ACT 

MAY 25, 1995 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) welcomes the opportunity to comment 

on the future management of our National Wildlife Refuge System and H.R. 1675. NRA's 3.5 

million membership includes over 70 percent who hunt and who, along with fellow members, 

participate in other forms of wildlife dependent recreation. 

We commend Chairman Young's leadership in introducing this landmark, innovative and 

truly visionary legislation for the management of our Refuge System. The NRA wholeheartedly 

supports H.R. 1675 for it recognizes the important role of the hunting community and its 

contributions to the management of our Refuge System, as well as to all of our national fish and,. 

wildlife resources. 

The sponsors of the bill have had the foresight to take last year's proposed "organic" 

legislation for the Refuge System and skillfully improve upon it. While retaining many of the core 

elements of that legislation, H.R. 1675 addresses concerns that the NRA expressed in testimony 

last year. 

The NRA's concerns over last year's bill were in two major areas. The first was the lack of 

recognition for the rightful place of wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education as 
236 

a primary purpose of the Refuge System. The second concern was over the increased fiscal 

burden that the bill would place on already scant resources for no apparent natural resource gain . 

The first concern has been addressed in H.R. 1675 By making wildlife-dependent 

recreation and environmental education a primary purpose of the Refuge System, this legislation 

recognizes people as a primary, not a secondary or subsidiary component of the System We fi.dly 

agree with Chairman Young. in his statement upon the introduction ofH.R. 1675. that the 

American people have a right to enjoy the benefits derived from the investment they make through 

their tax dollars. Federal Duck Stamp purchases. and entrance fees 

H.R. 1675's elevation of wildlife-dependent recreational activities to a primary purpose of 

the Refuge System is also supported by the comprehensive examination of all "secondary uses" 

recently completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Out of 526 hunting and fishing programs 

being conducted on System lands. only one hunting activity and one fishing activity were 

identified as being potentially incompatible with the purpose of a panicular refuge unit. Elevating 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities to a primary purpose of the Refuge System. however, does 

not give "cane blanche" for these types of activities to occur on all refuges. Nor does this bill 

mandate that the Fish artd Wildlife Service ensure that all other primary purposes of the Refuge 

System be applied on all refuges. This point is rei nforced in the requirements for preparing 

comprehensive conservation plans whereby the purposes oft he System applicablt> 10 a par/ic:ular 

refuge must be defined and described. 

The NRA suppons the compatibility process required by H.R 1675. Under this new 

process. the bill suppons wildlife-dependent recreation activities as a primary purpose of the 

Refuge System in 4 ways. First. the bill recognizes these activities as presumptively compatible 

with the purposes of the Refuge System. Secondly, it requires the Secretary to permit hunting 

and fishing activities on refuge lands if such activities are found to be compatible with clearly 

defined and unbiased criteria. Third, it allows hunting and fishing activities to continue on newly 

acquired lands unless such activities are determined incompatible with the purposes of the refuge 

or with the purposes of the Refuge System -- thereby establishmg a "good neighbor" policy during 

the transition in land ownership. Founh. it subjects these activities to a less demanding review 

process than that for "secondary uses". rhus ensuring that the process is not exhaustive, fiscally 

and administratively, on the System. 
237 

H.R. 1675 provides that the evaluation and reevaluatron of uses within the Rel1Jge System 

shall be subject to the public review and comment process The NRA supports the process 

envisioned by H.R 1675 and recommends that it be applied to the reevaluation oftish and 

wildlite-dependent activities 

The NRA's second concern with last year's bill was its failure to recognize the significant 

fiscal constraints currently experienced throughout the Reti.rge System By not subjecting 

wildlife-dependent activities to fiscally burdensome compatibrlity determinations, H.R. 1675 will 

assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in conserving its limited fiscal resources. not further 

exacerbating the problem of the System's 5400 million dollar "Operations and \.1aintenance" 

deticit 

In summary, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on this landmark legislation and 

look fo rward to assisting in the process of making this comprehensive legislation for the 

management of our National Wildlife Refi.•ge System a reality 
238 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

ON THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AND H.R. 1675, 

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995 

by 

R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice--President 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

May 25, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the National Wildlife Refuge System, and H.R. 1675, the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995. The Association generally and 

enthusiastically supports H.R. 1675 and will offer some clarifying thoughts in our 

testimony which we believe will improve the bill. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies was founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of 

public agencies charged with the protection and management of North America's 

fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include 

the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments 

of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association 

has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and 

strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing 

fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. 

The Association believes that in spite of some problems, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, encompassing over 500 refuges across the Nation, is, 

in general, a success story about which we can all be proud. The Association's 

member states fully support consistent, professional, coordinated management 

of the National Wildlife Refuges. Despite some valid criticism of some activities 

permitted on individual refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System has been 

professionally managed in the past and should continue to be so managed in the 

future. The Association agrees with the 1968 Leopold report on the National 

Wildlife Refuge System which declared that ''the national refuges should stand 

as monuments to the science and practice of wildlife management." 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Association has worked over the 

past several Congresses towards meeting an objective of producing a bill which 

will be useful to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge Managers in 

management of the System, and continue to meet fish, wildlife and habitat 

conservation objectives while providing for legitimate and appropriate fish and 

wildlife dependent uses of Refuges by the citizens of the United States. 
239 

Our principal concerns with National Wildlife Refuge legislation are that 

any legislation should meet three objectives. First, reCQ9nize the responsibilities 

and role of the State fish and wildlife agencies and the need for true coordination 

and cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish 

and wildlife agencies in meeting the conservation objectives of the National 

Wildlife Refuges. Second, legislative affirmation that, where appropriate, fish 

and wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education activities are 

among the purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System. And third, an 

assurance that new processes created for compatibility determination and 

planning are not so onerous and time consuming that the professional Refuge 

Manager is engaged and consumed by process, and unable to meet on-theground needs and conservation objectives of fish, wildlife and habitat 

conservation. In other words, we want refuge managers to concentrate on 

scientifically sound resource management and not be diverted to managing a 

mountain of paperwork. H.R. 1675 meets these three objectives, thus our 

support for this proposal. 

H.R. 1675 recognizes that the States have broad trustee and statutory 

responsibility for and primacy in the arena of fish, wildlife and their habitats 

within their borders, including on most Federal public lands. State fish and 

wildlife agencies have concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for migratory birds, anadromous fish, and Federal listed threatened and 

endangered species. 

H.R. 1675 recognizes that National Wildlife Refuges are important 

components of and contribute significantly to the ecosystems in which they are 

found. The bill recognizes that it is vital to consider the role of and relationship 

with adjacent private and state lands when determining how to meet the 

conservation objectives for both the Refuge and the ecosystem in which it is 

found. Cooperation and coordination with the State fish and wildlife agencies, 

most of which have developed statewide, comprehensive fish and wildlife 

resource and habitat conservation plans, is thus vital to meeting these 

objectives. We particularly appreciate the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

exemption in H.R. 1675 for the Secretary in coordinating conservation efforts 

with State agencies. Although the recently signed Unfunded Mandates Act 

contains a limited exemption to FACA for Federal/State coordination, it is not 

broad enough to cover the numerous coordination activities that must take place 

between States and the Fish and Wildlife Service in fish and wildlife 

conservation. 

The Association also concludes that H.R. 1675 is a good step towards 

addressing our concerns that the planning and compatibility process do not 

become so burdensome that the professionally trained Refuge Manager spends 

all of his/her time satisfying process. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Refuges 

are seriously underfunded now, with more cuts looming. Adding processes that 

2 
240 

are not essential to meeting Refuge conservation objectives for fish, wildlife and 

their habitats, and providing appropriate fish and wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses and environmental education for our citizens, simply adds workload to an 

already overloaded staff and results in delay and confusion. 

Individual Refuge conservation planning is vital, and public input and 

involvement should be a critical part of that. The Association supports planning 

for individual Refuges or a related group of refuges in the same area. However, 

the Refuge Manager should take advantage of existing fish and wildlife surveys 

and inventories, habitat assessments, comprehensive resource and habitat 

plans, recreational surveys and impact studies, and other data from the State 

fish and wildlife agency and other sources to facilitate development of the 

Refuge conservation plan. 

Likewise, existing written determinations of compatibility for existing uses 

on eac.h National Wildlife Refuge, which were conducted in order to satisfy an 

October 19931egal settlement with several conservation groups, should obviate 

the need to redo compatibility determinations under H.R. 1675 until significant 

change to the particular use triggers a re-evaluation. It is important that the 

passage of any National Wildlife Refuge legislation not require that these 

compatibility determinations be redone to satisfy a newly created standard 

developed as a result of passage of the legislation. 

We do not believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service should be required to 

prepare a System-wide plan for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 

System is comprised of Refuges established for many diverse and sometimes 

disparate objectives and scattered throughout the United States. We are not 

sure what objective a System plan would meet or direction it would provide 

beyond what is already indicated in H.R. 1675. As you are aware, Mr. 

Chairman, the USFWS has the authority now, and has prepared a 

comprehensive draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Refuge System. 

For many reasons, this has not gone to a final EIS, but, nonetheless, the FWS 

has the authority, when they deem necessary, to review the System 

comprehensively. We are not convinced that a mandate to do so on a regular 

basis would be that helpful. It would certainly be a large, expensive, timeconsuming effort with little apparent usefulness to anyone. 

The Association concurs with the establishment in H.R. 1675 of purposes 

for the NWR System to serve as general guidance for management of existing 

units and expansion of the Refuge System. These purposes will also establish 

benchmarks against which determinations of use compatibility can be tested. 

We agree with the purposes of the System as articulated in H.R. 1675, but 

suggest that the word "equally'' is not necessary, and may be confusing and 

misleading. Priorities should reflect both purposes of individual refuges, the 

nature of the resources available, public input on draft plans, and the nature of 

3 
241 

opportunities and problems on other lands within the State. Also, we have never 

advocated that all purposes be satisfied on all Refuges. We have always held 

that fish and wildlife dependent recreational uses should be provided for where 

they are appropriate and compatible with the purpose for which each Refuge 

was established. Likewise. although many Refuges do, not all Refuges have 

listed threatened or endangered species, significant migratory bird populations, 

interjurisdictional fish habitats, or marine mammals. The use of the word 

"equally" could be construed to suggest that not only do all purposes have to be 

satisfied on all Refuges. but equally so (leading one, in the extreme, to suggest 

that one-sixth of each Refuge be dedicated to achieving each purpose). While 

we are not suggesting that this was the intent of that language, we are not 

convinced that "equally" adds anything but uncertainty, and suggest that it be 

deleted. 

We further concur with establishing hunting, fishing and environmental 

education as a purpose of the System, for several reasons. It seems clear to us 

that Congressional intent, as reflected in the relevant legislation and legislative 

history, has been to establish the primary purpose of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System as advancing the objectives of fish and wildlife conservation, 

including providing for, at least in part, fish and wildlife related recreational use 

in the form of hunting, fishing, trapping, nature observation, enjoyment and 

education, where such use is compatible with sound fish and wildlife 

management principles. The 1962 Refuge Recreation Act provided for 

consideration of other than wildlife dependent recreational uses if they were 

compatible with and would not prevent the accomplishment of, the primary 

purposes for which the areas were acquired or established, this being fish and 

wildlife conservation and in many cases, hunting, fishing and trapping. The 

1966 Refuge Administration Act further gave to the Secretary of the Interior the 

authority to " ... permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose, 

including but not limited to, hunting, fishing, public recreation and 

accommodations, and access whenever he determines that such uses are 

compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established". In a 

separate section, the Act authorizes the Secretary to permit other habitat altering 

uses, such as easements for utilities, roads, ditches, etc., whenever he 

determines that these uses are compatible with the purposes for which these 

areas were established. 

Also, making fish and wildlife dependent recreational uses and 

environmental education purposes of the System recognizes the important 

contributions of sportsmen to the NWR System through the use of federal 

waterfowl stamp funds, North American Wetlands Conservation Act and other 

Federal-private cost share programs for acquisition of Refuges. Identifying 

these activities as a purpose also reinforces that these uses are appropriate and 

legitimate activities on NWRs, which serve to provide opportunities for our 

citizens to learn more about fish and wildlife and their habitats through 

4 
242 

experiences on NWRs. These activities will collectively engender greater public 

support for Refuges and insure that these lands continue to be dedicated 

primarily to conservation purposes. 

We would further point out that fish and wildlife dependent recreation and 

environmental education, conducted under professional supervision of the 

Refuge staff, are minimally intrusive activities that generally do not require the 

establishment of significant physical facilities on Refuges. The allowable 

harvest of certain game species is done within the statewide seasons and bag 

limits provided for by the Federal and State agencies with responsibility for fish 

and wildlife conservation. Seasons, bag limits, and other harvest restrictions, 

are regularly reviewed with signifie<ant opportunity for public participation, and 

adjusted to reflect changes in population size, breeding success, habitat 

conditions, harvest levels, etc. 

The Association concurs that fish and wildlife dependent recreational 

uses (including hunting and fishing) and environmental education should be 

permitted to continue on new lands added to the System on an interim basis until 

such uses are determined to be inconsistent or incompatible. The current 

process of immediately closing new refuges until a planning process is 

completed creates unnecessary confusion, ill will and local economic impact, 

particularly where there is no good reason to close an area except "that's the 

way we have always done it". We believe that most historic fish and wildlife 

dependent recreational uses or environmental education, for example, are 

compatible with perhaps only minor modifications placing temporal or seasonal 

restrictions on use to protect sensitive nesting areas, for example. We suggest 

that close cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies, which also manage 

public lands for conservation and public use, can facilitate integration of these 

existing activities with conservation efforts for Refuges. The Secretary would 

retain the authority to stop or modify an existing use but would not be required to 

do so as he does now. You may recall that Congress required continuation of 

certain fish and wildlife related uses on the refuge lands added in Arkansas to 

the White River and Cache River NWRs through the Potlatch exchange. 

We do not want to endorse continuing all existing uses on new lands 

added to the System until determined to be incompatible by the Secretary, as 

provided for in H.R. 1675, unless it is clear that such determinations can be 

made promptly. We realize that existing public right-of-ways, for example, need 

to be openly maintained. However, there may be uses on some lands which 

would be purchased for addition to the NWR System that are truly incompatible 

with the purposes of the refuge. Jet skiing, ORV use or similar activities quickly 

come to mind. We suggest there be legislative assurance that the Secretary can 

expeditiously terminate truly incompatible uses without lengthy and onerous 

process requirements. We would be willing to work with Committee staff on 

some language, if requested. 

5 
243 

The Association looks forward to working with you and the Committee on 

fine tuning H.R. 1675 to improve the management of the NWR System, advance 

conservation objectives for fish and wildlife and their habitats, and provide for 

appropriate uses by the citizens of the United States. We commend Chairman 

Young and Congressman Dingell for their efforts reflected in H.R. 1675. 

I would be pleased to address any questions at this time. 

6 
Mr. Chairman: 

244 

Wildlife Management Institute 1101 14th Street, N.W. • Suite 801 • Washington, O.C. 20005 

Phone (202) 371·1808 • FAX (202) 408-5059 

Statement of Rollin D. Sparrowe 

on 

Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

before 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

House Committee on Resources 

May 25, 1995 

I am Rollin D. Sparrowe, President of the Wildlife Management Institute, an organization 

formed in 1911 and staffed by professional natural resource managers to promote restoration and 

improved management of wildlife in North America. Our Institute has a long history of 

involvement in attempts to improve management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. For 

the past four years we have tracked emerging Senate legislation, and participated in dozens of 

meetings with various interests to discuss refuge management. We appreciate the opportunity to 

comment on the May ll, 1995 draft of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995. 

For the past decade, management of the National Wildlife Refuge System has been the 

subject of public controversy over such things as which uses are compatible with the purposes of 

individual refuges and the system, what those purposes are or should be, what the action plan is 

for the system of refuges for the future, and whether the system can be improved through 

comprehensive planning, legislation, or better management by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
245 

Many of the groups participating in discussions of refuge legislation have entered into a 

new dialogue with the Fish and Wildlife Service- and each other -about the real problems facing 

refuge managers. Those managers have too little funding and inadequate staff to do all they need 

to do for refuges. There is a consensus among many groups that operational needs on refuges are 

so great that our needs as a public for biology and management, and for public use - cannot be 

met with current funding. While that issue is not the focus of this hearing, the Committee should 

know that there is documentation available of the specific problems, and groups ready to work 

with the Congress and Fish and Wildlife Service to verify the nature of those problems and seek 

solutions. 

Drafts of legislation and the dialogue associated with them have swung from heavily 

oriented toward rigorous planning mandates and constraining compatibility analysis, to the less 

complicated approach in this bill which emphasizes purposes, provides for reasonable planning 

and control of uses, and provides explicitly for public uses such as hunting and fishing. With such 

a sharp swing in its focus, it is important that legislation enacted effectively strengthen the Fish 

and Wildlife Service's capability to appropriately manage these lands. Otherwise, the statute will 

not serve the needs of the refuge system or the citizens of our country. 

The following responds to the four main issues raised in your letter of May 11, 1995: 

l. The need for system-wide purposes. Public dialogue on refuge management 

preceding this bill, illustrates the need for clearly stated purposes for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Perceptions have ranged from refuges as areas for 

complete protection of all wildlife. to areas intended primarily for hunting and 

outdoor recreation purposes. Clearly, refuges exist for a variety of reasons 

2 
246 

ranging from complete protection for an endangered species. to preservation of an 

important habitat with its attendant wildlife, including the opportunity for various 

fish and wildlife dependent uses. The statement of purposes in the bill seems to 

us to adequately cover the many purposes of national wildlife refuges. We are not 

in favor of the word "equally" on line 3, page 5, fo r an important reason. Even 

if one takes a position that fish and wildlife oriented recreation is a strong purpose 

of many national wildlife refuges, it can hardly always be equal with other 

purposes based on either history or logic. Refuges were not established to provide 

hunting opportunity, but rather to provide a base of habitat which helps maintain 

a resource that can be hunted if managed properly . Thus, the other purposes must 

come first or there would be nothing to hunt. We would favor removing the word 

"equally" and simply letting the purposes stand as a complete list of refuge 

purposes. This would clearly establish fish and wildlife-dependent recreation as 

a purpose, but nested within many other purposes which must be fulfilled if that 

recreation is to proceed. 

2. Wildlife Dependent Recreation as a Purpose. When the dialogue on refuge 

legislation started more than four years ago, we at the Institute did not feel that 

wildlife-dependent recreation needed to be a purpose of the system, but could be 

left up to administrative management by the Fish and Wildlife Service. While 

trying to cope with shortages of operational funding for refuges, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service unfortunately gave disturbing signals to the public about its 

priorities for oontinuing recreational use of refuges. Rumors of cutbacks in refuge 

3 
247 

services, particularly hunting, lead to loss of public confidence that these 

traditional recreational pursuits would continue. Many now feel, and we agree, 

that fish and wildlife recreation should be clarified as one of the purposes of the 

system that should be permitted where appropriate. We say this even though we 

are convinced that actual threats to hunting on refuges were widely overstated. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service should be accountable for reasonable 

consideration of public use of refuges as well as other management of refuge lands 

and wildlife. However, •purpose of the system,· whether protection of an 

endangered species or allowing wildlife-dependent recreation, is not necessarily 

automatically a purpose of every individual refuge unit, or of every acre on every 

refuge. This must be left up to the managers to decide on a case by case basis, 

within reasonable guidelines that are established in this legislation. The language 

in this draft bill restates the role of hunting more strongly than is required. 

However, clarification of purposes will be helpful in the changing times and 

situations ahead. 

3. Interim Uses on New Refuge System Lands. In general, existing fish and wildlife 

recreational activity should be able to continue on an interim basis on new lands 

added to the system unless there is some very specific reason for discontinuing it. 

Public involvement during the establishment of the refuge should involve up-front 

statements by the Fish and Wildlife Service if there are known problems that would 

lead to discontinuing these activities. The same should apply to commercial 

activities. It cannot be assumed that all public use patterns will continue as before 

4 
248 

while every refuge is developed, but that should be clarified through public 

dialogue during the planning associated with development of a refuge, as described 

in Section 6 of the draft legislation. 

4. Comprehensive Planning for the System and Individual Refuges. Previous drafts 

of refuge legislation have included extensive demands for strucrured planning, 

refuge by refuge, and on a system-wide basis. Such activities are expensive and 

with declining budgets and limited staff should be implemented only with 

moderation and thought to continuing other management programs. We are 

pleased to see in the current legislation, recognition of the need and utility of 

planning for groups of refuges as units where appropriate. Better planning is 

needed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for many refuges. Groups of refuges 

along migratory bird flyways, for example, may be managed in concert to provide 

benefits of different types at different times of the year as the birds migrate. 

Legislation needs to find a balance between getting the job done and 

recognizing the limitations of refuge staff to do it. The current draft bill gives 

considerable flexibility to the Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting reasonable 

objectives for planning. What is most conspicuously missing, is any mandate for 

a plan for the entire refuge system. There needs to be a broad plan that describes 

for the public the narure of the refuge system, and long-term plans for its 

development and operation. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an 

Environmental Impact Statement on overall management of the system could 

regularly reappraise and lay out longer term strategies on an approximately ten 

5 
249 

year interval. We feel this would satisfy planning needs for the refuge system as 

a whole, as well as providing considerable opportunity for public input. However, 

successive administrations have found reasons to delay release of such a plan. 

Congress could help with a reasonable mandate to maintain a broad programmatic 

plan. 

The following are specific comments about portions of the draft bill itself not addressed 

in response to the four questions. 

Under Section 4, Administration of System, Part (4)(B) appropriately provides for 

coordination with landowners adjacent to refuges and the state wildlife agency. Further, Part 

(4)(E) is helpful in directing that refuge establishment compliment the efforts of other 

conservation agencies in conserving habitats. 4(b)( 4), Powers, is likewise useful in providing for 

cooperative agreements with state wildlife agencies for management of all or parts of a refuge 

unit. This is an area that must be approached cautiously and carefully with Congress retaining 

oversight. We are pleased to see that standards established by the Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service will determine any such cooperative management. Those standards should be 

reviewed by Congress and the Secretary should report on any implementation of such agreements. 

The Compatibility Standards and Procedures in Section 5 have been the subject of 

extensive debate. In general we find the deadlines for compatibility reviews and for reevaluations 

of compatible uses to be reasonable. We do have some specific concerns about parts of the 

section. 

In 5(3)(A)(ii), we feel that in lines 22 and 23, the continuation of any existing use on an 

interim basis may be too open-ended. In the past, some units of the refuge system have included 

6 
250 

purchasing lands that had activities on-going which would not be to the benefit of wildlife. 

whether recreational or commercial. The Secretary should have the authority to take appropriate 

action with full public notice during active planning for the refuge. 

On page 9, line 4, we find the statement that the Secretary "shall permit fishing and 

hunting on a refuge" to be a stronger mandate than practical or reasonable in the management of 

refuges. This long paragraph between lines 4 and 17 seems to preclude the use of judgment in 

situations where some social, management, or other factor might make it prudent not to permit 

such public uses even though they might be biologically possible. We suggest that the Secretary 

should have the discretion rather than a presumptive mandate, and suggest that the word "may" 

be substituted for "shall" on line 4. 

From page 9, line 18 through line 4 of page 12, is a generally useful statement of 

requirements issuing final regulations establishing the compatibility determination process. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service should be able to meet most of this easily. On page 10, lines 8 and 9 

and on page 12, line 2, the confusing phrase "no materially detrimental effect" is used as a 

standard for compatibility determirtation. This term should be defined in the bill, or it is likely 

to perperuare the kind of confusion that has occurred with compatibility determinations in the past. 

Section (x) on page ll, line 22 through page 12, line 4 overstates a presumption that 

fishing and hunting is automatically compatible with refuge and system purposes. We agree that 

well-managed fishing and hunting is generally compatible with the conservation of fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. On many refuges, hunting and fishing can and should be allowed. The 

compatibility process should determine whether there would be any "materially detrimental effect" 

(definition needed) on fulfillment of refuge purposes. For example, it would be difficult to 

7 
251 

conduct some public education programs in the middle of a hunting area while hunting was going 

on. Endangered species might require closure of certain areas or a whole refuge for various 

reasons, regardless of the compatibility of hunting and fishing with overall conservation. Public 

use of any kind may unacceptably limit wildlife access to needed feeding areas. We think this 

section ought to stop on page 12, line 2, after the words "habitats." Further, "the system" should 

replace the words "a refuge • on page 11, lines 24 and 25. 

Under Section 7, regarding State Authority, we are concerned that page 18, lines 9 

through 16, overstates the role of the states in management directly on the refuge. These are 

federal lands and should be managed, as is appropriately stated several places in this bill, through 

coordination and cooperation with the state agency and with mutual objectives. The phrase on 

lines 12 and 13 "in any area within the System • seems to imply state cc:mtrol over federal lands, 

which is inappropriate. If that phrase were omitted, paragraph (m} would be compatible with 

current policy. 

Mr. Chairman we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft legislation, and to 

continue the dialogue about attempts to improve ,the National Wildlife Refuge System. We would 

be happy to participate in further discussion with others interested in the welfare of the refuge 

system. 

8 
252 

TESTIM:l'IY OF JOON S. GOI'rSCHALK ON PROPOSED L:."'GISLATION GOVERNING THE 

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL \-IILDLIFE REruGE SYSTEM, BEFORE THE SUBCCt1MITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, I'IILDLIFE AND OCLN!S, t1AY 25, 1995. 

~lr. C'hairrnan, and ~lanbers of the Ccrrmittee: 

Thank yoo for this opportunity to cament on the proposed National \Vildlife 

Refuge legislation. For the record, I have been a biologist and administrator 

for the Indiana Departrrent of Conservation, and the u. S. Fish and 1/ildlife 

Service, serving as director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and \'lildlife 

fran 1964 to 1970. Upon retiranent fran the federal goverrurent in 1973 I 

became executive vice-prsident of the International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, and worked for the Association in varioos capacities until 

1986. During this period ~ served as volunteer president and later chairman 

of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, and have worked with several other 

national and regional conservatioo and professional organizations. I respect 

the National Wildlife Refuge System for its rrajor contributions to North 

American wildlife conservation. 

Recent studies of the "System" have shC~.Yn that refuges have been subjected to 

many uses inimical to the purposes for which the refuges were established. 

The fundamental issues have to do with questions of campatibility, that is, 

do the uses to which the refuges are subjected violate their puposes, and 

corpranise the ability of the refuge, or the System, to perform as intended? 

The proposed legislation (Page 5) gives six major System "Purposes" ~ 

standing. However, the fundamental purpose of the System and its individual 

parts, is to protect and preserve the Nation's wildlife heritage. No other 

"purpose" transcends that broad and basic principle. The legislation should 

recognize that principle, and then specify those policies and programs 

mandated by law or treaty. 

The draft legislation, (Page 5, Sub-section (3) (D)) WDUld establish "fish 

and wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, wildlife 

observation, and envirCl!11re11tal education" as purposes. I urge you to redefine 

these activities as "uses", rather than "purposes", to be authorized, but not 
253 

2 

mandated. I see nothing wrong in identifying these uses as having priority 

over other uses that the Secretary may authorize as appropriate. Under the 

right circumstances all may be appropriate and in certain instances, 

necessary. Sa:re will object to hunting on refuges but there are t:i.lres and 

places where regulated hunting, particularly of deer, is essential to the 

preservation of the values of the refuge. However, to make hunting, or any 

other similar "use" a legislated "purpose" would lead to conflicts of 

interest and serious management problans. 

There are many other uses that have been inflicted on refuges either by local 

public interest, or political pressure. Military training, local organization 

events, mushrocrn and wild-rice harvesting, are but a few exaq>les. The draft 

(Page 8, Section 5) gives the Secretary the authority to specify those 

supplemental or incidental activities that may be permitted. 

1>/hether new lands added to the systan should be opened to hunting or fishing 

is seldan an issue when a refuge is authorized under normal procedures. 

Preliminary studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service, reveal nost, if not 

all, of the considerations related to management of the proposed refuge, and 

appropriate plans for management outlined. That may not be true when a refuge 

is created without adequate study, or when a refuge is acquired "piece-meal". 

The Secretary should be given the authority to open or close newly acquired 

areas, for reasons involving the refuge's potential, until management plans 

have been canpleted. 

It is essential that the Fish and Wildlife Service develop, and operate 

under, a broad policy and planning directive that provides a sound foundation 

for the detailed planning and ultimate management that will be carried out on 

each refuge. It would be the guide that the Systan managers would follow to 

achieve the objectives of the Systan as a whole, and a framework into which 

each refuge's objectives would fit. A decentralized planning process that 

produces a document at every refuge, for every refuge, to be used as a guide 

for appropriate management, subject to periodic up-dating, is much to be 

preferred over a centralized planning system. The language in the proposed 

legislation seans to meet these ideas. (Page 13, Section 6). 
254 

3 

When I was director, perhaps the most acrirronious dispute in the history of 

Arrerican wildlife managerrent took place over the question of who had the 

fundanental right to manage fish and resident wildlife on federal lands. 

Leaving the principle in that argument to the solicitors and attorney's 

general, it seems apparent that the language in the Bill (Section 7, (m) line 

9) will rekindle that long-standing dispute. It would make the management of 

fish and wildlife subject to tv.u masters, state and federal, a condition that 

can only breed disputes. It is unfortunate that this issue has been raised 

again. As far as I kn~, the status quo has been v.urking for a quarter of a 

century. Under this regim=, whenever the Fish and Wildlife Service determines 

that the population of wildlife in a particular refuge, or part of a refuge, 

may be hunted, usually in cooperation with the state, the area is opened in 

conformity with state regulations. I predict that the language in the bill, 

if it remains on passage, will im:nediately breed a contentious legal battle 

that will do nothing for conservaticn, and curdle state-federal relations in 

fish and wildlife management for years to care. 

I have only one other c:ament, to the effect that the Refuge System does no).l· 

constitute a national "Net~k". (Page 5, Sectioo (3) (A), line 4). True, 

many refuges are part of a ne~k of areas that ~k together to provide 

nesting, migratioo, and wintering habitat for migratory birds, especially 

waterf~l. en the other hand, there is little that binds areas as disparate 

as ~lcosehorn in r<laine, and cabeza Prieta in Arizona together in a "Net~k". 

The "System" is not a "Net:¥.Urk", and to call it one is misleading. I believe 

a far better term would eni>ody the concept of a ·c~lex", and reccmnend that 

term be used in lieu of "Net...:>rk". (p. 5, para. (3) (11). 

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. 
255 

National Wildlife Refuge Association Dedicated to the protection and pe1pe1uation of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

May 25, 1995 

'1'1-;STIMONY OF WIJ,LIAM C. ASHE, NATIONAL WILDJ,IFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WII,DLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE 

NATION:!\!~. WILDLIFE REF'UGE SYSTEM IMPROVE;MENT ACT OF 1995, H .. , .. R.'- 1675 

Mr. Cha i rman and members of the Subcommittee, I am the Northeast 

Regiona l Representative for the National Wildlife Refuge Association 

as well as a member of its Board of Directors and Executive 

Committee. The Association provides independent and practical 

wildlife refuge management expertise to key decision-makers such as 

yourselves. We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

concerning an organ i c act to guide the future administration 

National Wildlife Refuge System--a unique and valuable 

national asset that is all too often the subject of controversy 

rather than appreciation. 

Before beginning to discuss how the Refuge System should be administered, it is necessary to first recognize that it is the only system 

of lands established primarily to conserve and manage the nation's 

fish and wildlife heritage. That fact is especially significant in 

the lower 48 states where refuges comprise less than one percent 

of the land base. The largest refuges and the bulk of the System 

are found in Alaska and are appropriately treated differently in 

important respects under the provisions of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act IANJLCAI. 

OVERVIEW 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

as amended 116 USC 668dd-668ee), is a good and sound law. The only reasons it should be amended are to flesh out more comprehensive 

gu i dance that builds appropriately upon its foundation. 

for example, one of the most important reasons for enacting an 

organic act is to clarify the duties of the Secretary of the 

Interior Department, who manages multiple and often competing 

agencies, with regard to refuges. Specifically, the Interior 

Secretary should be explicitly directed to protect the ecological 

integrity of the Refuge System and its component units as well 

as to administer them to fulfill their purposes. 

And Congress, for good reason, has directed that the nation's 

refuges .are to be administered by the u.s. fish and Wildlife 

Service. The federal government has the responsibility for trust 

species such as migratory birds and mammals and interjurisdictional 

fish species. Despite the renewed tension between federalism and 

states' rights, a workable balance must be struck. Requiring 

"consistency" between refuge plans and state wildlife plans is 

not workable because the Fish and Wildlife Service has statutory 

and international obligations that the states do not. 

What wil l work and be encouraged is open and productive 

10824 Fox Hunt Lane. Potomac, MD 20854 • Phone/Fax (301) 983-9498 
256 

NWRA 2 

commtJnication, coordination anri cclnperation. For these same 

reasons, the Secretary should not enter into agreements with states 

that transfer the management authority for refuges, except in rare 

and unusual situations. 

The test of "compatibility'' for determining whether or not secondary 

recreational and economic uses should be permitted on refuges should 

not be weakened. Existing refuge law, both the Administration Act 

and the earlier Recreation Ac1 (16 USC 460k-460k-41, contain a 

simple and appropriate standard: that uses will be (or are) compatible with the primary (or major) purposes for which refuges were 

establlshed. 

By contrast the provision in H.R. 1675 adopts, with additional 

weakening, a previously proposed administrative definition of 

compatibility that is clearly intended to protect secondary uses 

rather than the wildlife for which refuges were established. The 

H.R. 1675 standard--"will not have a materially detrimental effect 

on the fulfillment of the purposes of a refuge" (Sec.5(1))-- makes 

two significant changes from existing law. First, it deletes 

"primary" before purposes and, second, it raises the threshold to 

"materially detrimental" which is synonymous with a "considerable 

degree" of detriment or "physical" detriment. 

H.R. 1675 also includes several exemptions from compatibility that 

resulted from negotiations between the Department of Interior and 

Department of Transportation as a consequence of the more rigorous 

compatibility standard proposed in Senator Bob Graham's bill (S. 

823) in the 103rd Congress. These provisions (Sec.5(4) (A)-(D)) are, 

thus, not appropriate in the current context. Moreover, they are 

inconsistent with existing law and s hould be deleted. 

ISSUES RAISED FOR WI'l'NESSES BY '!'HE SUBCOMMI'f'I'EE 

Refuge System-wide Purposes 

T_lle Problems As_pociatEl_d wi th _ _t:j]__§ Lack <:)~tern-wide Purposes. 

This fundamental deficiency was recogn1zed over 25 years ago, by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Advisory Board on Wildlife 

Management, Chaired by A. Starker Leopold, in its 1968 Report to 

Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall (p.3). Simply put, the lack of 

clearly articulated statutory system-wide purposes is akin to a lack 

of identity and invites different identities to suit different 

times. Management continuity and long-term fish and wildlife needs 

can be, and often are, subordinated to demands for ~·responsiveness'' 

in changing administrations. 

In addition, some refuges or units thereof lack clear and explicit 

establishing purposes to provide the needed guidance in making 

compatibility determinations. The establishment of statutory 

tern purposes that are utilized in addition to the unit establishing purposes will ensure proper decision-making. 
257 

NWRA 3 

Congre~s Should Clqrify Refuge System Conservation Purpose.$.-

While the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act does 

not explicitly state the purposes of the Refuge System that it 

established, it does open with the statement: 

• For the purpose of consolidating the authorities relating to 

the various categories of areas that are administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of fish and 

wildlife ... • (16 USC 668dd(a} (ll emphasis added} 

This statement strongly indicates, and the subsequent 1968 Leopold 

Report concurred (page 20), that the fundamental purpose of the 

System is the conservation and management of fish and wildlife. To 

change this fundamental premise is to forever change the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. We, therefore, urge that the System-wide 

purposes be limited to the conservation and management of fish and 

wildlife. And, specifically, we recommend that the articulation of 

purposes painfully, but successfully negotiated last year among the 

diverse organizations concerned (see Appendix 1) be substituted for 

those now in H.R. 1675. 

Wildlif.~-dependent Recreation, Inq}uding Fishing and Hunting, Should 

Not be Made a Purpose of the System 

It is clear from the history of the administration of the Refuge 

System that ensuring the compatibility of secondary economic and 

recreational uses with the primary wildlife conservation purposes 

of refuges has been problematic. Over two decades of 

including the various compatibility reviews (see Appendix 

preceding the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994 review, document the 

ongoing management challenges and threats to the nation's refuges. 

The current controversy over the compatibility of some recreational 

activities at the Tishomingo NWR (OK), that was the subject of a 

hearing before this committee just last week, is yet another vivid 

example. 

There can be little doubt that the elevation of secondary uses, such 

as wildlife-dependent recreation, to a System-wide "purpose" equal 

to the conservation purposes will further impede the conservation 

and management of fish and wildlife, if not subjugate it entirely. 

Moreover, in attempting to promote hunting and fishing in particular, the bill erodes the ability of refuge managers to ensure that 

any form of wildlife - dependent recreation will remain compatible. 

Let me be clear, we are not opposed to hunting or fishing. These 

are necessary and appropriate secondary recreational "uses" of 

refuges. But any use, however inherently compatible it may seem, can get out of hand and become incompatible with a refuge•s primary 

wildlife purpose(s). 
258 

NWRA 4 

If one looks closely at the deta1ls of the interrelated provisions 

of the bill pertaining lo this "special" category of uses--

wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education-- and the 

test of compatibility, the problem becomes clear. If these uses are 

an equal system purpose, then they are inherently compatible with 

the system purposes. And since compatibility is no longer judged 

against a refuge's "primary" tab] ishing purposes they will likely 

be presumed compatible here also. These two provisions combined 

with a special 15 year review cycle and a special "presumption" that 

hunting and fishing are compatible, will make it extremely difficult 

to take action to ensure that hunting and fishing or any other form 

of wildlife-dependent recreation remains compatible. 

New Lands 

Because of the applicability of NEPA and the need to approve new 

refuges the Fish and Wildlife Service should, and has for example 

with the Canaan Valley Refuge {WV), preplan how a refuge will be 

managed. To the extent possible, the compatibility of existing uses 

should be assessed at this stage for the benefit of all concerned. 

Any incompatible uses or concerns that may require monitoring of 

selected uses and subsequent re-evaluation should be identified. 

In this way the Service may ensure protection of the wildlife 

habitat and resources for which the lands are being acquired and 

provide the public with reasonable expectations with regard to 

the continuity of uses. 

Uses permitted on individual tracts subsequently added to existing 

refuges, should be compatible with the purposes of those refuges and 

consistent with their management plans, unless there is a particular 

need to be more restrictive. 

Refuge System-wide Plan 

In order to ensure proper administration of the Refuge System as 

a whole, the Fish and Wildlife Service should be required to develop 

a System-wide plan that is updated at least every ten years. The 

plan should not be a "comprehensive management plan" like those for 

individual units, but rather a programmatic framework that addresses 

the current status and future directions of major policy and management issues for the System. 

The System plan development should be the responsibility of the 

Division of Refuges, with refuge field staff supplying basic information about their stations. As this type of information should be 

maintained in any case, the development of the System plan should 

not additionally interfere with the ability of field staff to 

perform their other duties and responsibilities. 
259 

NWRA 5 

Conclusion 

H.R. 1675 undermines rather than buildu upon the solid and appropriate foundation of existing law--the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act and Recreation Act. If passed in 

its present form, H.R. 1675 will forever change the fundamental 

purpose--the conservation of wildlife--for wtd.ch individual refuges 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System were established. In 

addition to changing the unique Refuge System from a primary purpose 

to a multiple purpose system, H.R. 1675 will also dangerously erode 

the ability of refuge managers to ensure the compatibility of 

recreational and economic activities with the wildlife 

their refuges. If you cannot protect wildlife for the 

of 

of 

future generations on the national wildlife refuges, where can you? 

***"** 

OTHER ISSUES: HR 1407/RE: FORT DEVENS LANDS 

Congressman Meehan (MA- 5th) has introduced H.R. 1407 "to provide for 

the transfer of certain excess property at Fort Devens Military 

Reservation for inclusion in the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge ... • 

We support the bill as introduced by Mr. Meehan and commend him for 

doing so. As he knows, I have been involved in this effort for 

sometime as a former Town of Harvard Selectman, as president of the 

Nashua River Watershed Association and as NWRA's representative. 

The lands involved in H.R. 1407 are that part of Fort Devens known 

as the "South Fort". In 1992. at the direction of Congress, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did a study of Fort Devens to assess 

the value of its various habitats and to recommend what areas should 

be added to the adjacent Oxbow Refuge. South Fort was identified as 

having particular wildlife value by the Service. 

The transfer of jurisdiction of South Fort to the Service, when it 

is excessed by the Army, has overwhelming support at the local, 

state and national level. All of the surrounding communities 

support it. Over a score of organizations--most of them at the 

local and state level··-have come out in support of the transfer. 

The reuse planning process just completed by the communities and 

state for the Main and North Port portions of Devens presumed expansion of the Oxbow in the South Fort. At Harvard's 1995 

Annual Town Meeting of citizens voted unanimously to support the transfer of South Fort to the Service for inclusion in the 

existing refuge, most of which is presently located within Harvard. 

(South Fort is located in the town of Lancaster.) Other nearby 

towns have taken similar positive actions. 

While outside the scope of the present legislation, we would like 

the Committee to know that nearly 900 acres of floodplain, wetlands 

and critical uplands on the Main and North Forts are being transferred by the Army to the Serv1ce for inclusion in the Oxbow Refuge. 

This transfer was directed by legislation actively supported by Mr. 

Meehan and passed by the Congress in the fall of 1994. 
260 

O:\END\END94.675 

9 

Appendix 1 

S.L.C. 

"(A) to provide a cliYerse national network of 

2 lands and waters designed to conse1Te and manage, 

3 in perpetuity, natiw fish, "ildlife, and plants of the 

4 United States and their habitats; 

5 "(B) to conserYe, manage, and where appro6 priate restore fish and wildlife populations, plant 

7 communities, and refuge habitats so as to pro,ide in 

8 perpetuity for the diversity of native fish, wildlife, 

9 and plants and the ecological processes that sustain 

10 them; and 

11 "(C) to conserve and manage migratory birds, 

12 anadromous or intezjurisdictional fish species, ma13 rine mammals, and other fish, wildlife, and plants. 

14 " (4) In addition, the purposes of numerous units 

15 within the System are16 "(A) to preserve, restore, and recover fish, "ild17 life, and plants that are listed as threatened or en18 dangered species or are candidates for listing under 

19 section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

20 U.S.C. 1533) and the ecosystems on which the spe21 cies depend; 

22 "(B) to fulfill international treaty obligations of 

23 the United States with respect to fish, \\ildlife, and 

24 plants, and their habitats; and 

SentAmhAr ?A 1 QQ.:!. 
261 

O:\END\END94.675 

8 

Appendix 

S.L.C'. 

important or substantial factor m the evaluation or re2 eYaluation or could haw changed the outcome of the eval3 uation or reevaluation."; and 

4 (6) by inserting before subsection (m) (as re5 designated by paragraph (2)) the following new sub6 section: 

7 "(!) The term 'System' as used in this Act means the 

8 National Wildlife Refuge System.". 

9 (b) Co::--;FoR~n::--;G MIE::--;mrE::--;T.-Section 4 (16 

10 V.S.C. 668dd) is amended by striking "Secretary of the 

11 Interior" each place it appears and inserting "Secretary" . 

12 SEC. _04. MISSION AND PURPOSES OF THE SYSTEM. 

13 Section 4(a) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) is amended14 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 

15 paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively; 

16 (2) in clause (i) of paragraph (7) (as so redesig17 nated), by striking "paragraph (2)" and inserting 

18 "paragraph ( 6)"; and 

19 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow20 ing new paragraphs: 

21 "(2) The overall mission of the System is to conserre 

22 and manage fish, wildlife, and plants of the United States 

23 and their habitats for the benefit of present and future 

24 generations. 

25 "(3) The purposes of the System are--

September 28, 1994 
262 

O:\END\END94.6i5 

10 

Appendix 1 

:';.LC. 

" (C) to pro\icle opportunities for compatible 

2 fish- and \\ilcllife-dependent recreation, inclucling ac3 thities such as hunting, fishing, wilcllife observation, 

4 and nature photogTaphy, and for compatible emiron5 mental education. ". 

6 SEC. _05. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM. 

7 Section 4(a) (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) (as amended by 

8 section __ 04) is further amended by inserting after 

9 paragTaph ( 4) the following ne,,· paragraph: 

10 "(5) In administering the System, the Secretary 

11 shall12 "(A) ensure that the mission and purposes of 

13 the System described in paragraphs (2) and (3) and 

14 the purposes of each refuge are carried out, except 

15 that if a conflict exists between the primary pur16 poses of a refuge and any purpose of the System, 

17 the conflict shall be resolved in a manner that first 

18 fulfills the primar-y purposes of the refuge, and, to 

19 the extent practicable, also achieves the purposes of 

20 the System; 

21 "(B) protect each inclividual refuge and the 

22 System from threats to the ecological integrity of the 

23 refuge and the System; 

24 "(C) assist in the maintenance of adequate 

25 water quantity and water quality to fulfill the purSeptember 28, 1994 
263 

Appendix :! 

MAJOR REPORTS REGARDING THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

1994-1968 

(along with selected quotes from the reports) 

I. Fink, Richard J. 1994. The National Wildlife Refuges: Theory, Practice, and Prospect. 

Harvar\1 Environmental Law Review Vol. 18(1), 135pp. 

"Although the NWRS alone cannot protect the nation's wildlife, refuge lands, and 

waters, its managers can play a critical role in the future. Recently proposed federal 

legislation, particularly Senate Bill 823 and House Resolution (sic) 833, would 

make important, constructive changes in the management of the NWRS. 

Nevertheless, the proposed legislation is insufficient and can he improved." (p. 135) 

2. National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act. 1993. Hearing before 

the Subcommittee on Clean Water, Fisheries and Wildlife of the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works on S. 823. U.S. Senate, Wash., D.C., June 9. 

3. National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act. 1992. Hearing before 

the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection of the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works on S. 1862, U.S. Senate, Wash., D.C. June 19. 

4. Puuing Wildlife First. 1992. Report of the Commission on New Directions for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife, Wash., 

D.C. 36 pp, (March). 

"The [National Wildlife Refuge] System urgently needs reform. We 

recommend swift congressional action on an organic act for the nation's 

federal refuges. This act must set forth a clear, comprehensive, and far-sighted 

mission for refuges.... It must have congressional backing for a tighter process 

of screening proposed secondary refuge uses that threaten refuge functions. 

Congress must require and support much improved planning and a coherent, 

expanded research program on federal wildlife refuges.... There is a chance--a 

good chance, we believe--to make the refuge system serve the nation more 

effectively in preserving our biological heritage for the use and enjoyment of 

all.. .. " (pp 24-25; emphasis added) 

5. Status of Efforts to Improve the Management of the National Wildlife RefUge System. 

1991. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 

Environment of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. U.S. House of 

Representatives, Wash., D.C., March 21. 

6 
264 

Appendix 2 

6. Mitchell, John G. 1991. You Call This a Refuge? in Wildlife Conservation. New York 

Zool Soc, NY, Vo194(2):70-93 (March/April). 

"If you're like most Americans, you imagine our wildlife refuges as pristine, 

protected habitats, but this is hardly the case." (p l) 

7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Compatibility Task Group. 1990. Report To The 

Director: A Review of Secondary Uses Occurring on Narional Wildlife Refuges. FWS, 

(June); This report, although provided to the Director in June of 1990, was held by 

FWS and not published or made public until March of 1991. 

"Incompatible and hannful uses are occurring on many national wildlife 

refuges ... [and] managers reported 836 use occurrences as being harmful to 

refuge operations. "(pp I 0 and 211; emphasis added) 

Survey results showed 63% of refuge units with one or more hannful 

use.(various tables throughout document) 

"In nea!'ly all cases where FWS dors not hold fee Iitle to the land, many 

activities occur that adversely affect the refuge ... " (p 213; emphasis added) 

"The legal purpose(s) of refuges are not clearly defined for every unit of the 

National \Vildlife Refuge System. With the exception of refuges in Alaska, 

few refuge units have clearly articulated purposes, or refuge purposes are 

too narrowly defined." (p 214; emphasis added) 

"Refuge management goals and objectives designed to carry out refuge 

purpose(s) are not consistently and adequately expressed for all units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition to refuge purposes, each refuge 

should have approved goals and objectives. These specific goals and 

objectives should be established through a planning process. Such planning 

will help ensure better control of potential incompatible and/or harmful uses." 

(p 214; emphasis added) 

"Adequate biological data is frequently lacking for making an accurate 

assessment of the specific and cumulative impacts of refuge uses for 

determining their compatibility with refuge purpose(s)." (p 215; emphasis 

added) 

"FWS should seek legislation that would better define I he purpose(s) of the 

units of the Refuge System." (p 214; emphasis added) 

7 
265 

Appendix: 2 

8. U.S. Department of the Interior. I990. Office of Inspector General Audit Report: 

Refitge Comaminants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report No. 90-74. 

"The Service has not developed a program to effectively identify, resolve, and 

monitor refuges for contaminants ... and cannot assess the ... contamination, 

establish refuge baseline conditions from which to measure future changes, or 

ensure that present situations do not become future issues of concern." 

"Although it is known that contaminants both on or near refuges have killed 

thousands of wildfowl, the Service presently lacks the programmatic capability 

to determine and address the extent of the problem." 

9. Review of the Management of the National Wildlife Rejilge System. 1989. Joint hearing 

before the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the 

Government Operations Committee, and the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife 

Conservation and the Environment of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. 

House of Representatives, Sept. 12 

10. General Accounting Office. 1989. National Wildlife Refitges: Continuing Problems 

With Incompatible Uses Call For Bold Action. GAO/RCED-89-196; (Sept). 

"National Wildlife Refuges are frequently not the pristine wildlife sanctuaries 

implied by their name .... Moreover, despite the requirement that only 

compatible secondary activities be permitted, refuge managers report that 

activities they consider harmful to wildlife resources (such as power boating and 

off-road vehicles) are occurring on nearly 60% of the wildlife refuges. "(p 3) 

11. Ten Most Endangered National Wildlife Refuges. 1988. The Wilderness Society, 

Wash., D.C., 25 pp., (October). 

"Because so many refuges are seriously threatened, selecting the ten that are in 

the deepest trouble was not easy. Compounding the difficulty was the very 

limited amount of research carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Interior Department Agency that oversees the refuges" (p I) 

"To ease the threats facing the national wildlife refuges, we propose a five-point 

plan: 

"I) Congress should pass an organic act that would spell out the goals and 

philosophy of the national wildlife refuge system .... " (p 2) 

8 
266 

Appendix 2 

12. Survey: Compalibility Issues on !he National Wildlife R(ji1ge Syslcm. 1988. The 

Wilderness Society, Wash., D.C. 14 pp., (May). 

"In April !987, The Wilderness Society asked 75 refuge managers to complete a 

questionnaire focused on the 'compatibility standard' on refuges. Compatibility 

is understood by the majority of respondents to mean that a proposed activity or 

use is compatible if it 'does not adversely affect the refuge fish, wildlife, or 

habitats' (64%)." (Transmittal letter to managers) 

13. General Accounting Office. 1987. Wildlife Management: National Refuge 

Contamination is Difficult to Confirm and Clean Up. GAO/RCED-87-128; (July) 

14 & 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Sept. 1985 & Apr. 1986. Survey ofComaminant 

Issues of Concern on Narional Wildlife Refuges. Div. Refuge Mgt. 

"The list identifies 78 contaminant issues of concern on 85 refuges. "(p 6) 

"[P)otential impacts are often magnified by large wildlife concentrations or 

unique species that rely on a particular refuge. "(p 9) 

16. General Accounting Office. 1984. Economic Uses ofrhe National Wildlife Refuge 

System Unlikely To Increase Significamly. GAO/RCED-84-108; (June 15). 

"GAO found that the expansion levels estimated by the Department are unlikely 

to be fully realized for several reasons relating to demand for these activities, 

other refuge priorities, and the personnel resources available to implement an 

expansion policy. "(cover: Exec. Summ.) 

"GAO found that FWS has very little data on the nature and extent of ongoing 

oil and gas operations on wildlife refuges. As a result, FWS cannot assess their 

impacts or judge the likely effects of increased development. "(p iii) 

17. Special Issue, The Wildlife Refuges. 1983. in Wilderness, The Wilderness Society, 

Wash., D.C., Vol 47(162):2-35. 

"Though overshadowed in the public mind by more conventional parklands, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is rich with an unparalleled abundance of life--

and embraces more land than the National Park System." (p 1) 

"Shorn of a clear identity and possessed of no strong constituency, the refuge 

system is administered in a confusion of politics, power, and purpose." (p l) 

9 
267 

Appendix " 

The Wilderness Society, 1983, continued: 

"Many wildlife refuges are beset by a multitude of uses and outside pressures which 

threaten their fragile integrity." (p I) 

"Many of the problems now affecting the refuge system have reached the level 

of urgency; others have the potential for future degradation of the resource. 

And, of all the recommendations The Wilderness Society offers here, none is 

more important or inclusive than the call for passage of an 'organic' act 

designed specifically for the National Wildlife Refuge System, a single, 

comprehensive piece of legislation that, for the first time, would provide overall 

guidance for present and future management and use of refuge lands." (p 32) 

18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Fish and Wi!dlif'e Service Resource Problems: 

National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, Research Cemers. FWS, USDJ, 

(July). 

19. Doherty, Jim. 1983. Reji1ges on rhe Rocks. in Audubon, National Audubon Society, 

Vol 85(4):74-116. 

"The original reason for the refuges--to protect wildlife--seems secondary today. 

And now, as Doherty reports, 'the system is in the hands of a developmentoriented administration that seems determined to wring out every last dollar it 

can." (p 4) 

"The conspicuous uneasiness with which the refuge people in the field comport 

themselves these days--call it circumspection, call it fear--is disconcerting to say 

the least. People are afraid to say what they think--afraid, even, to simply think 

it. When honest dissent is so dramatically repressed, how can it be said that our 

government is working at all?" (p 6) 

20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Field Srarion Threats and Conflicts: National 

Wildlife Reji1ges, National Fish Hatcheries, Research Centers. FWS, (August). 

" [ R ]efuges averaged about twice as many threats per station as did fish 

hatcheries and research laboratories due primarily to their wider-ranging 

activities in wildlife resource protection and management. These threats will 

continue to degrade certain fish and wildlife resources until such time as 

mitigation measures are implemented. In some cases, this degradation or Joss 

of resource is irreversible. It represents a sacrifice by a public that, for the 

most part, is unaware that such a price is being paid. "(p 42) 

10 
268 

Appendix 2 

21. General Accounting Office. 1981. Nmimwl nirecrion Required fi>r Ejfcctive 

Mmwgenl('llf of America's Fish and Wildlife. CED-81-107 (August 24). 

"Effective management of the National Wildlife Refuge System has been limited 

because [Fish and Wildlife] Service has not provided needed guidance. "(p ii) 

"However, local pressures to use refuge lands for such benefits as grazing, 

timber harvesting, and public recreation prevent refuge managers from 

effectively managing refuges primarily for wildhfe. "(p 28) 

"54 percent of the refuges are not being adequately operated and maintained 

. [& there is a backlog) .. .in new development & rehabilitation projects. "(p 33) 

22. National Wildlife Refuge Study Task Force. 1979. Final Recommendations On I7w 

Management of the Narional Wildlife Re.fi1ge Sy.1tem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, GPO, DC, April. 

"Grazing, timber harvesting and agricultural practices on refuges may be 

abusive and should be used only when necessary for proper management of 

wildlife resources, keeping in mind the desirability of maintaining natural 

ecosystems." (p 9) 

"Refuges are for wildlife and utilization by people should at no time be 

detrimental to wildlife resources. "(p II) 

"Increased [manpower and money] must be made available to the refuge system 

so that public use can be planned for and accommodated to the fullest extent 

consistent with the [purposes) of each refuge and the Refuge Recreation Act of 

!962 .... "(p 12) 

"Pressures to develop or degrade refuges for economic gain are growing 

exponentially. As costs rise or availability of natural resources declines, 

developers cast increasingly longing eyes on resources in refuges. Energy is 

probably the most notable case in point.. .a clamor has grown to hasten 

development of energy.... In some cases this has been translated as a mandate 

for development regardless of ensuing environmental consequences. This 

philosophy and approach should not be applied to the refuge system. "(p 59) 

11 
269 

Appendix 2 

23. Defenders of Wildlife. 1977. A Report 011the National Wildlife Refuge Sys1em. Wash., 

D.C., 83 pp. 

Survey of conditions on refuges; " ... describes a system of decaying buildings, 

crumbling dikes, antiquated equipment, and discouraged civil servants." (p 1) 

24. National Wildlife Refuge System Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. 1968. 

Repo11 on The National Wildlife Refuge System. Report to Secretary Stewart L. Udall; 

A. Starker Leopold, Chairman. 

"[W]hat is still lacking is a clear statement of policy or philosophy as to what 

the National Wildlife Refuge System should be and what are the logical tenets 

of its future development. "(p 3) 

"We concur with the policy statement of the Fish and Wildlife Service that 

recreation on the refuges should in all cases be secondary to the primary 

purpose of management for wildlife enhancement, and under no circumstances 

should general recreation be permitted to interfere with this primary 

dedication. "(p 20) 

"Unfortunately, the proximity of urban masses leads inevitably to pressure for 

larger picnic grounds, camping facilities, improved swimming beaches, 

motorboat marinas, water skiing, bridle paths, target ranges, and other assorted 

forms of play which are only obliquely related to refuge purposes." (p 21) 

"However carefully refuge sites may be selected, the lands are forever subject to 

invasion by government agencies with higher rights of eminent domain, such as 

military services, Atomic Energy Commission, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

Reclamation, and Bureau of Public Roads. After a refuge is acquired and 

developed, it often has to be defended. "(p 25) 

12 
270 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WALTMAN 

DIRECTOR, REFUGES A.'ID \\1LDLIFE PROGRAM 

THE MLDERNESS SOCIE1Y 

BEFORE THE FISHERIES, \\1LDLIFE AND OCEANS SUBCOMMITTEE 

REGARDING THE NATIONAL MLDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM and H.R. 1675 

MAY 25, 1995 

The Wilderness Society appreciates this opportunity to testify on an issue of such 

importance to the nation's fish and wildlife. The Wilderness Society, founded in 1935, is 

a non-profit membership organization devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife, 

protecting America's prime forests, parks, rivers, deserts, and shorelands. The Society. 

with more than 270,000 members, has a long-standing commitment to the sound 

management and well-being of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Wilderness Society and a broad coalition of conservation organizations 

strongly supported legislation during the last sessions of Congress that would have 

improved the administration of the Refuge System. That legislation, sponsored by 

Senator Bob Graham and Congressman Sam Gibbons, wou ld have supplemented the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act -- legislation championed nearly 

thirty years ago by Congressman John Dingell that put into law the principle that 

secondary uses of refuges must be compatible with the needs of wildlife. 

While we were unable to reach final passage of "organic" legislation for the 

Refuge System last year, with the leadership of Senator Graham, Senator Baucus, and 

Senator Chafee, we were able to reach agreement with a broad spectrum of interests on 

the principles that should be at the center of refuge legislation. In fact, the final version 

of S. 823 pending on the floor of the Senate as the session wound to a close was 

supported by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife 

Management Institute, the National Rifle Association, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund 

of America -- organizations that will all be testifying this morning. Unfortunately, the 

legislation before the Subcommittee (H.R. 1675) upsets many of the carefully crafted 

agreements that were reached a year ago. 

We continue to believe that comprehensive legislation is necessary to enable the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get beyond its nagging problems with harmful and 

incompatible uses in the Refuge System and allow the system to meet its great potential 

to conserve fish and wildlife. However, we can not support the legislation pending 

before the Subcommittee. On balance, we believe that the bill, as introduced, would 

undermine the integrity of the Refuge System. While we have not had time to fully 

•) u o Sl' \'E ' T ~ E ' T fl s T R 1: E 1. ' \>; 
271 

review H.R. 1675, from our initial review, we have a number of serious concerns with 

many of the provisions of the legislation. For example, the bill would: 

+ codify in law a standard for reviewing compatibility of refuge uses that has proven 

unworkable; 

+ inappropriately elevate recreation to a coequal purpose of the Refuge System along 

side conservation of fish and wildlife; 

+ upset a delicate balance between the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

manage the Refuge System and the authority of states; 

+ eliminate the discretion of the Secretary of Interior in allowing certain forms of 

recreation; 

+ establish damaging exemptions from the compatibility procedures of existing law 

for certain categories of activities; 

+ undermine the requirement in existing law that national wildlife refuges be managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

This testimony describes the basic components that we believe need to be in any 

comprehensive legislation for the Refuge System and describes some of our concerns 

with H.R. 1675. 

Much of the recent debate surrounding the Refuge System has been fueled by a 

lawsuit that The Wilderness Society and other organizations brought several years ago to 

improve the administration of the Refuge System (National Audubon Society et al. v. 

Jtll2hlll). Because misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of the lawsuit are 

rampant, we have attached an explanation of the litigation to the testimony. 

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of federal public lands 

that have been established specifically to conserve fish and wildlife. The System covers 

more than 91 million acres and includes units in all 50 states and several U.S. territories. 

Extending from arctic Alaska to the subtropical Aorida Keys, from coastal Maine to the 

far Pacific Islands, the Refuge System is the most comprehensive network of protected 

fish and wildlife habitats anywhere in the world. The Refuge System has a long and 

successful tradition of conserving and managing wetlands and contributes significantly to 

the conservation of America's native forests, prairies, tundra, desert, seashores, and 

marine communities. 

Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System represents an important part 

of the federal government's share in the effort to protect and recover endangered and 

threatened species. Fifty-eight refuges have been established specifically to protect 

threatened and endangered species. Another 302 refuges provide listed species with 

habitat at some point during their life cycles. More than 170 threatened or endangered 

animals and at least 40 listed plants occur on national wildlife refuges and more than 350 

candidate species have been recorded on refuges. More than 50 refuges provide 

designated critical habitat covering more than 430,000 acres and seventeen refuges are 

2 
272 

involved in listed species propagation and release programs. As a testament to the 

success of refuge management, fifty-five percent of the endangered and threatened 

species that occur on national wildlife refuges are stable or improving. This is nearly 

twice the success rate of species that are not found on national wildlife refuges. 

The Refuge System also provides exceptional opportunities for people to engage 

in forms of recreation that are dependent on the presence of fish and wildlife, including 

fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and nature photography. For example, at least one 

form of hunting is currently allowed on 274 of the nation's 504 refuges and fishing occurs 

on 254 units. More than 37 million Americans visit national wildlife refuges each year 

for wildlife observation and interpretation. Such "wildlife dependent" recreation provides 

experiences through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and 

wildlife. Under the terms of the 1966 Refuge Administration Act, these activities may 

be permitted when they are adequately reviewed and managed to ensure that they are 

compatible with the purposes of the refuge .. a standard that has worked well and should 

be continued. 

The Wilderness Society and other conservation organizations supported 

comprehensive legislation for the Refuge System during the last session of Congress 

because we believed that the Refuge System has the potential to accomplish significantly 

more on these fronts. 

ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF REFUGE LEGISLATION 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ( 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668jj) 

formally established the Refuge System by assembling the various lands and waters under 

the control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into a single system and authorized the 

Secretary of Interior to "permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose, 

including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, 

whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which 

such areas were established." During the last session of Congress, our organizations 

supported legislation that would have supplemented that act by: 

+ establishing a set of conservation purposes for the Refuge System; 

+ strengthening the process for determining the compatibility of refuge uses; 

+ requiring preparation of comprehensive plans for individual refuges and the Refuge 

System; 

+ providing a mechanism to resolve conilicts between activities of other federal agencies 

and the needs of refuge wildlife; and 

+ providing the Secretary of the Interior with affirmative duties to protect and provide 

for the Refuge System. 

Below we address each of these essential components of comprehensive refuge 

legislation and comment on the ways in which H.R. 1615 would undermine them and the 

integrity of the Refuge System. 

3 
273 

Conservation Purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

At least in theory, each national wildlife refuge in the System was established with 

a particular purpose or set of purposes. These purposes are articulated in Executive 

Orders or public land orders which have withdrawn much of the Refuge System from the 

public domain; acts of Congress which have formally authorized and described a number 

of refuges; language in statutes that have authorized purchase, lease, or easement of 

refuge lands, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish 

and Wildlife Act, and North American Wetlands Conservation Act; and language 

contained in donation documents, cooperative agreements, and other documents. 

For example, approximately 48 percent of the refuges contain lands acquired 

under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to "conserve and protect 

migratory birds in accordance with treaty obligations .... and [to conserve] other species 

of wildlife found thereon, including species that are listed pursuant to [the Endangered 

Species Act], and to restore or develop adequate wildlife habitat" ( 19 U.S.C 715(i)). 

The problem has been that there is no overarching statement of purpose for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, even the individual refuge purposes are 

occasionally unclear. Twenty-six years ago, the esteemed Leopold committee on wildlife 

management identified this problem when it reported that the Refuge System lacked a 

"clear statement of policy or philosophy as to what the System should be and what are 

the logical tenets of its future development'." The Commission recognized that without 

such an underlying philosophy, the refuge system would be unable to resist pressures "for 

larger picnic grounds, camping facilities, bridle paths, target ranges, and other assorted 

forms of play which are only obliquely related to refuge purposes." 

The challenge before the Congress is to establish a set of purposes for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System that incorporates the relevant material from the various 

authorities underpinning the refuge system, is consistent with the system's history, and 

ensures that the System will address the most important conservation challenges facing 

the nation in the years to come. 

That was accomplished last year with S. 823 as amended and approved by the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (S. Rpt. 103-324) and agreed to by 

the organizations mentioned earlier in this testimony. In keeping with the history of the 

Refuge System, the purposes laid out for the System included: 

"A) to provide a diverse national network of lands and waters designed to conserve and 

manage, in perpetuity, native fish, wildlife, and plants of the United States and their 

habitats; 

1 Leopold, AS., C. Cottam, I.M. Gabrielson, and T.L Kimball. 1969. A study of the 

national wildlife refuge system: The report of the advisory committee on wildlife 

management, appointed by Interior Secretary Stewart L Udall. Trans. N. Am. Wild!. and 

Nat. Resour. Conf. 33:30-53. 

4 
274 

B) to conserve, manage, and where appropriate restore fish and wildlife populations and 

plant communities, and refuge habitats so as to provide in perpetuity for the diversity of 

native fish, wildlife, and plants and the ecological processes that su,;tain them; and 

C) to conserve and manage migratory birds, anadromous or interjurisdictional fish 

species, marine mammals, and other fish, wildlife, and plants." 

In addition, the hill recognized that many refuges have been established for 

specific purposes, such as the conservation of a particular endangered species or 

migratory birds. It also recognized that the purposes of some refuges include providing 

opportunities for compatible fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. The bill made clear 

that these purposes were to be reaffirmed and not replaced by the new Refuge System 

purposes. Rather the new System purposes would supplement these traditional purposes 

with a dear directive to conserve the broad spectrum of fish and wildlife. 

Unfortunately, as the members of the former \krch:mt Marine and Fisheries 

Committee know all too well. many of our nation's refuges have been subjected to 

activities that have undermined the purposes fnr which the areas were established. Over 

the past quarter century there has been a nearly steady stream of reports by Secretarial 

blue -ribbon committees, the General Accounting Office, and outside interest groups 

about these problems. For example, in 199L the Fish and Wildlife Service reported that 

nearly two thirds of the nation's refuges were subjected to at least one activity that 

undermined their mission--from water skiing through wading bird rookeries to overgrazing that destroyed waterfowl nesting hahitat2

. (Attached to this statement is a 

summary of but a few examples of the finding-. of reports issued on the plight of the 

Refuge System over the years.) 

During these years, there have been at least three "major thrusts" by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to respond to the findings of these reports and correct the problems. 

We are currently in the "corrective measures are undetv.·ay" stage of the cycle due to the 

Service's response to a lawsuit filed by The Wilderness Society and several other 

organizations in October 1992 (National Audubon Society et al v Babbitt) and the 

subsequent settlement of that litigation. 

But the endless pattern of broken ... fixed ... broken ... fixed will never end unless 

two underlying problems are resolved: the lack of a dear standard for determining the 

compatibility of refuge activities and the lack of a sound process for reviewing these 

activities that provides the public an opportunity to review and comment on the agency's 

determinations. 

2 Report to tile Director: A Review of Secondary Uses Occurring on National Wildlife 

Refuges. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June, 1991. 

5 
275 

During the research for our lawsuit, I personally interviewed more than 50 refuge 

managers and dozens of local conservationists. Time and time again I heard the same 

story. The managers did not understand how to interpret the vague administrative 

definition of compatibility put into effect during the mid·l980s; there was no guidance on 

what information compatibility determinations were to be based on; and there was no 

clear process for making the determinations. This problem is further illustrated by 

reviewing the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1991 report. Refuge Managers deemed nearly 

200 activities within the Service's authority to control as "harmful" to achieving refuge 

ohjectives3

, but because of the weak and confusing definition of a compatible use, they 

failed to find these activities "incompatible." (In addition, 132 other uses were considered 

"incompatible.") 

S. 823, as passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 

corrected these weaknesses by providing a clear definition of a compatible use--a use 

that "will not have a detrimental effect on the fulfillment of the primary purposes of the 

refuge or the purposes of the System"; requiring that determinations were to be based on 

the "best available scientific information;" and providing a sound process for making the 

determinations that included an opportunity for the public to review and comment. 

Sound Plannini for the Future of the National Wildlife Refu&e System 

Sound planning is an important process for any successful entity, whether it be a 

large corporation, a small town, or a national wildlife refuge. To properly manage the 

national wildlife refuges, the Fish and Wildlife Service should be directed to conduct 

thorough planning for these important public resources. Preparation of comprehensive 

plans for the National Wildlife Refuge System are essential to ensure integrated 

management and planned expansion of the system. Integrated management among 

refuges is particularly important in light of the Refuge System's function as a "chain of 

refuges" in conserving migratory birds. Fundamentally, it will be nearly impossible to 

manage the Refuge System as a system until it is planned as a system. While the Fish 

and Wildlife Service embarked on such a planning process in 1986, and released a draft 

of its plan "Refuges 2003" in winter of 1993, there is currently no prospects for release of 

a final version of the plan. 

Affirmative Stewardship Responsibilities for the Secretary of Interior 

Another fundamentally flaw in current Refuge System law is the absence of 

explicit mandates for the Secretary of the Interior to protect and provide for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge System has been a step-child within the 

federal government because it lacks such mandated affirmative duties. S. 823 would 

have corrected this shortcoming by providing a number of duties for the Secretary. 

3 Defined to mean that "the net result of the activity is that it adversely affects 

the ability of the refuge managers to conserve or manage in accordance with the refuge 

goals and objectives 

6 
276 

S. 823 would have required the Secretary of Interior to ensure that the mission 

and purposes of the refuges and the Refuge System are carried out; protect the refuges 

and the Refuge System from threats to their ecological integrity; assist in the 

maintenance of adequate water supplies for refuges; and provide for the expansion of the 

Refuge System in a manner best designed to accomplish the purposes of the refuges and 

the Refuge System. 

Resolvin~: Conflicts between Refu~:es and the Actions of Other Federal Agencies 

Threats to national wildlife refuges do not only come from public uses within their 

borders. They also result from the activities of other federal agencies in and around 

refuges. Current law requires that uses by other federal agencies on refuge lands over 

which the Service has primary jurisdiction be compatible with the purposes of the 

refuges. The law is less clear, however, regarding protection of refuges from activities of 

other federal agencies on lands where the Service has secondary jurisdiction or where the 

activities occur off the refuge. As introduced in the 103rd Congress, S. 823 addressed 

this problem by requiring other federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and ensure that their activities do not impair the resources of national wildlife 

refuges. 11mt provision was amended by the Environment and Public Works Committee 

to simply require other federal agencies to minimize and mitigate the adverse affects on 

the resources of a refuge that result from their activities. (Of course, the compatibility 

requirement would continue to apply to activities of other agencies on refuges that are 

currently subject to Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction and are therefore currently 

governed by that standard.) 

MAJOR PROBLEMS WITII H.R. 1675 

Unfortunately, H.R. 1675 contains a number of provisions that break the carefully 

crafted agreements embodied in S. 823 and that would, in fact, undermine the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Some of our biggest concerns include: 

H.R 1675 Undermines Protection of Refuges 

1) H.R. 1675 weakens the compatibility process by !) codifying a definition of 

compatibility that has proven overly vague and unworkable; 2) limiting public review of 

compatibility decisions; 3) lowering the scientific standard for compatibility decisions; 

and 4) making it more difficult for the Fish and Wildlife Service to modify or phase out 

harmful activities that have occurred on newly acquired refuge properties. 

H.R. 1675 would define a compatible use as one that "will not have a materially 

detrimental effect" on the fulfillment of refuge purposes. A> discussed earlier in this 

testimony, this standard has led to the continuation of activities harmful to achieving 

refuge purposes. 

In addition, H.R. 1675 provides for only limited public review and comment on 

periodic reviews of compatibility determinations that occur outside the 15-year planning 

cycle. Public participation in decision making is good public polk)' and should be 

7 
Z77 

encouraged. I would assume that, were the Fish and Wildlife Service to find a particular 

refuge hunting program "incompatible" during one of its reviews, several of the groups 

testifying today would like an opportunity to review and comment on such a decision. 

Furthermore, the bill replaces S. 823's requirement that decisions be based on the 

"best available scientific information" with a weaker standard of basing the decisions on 

"reliable scientific information." This change strikes us as particularly surprising 

considering the heightened sensibility expressed by the current Congress to the quality of 

science underpinning resource management decisions. 

The bill would also reverse the burden of proof for review of the compatibility of 

all activities that exist on lands upon the date of incorporation into the system. While 

there may be an appropriate mechanism to expedite the review of wildlife-dependent 

recreation that has existed prior to acquisition of refuge lands or allow such activities to 

continue for a few years pending the development of the first refuge plan, we do not 

believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service should be forced to prove that activities are 

incompatible before modifying or phasing them out to protect the resources of newly 

acquired refuge properties. 

2) RR 1675 inappropriately places wildlife dependent recreation as a "co-equal" purpose 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System alongside fish and wildlife conservation. 

We oppose this provision because the underlying purpose of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System has been and should continue to be fish and wildlife conservation. We 

believe that it may be appropriate to direct the Secretary of Interior to provide 

opportunities for such uses within the System. Acknowledging the appropriateness of 

these activities under certain circumstances will ensure that such uses can not be 

challenged per se as violating Refuge System purposes. 

Establishing wildlife-dependent recreation as a purpose of the Refuge System sets 

up a confusing situation in which the Service will be put in the untenable position of 

attempting to determine whether a use is compatible with purposes that include allowing 

the use. The circularity of this theoretical dilemma is extremely problematic. 

3) H.R 1675 would make destruction of refuge resources by other agencies easier 

H.R 1675 contains no provision to protect the Refuge System from harm caused 

from the activities of other federal agencies. In fact, the bill contains several provisions 

that weaken existing protection for national wildlife refuges. 

Congressman Dingell's Refuge Administration Act allows the Secretary of Interior 

to permit easements and rights of way for various uses when he determines that such 

uses are compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established. Any 

roads, navigation aids, communication aids and other structures built over the last thirty 

years therefore were done so under the compatibility requirement of Dingell's 1966 Act. 

H.R. 1675 repeals this requirement by granting exemptions from compatibility for 

highway rights of way, navigation aids, and other structures in place on the date of 

enactment of this bilL 

8 
278 

H.R. 1675 inappropriately exempts highway rights of way from compatibility. This 

provision should be modified to limit its application to formal public roads 

passing through refuges that are currently and regularly used for motorized vehicular 

traffic. In addition, the language should be modified to ensure that compatibility will 

continue to apply to the expansion of such right of ways and the expansion of the uses to 

which they are subject. 

In addition the bill inappropriately exempts from compatibility any activities on 

so-called "overlay refuges" that are authorized, funded. or conducted by an agency 

with primary jurisdiction over the area. This provision should be modified to exempt 

only those activities that are directly related to the primary mission of the agency with 

primary jurisdiction. For example, while it may be appropriate to exempt from 

compatibility the water management activities of the Corps of Engineers affecting a 

national wildlife refuge over which the Corps holds primary jurisdiction, the Corps 

should not be initiating activities that are unrelated to its primary mission unless such 

activities are compatible with the purposes of the refuge and the Refuge System. 

The bi!! also defines the term "refuge" in a manner that excludes "navigational 

servitudes" a term that we are still reviewing. We are concerned that this provision 

could have the inappropriate result of exempting from compatibility certain activities that 

are currently subject to such reviews. 

4) H.R. 1675 does not include an important provision of S. li23 that would have require 

the Secretary of the Interior to protect each refuge in the system and the Refuge System 

from threats to their ecological integrity. The new bill also inappropriately attempts to 

limit the acquisition of water rights for the Refuge System to what is provided under 

State water laws. 

H.R. 1675 Undermines Appropriate Science-based m;ma~:ement of hunting and fishing 

I) H.R. 1675 would elevate hunting and fishing to purposes of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Again, we believe tha: it may be appropriate to direct the Secretary of 

Interior to provide opportunities for such uses within the System, but these activities 

should not be made co-equal purposes of the Refuge System along side wildlife 

conservation. 

Clearly hunting has a long and important <.~ssociation with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Hunters have contributed gre<.~tly to the Refuge System as purchase of 

Duck Stamps has resulted in the acquisition of an estimated 1.7 million acres of the 92 

million acre system or just under a third of the lands that have come into the system 

through acquisition. While the purposes of some refuges include providing 

opportunities for compatible fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting 

and fishing, such situations are not the rule. 

For the first 20 years of its history, in fact, hunting was a rare exception in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. In fact, most refuges were established to provide 

sanctuary from hunting. with the knowledge thm by providing such areas. hunting 

9 
279 

opportunities would be enhanced elsewhere4

• The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 provided for the acquisition of areas for the purpose of providing inviolate 

sanctuaries for migratory birds. 

By 1949 seven refuges permitted migratory bird hunting under the authority of the 

1906 Reservation Trespass Act. That year, Congress amended the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act to allow hunting on up to 25 percent of an area ac4uired under the 

authority of that Act. This percentage was raised to 40 percent in 1958. In 1962. 

Congress passed the Refuge Recreation Act which reaffirmed that hunting and other 

forms of recreation could be appropriate uses of national wildlife refuges when they were 

managed so as to not "interfere with the primary purposes for which the areas were 

established." The National Wildlife Refuge System Administrmion Act authorized the 

Secretary of Interior to "permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose. 

including but not limited to hunting. fishing, public recreation and accommodations, 

whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which 

such areas were established." 

Establishing hunting and fishing and other wildlife-dependent forms of recreation 

as a co-equal purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System would not be consistent 

with the system's long history. 

2) H.R. 1675 inappropriately and unnecessarily insulates individual hunting and fishing 

programs from thorough review for compatibility and limits the discretion of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to determine whether hunting is in the public interest on a 

particular refuge. These provisions of H.R. 1675 appear to have been prompted by a 

fear that somehow the Fish and Wildlife Service was conspiring with anti-hunting groups 

to ban hunting in the Refuge System. While perpetuating these concerns may make for 

successful hndraising, they are not grounded in the truth. 

The agency's review of refuge uses prompted by the settlement of our lawsuit has 

resulted in modification or termination of several dozen harmful non-wildlife oriented 

recreational and economic activities. In contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

consistently determined that almost all of the refuge hunting and fishing programs are 

being conducted in a manner that ensures that they are compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuges were established. On a very small number of refuges, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has proposed modifications of hunting and fishing programs to make 

them compatible with the refuges' wildlife conservation purposes. 

No activities are per se compatible or incompatible. Determinations of 

compatibililv involve the careful evaluation of the timing, duration, location, manner, and 

level of a use. 

4 Nathaniel P. Reed and Dennis Orabelle. 1984. The United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. page 45. 

10 
280 

H.R. 1675 Undermines Refuj!e Manaj!ers Authority to Make Mana11ement Decisions 

1) H.R. 1675 calls for preparation of plans for individual refuges or complexes of 

refuges but inappropriately requires that the plans be "consistent" with plans prepared by 

state fish and wildlife agencies. While planning can be improved with close coordination 

between the Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies, this provision would seem to 

give these state agencies an undo amount of control in the management of national 

wildlife refuges. 

2) H.R. 1675 inappropriately and unnecessarily upsets a careful balancing of the 

responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the Refuge System and the 

authority of states generally to manage resident wildlife populations within their borders 

by asserting "primary" authority of the States to manage refuge wildlife. Congressman 

Dingell's Refuge Administration Act already made clear that nothing in that act "shall 

be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States 

to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations 

in any area within the System." This precise language was incorporated into the Multiple 

Use Sustained Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528-531) as well as the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1701-1784). There is no reason to upset the delicate 

balance established in prior laws with the new language of H.R. 1675. 

3) H.R. 1675 also inappropriately authorizes the transfer of management authority for 

national wildlife refuges to the States. This provision would appear to reverse the 

requirements of the 1976 "Game Range Act" amendments to the Refuge Administration 

Act, another act sponsored by Congressman Dingell, that the National Wildlife Refuge 

System be managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge. 

CONCLUSION 

The Wilderness Society and other conservation organizations strongly supported 

legislation during the last session of Congress to supplement the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act. While we continue to believe that such legislation is 

ultimately necessary to ensure that the Refuge System meets its great potential to 

conserve the nation's fish and wildlife, we have a number of serious concerns with H.R. 

1675. We look forward to working with you and your staff on efforts to ensure the 

sound management and well-being of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

11 
281 

A MAGNIFICENT SYSTEM IMPERILED 

Over the last quarter century, over a dozen major reports have identified 

problems in the National Wildlife Refuge System. For example, 

In 1968 ... The ''National Wildlife Refuge System Advisory Board on Wildlife Management", 

appomted by Secretary of [ntenor Stewart L. Udall wrote: 

'The proximity of urban masses leads inevttably to pressure for larger picnic grounds, camping facilihes, 

•mproved swimming beaches, motorboat marinas, water sktmg. bndle paths, target ranges, and other 

assorted forms of play whiCh are only obliquely related to r<'fuge purposes. " (from Report on the 

Natwnal Wlidl•fe Refl!ge System) 

In 19'79 ... The "National Wildlife Refuge Study Task Force" appointed by Asststant Secretary of 

Interior Robert Herbst wrote: 

"Local pressures to use refuge lands for such benefits as grazing. timber harvesting. and public recreation 

prevent refuge managers from effectively managmg refuges primarily for wtldhfe. . Pressures to dewlop 

or degrade refuges for economic gain are growing exponenttally" (from Recommendations on the 

Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System.) 

In 1981 ... The General Accounting Office wrote: 

'The Servtce 1s properly operatmg and mamtaining only about 46 percent of the natton's refuges ... Local 

pressures to use refuge lands for such benefits as grazing. timber harvesting. and public recreation prevent 

refuge managers from effectively managtng refuges primartly for wildlife." (from National Direction 

Requ.,ed for Fffective Management of America's Fish and Wildlife.) 

In 1983 ... The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servtce wrote: 

'Threats assoctated wtth pollutants, land uses, public uses, exoltc spectes, individual development 

protects, etc. ... are currently causmg or have the potential to cause significant damage to Servicemanaged natural resources ... An average of 18.6 resource problems were reported per refuge." (from Fish 

and Wildlife Sert>ice Resource Problems, Nattonal Wildlife Refuges, Natr'onal Fish Hatcheries, 

Research Centers! 

In 1989 ... General Accounting Office wrote: 

"Nattonal Wildlife Refuges are frequently not the pristine wildlife sanctuaries implied by thetr name . 

. Despite the requirements that only compatible secondary activities be permitted, refuge managers 

report that activities they cons1der harmful to wildlife resources (such as power boating oil and gas 

dnlling. mining. jet-skiing. over-grazing. and off-road vehtcles) are occurring on nearly 60 percent of the 

wildlife refuges." (from National Wildlife Refuges: Conlmumg Problems with Incompatible Uses Call 

for Bold Acl1an.) 

In 1991 ... The U.S. Ftsh and Wtldlife Servtce wrote: 

"Incompatible and harmful uses are occurring on many national wildlife refuges ... Refuge manage<' 

reported 8.36 use occurrences as being harmful to refuge operations ... The survey results indicated that 

63% of refuge uruts reported [at least one) harmful use." (from Report of SecandRry UstS Occurnng on 

Natwnal Wildlife Refuges) 

In 1993 ... The Interior Department's Inspector General wrote: 

"We concluded that at all of the refuges we vistted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had not 

matntained the refuges in a manner that would effectively enhance and protect the wildlife." (from 

Maintenance of Wildlift Refuges, U.S.Fish and Wi/dlift S.rvia) 

The National Wildlife Refuge System needs your help!!! 
282 

~HSJ( 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS 

OF THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBMITTED BY DR. JOHN W. GRANDY 

ON BEHALF OF 

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 

AND 

WILDLIFE REFUGE REFORM COALITION 

MAY 25, 1995 

The llum:uu.: Sncil-ry of the Cuitnl Stares 

2100 L Srrcct. :'\\\: \\';•shington. DC :?00.17 

(2112) H2-IIIHI F.\.\ (2112) 7/S-1>1.12 
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN W. GRANDY 

Submitted to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

of the House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

May 25, 1995 

The Humane Society of the u.s. (HSUS) and the Wildlife Refuge 

Reform Coalition appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony 

on an issue of tremendous importance to our 3 million members and 

constituents: the management of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The HSUS is the nation's largest animal protection 

organization, with regional offices throughout the u.s. The 

Wildlife Refuge Reform Coalition is an organization comprised of 

over one hundred environmental ar1d animal protection groups 

nationwide. The principal goal of the coalition is to restore 

integrity to the management of the National Wildlife Refuge 

system. 

Both the use of wildlife and the public interest in wildlife have 

undergone significant changes in our society in the past few 

decades. However, u.s. wildlife policy does not adequately 

reflect today's growing understanding of the values of wildlife 

and wild places. This imbalance is nowhere better demonstrated 

than in the current efforts to change the purposes of the 

National Wildlife Refuge system. 

As the only federal lands established specifically for the 

protection of wildlife, the 500+ refuges of the System provide 

vital habitat for hundreds of species of birds, mammals and 

various endangered and threatened species. Unfortunately, 

however, the 1989 report by the General Accounting Office 

entitled National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems with 

Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action hinted at the extent to 

which National Wildlife Refuges are held hostage by incompatible 

activities and conflicting purposes. Refuge managers reported 

that more than 60% of the refuges are host to incompatible 

activities that "disturb wildlife habitat, disrupt breeding 

activities, or modify established animal behavior patterns." A 

later study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that 

activities harmful to fish and wildlife and their habitat occur on nearly 63% of all national wildlife refuges. secondary uses 

range from oil and gas drilling, farming, pesticide use, power 

boating and water skiing, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and 

recreational and commercial killing of wildlife. These uses 

divert refuge management attention and resources from achieving 

wildlife protection and enhancement activities and directly or 

indirectly destroy the integrity of these areas as true Refuges 

for wildlife. As long as these activities are allowed on 

1 
284 

Refuges, the importance and signifi cance of these lands 

diminishes exponentially. 

H.R. 1675, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995, 

is not an improvement at all. In fact this bill, if passed, 

would only further entrench thescl harmful and incompatible 

secondary uses so that the public would no longer be able to 

enjoy the experience of visiting a wildlife refuge. It 

completely ignores public opinion and instead bows to the 

pressure of a small but vocal minority. Clearly the main 

function of this legislation is to increase the opportunities for 

hunting and fishing on the National Wildlife Refuge System. Yet 

over half of our refuges currently allow hunting and hunters 

represent less than 3% of the 40 million other wildlife-oriented 

visitors to refuges. In addition, wildlife refuges comprise onl y 

5% of all huntable land in the United States. If hunting on 

refuges were banned tomorrow, hunters would still have more than 

one and a half billion acres on which to hunt--- 200 million 

acres of state land, 600 million acres of federal land, and more 

than one billion acres of private land. On the other hand, there 

are fewer and fewer places, in the face of continuing development 

and habitat destruction', to observe wildl ife in its natural 

state. 

Every year more th~n half a million ducks, geese, muskrats, 

beavers and other animals are killed on refuges and tens of 

thousands more are wounded and crippled. Yet The HSUS and the 

Wildlife Refuge Reform Coalition nave received signatures from 

over 10,000 people stating that no hunting should occur on the 

National Wildlife Refuge system. H.R. 1675 completely flies in 

the face of public opinion and if passed, would change the 

National Wildlife Refuge System into a Wildlife Management and 

Recreation system. It takes our country's wildlife away from the 

public. congress has recently shown a great deal of concern 

about the public's use and enj oyment of property, both public and 

private. If this concern is genuine, then H.R. 1675 constitutes 

a taking of the public's land. Hunters and fishermen, who stand 

to gain the most from this legislation, take the public's fish 

and wildlife. Loggers and miners take the public's trees and 

minerals. Federal public lands such as the National Wildlife 

Refuge System are meant to be enjoyed by all. As lands belonging 

to the people of this nation, refuges should be managed in 

accordance with the views of the majority of Americans. They are 

the public's resources. 

Sport hunting is anti-ecological. In a natural environment, 

species remain strong because weak and sick animals are killed 

off by disease, predators and competition for limited food. 

Given a choice, however, hunters target vital, healthy animals 

and leave the sick ones to weaken a species' gene pool. 

Moreover, massive recreational killing of wild animals and the 

so-called "management" of animal populations by killing predator 

2 
species wreak havoc with the natural balance of the entire refuge 

habitat. 

The management of North American black ducks is perhaps the best, or worst, example of the Refuge System gone awry. The black duck 

population, which is largely restricted to New England and 

eastern Canada, has declined by more than 60% since the late 

1950's, and has been nearly stable at this depressed level since 

the early 1980's. Not only has nothing been done to restore this 

unique North American species, but black duck hunting is actually 

permitted on national wildlife refuges in New England. 

In the past, congress has attempted to limit harmful Refuge 

activities. In 1962, Congress passed the Refuge Recreation Act 

and in 1966, Congress passed the Refuge Administration Act. Yet 

harmful and incompatible activities on refuges have not only 

continued but increased. The definition of compatibility, which 

has been so lax as to allow these activities, is made even less 

stringent by the legislation currently being considered. No 

compatibility determinations would be required for the first 

three years after this legislation is enacted. The process for 

determining compatibility would not need to be based on the best 

available science. And the opportunity for public comments would 

be significantly decreased. Activities should only be allowed 

when there is available scientific evidence that the use will not 

detract from the purpose of wildlife protection and the purposes 

for the individual refuges, and when the management of that use will not divert funds or personnel away from refuge management 

programs for the fulfillment of those purposes. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service faces political pressures and 

lacks the funding to properly manage secondary uses. Legislation 

is clearly needed to combat these issues. H.R. 1675 does exactly 

the opposite. It ~reates a presumption in favor of continuing 

harmful uses and requires no evaluation of these uses for 15 

years. Furthermore, it dictates to the u.s. Fish and Wildlife 

Service that hunting and fishing are generally compatible with 

the purposes of wildlife refuges in protecting wildlife. 

The purposes of the Refuge system, as set out in H.R. 1675, are at odds with one another. If the System is to protect and conserve wildlife, then hunting should not be presumed 

acceptable. And if the System is to promote opportunities for 

hunting and fishing, then it should not pretend to be protecting 

wildlife. If animals are to be killed on national wildlife 

refuges, it should be done as a last resort only, for wildlife 

management purposes, and in a humane manner. 

Congress must make a decision about whether it wants to continue 

the legacy begun by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1903, or whether 

it wants to convert this system of federal lands into 

playgrounds. surely the public has a right to expect a Wildlife 

3 
Refuge System which gives the benafit of the doubt to wildlife 

values. If wild animals cannot be protected on Wildlife Refuges, 

then where? 

4 
287 

Statement 

of the Congressional Sportsllleo's Foundation 

Concerning R.R. 1675 

"The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995" 

Submitted to tbe Ho!W! Resources CoDlDlittee, June 1, 1955 

The Congressional SportSmen's Foundation respectfully submits to the 

House Resources Committee a starement in support of H.R. 1675, "The National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995." 

H.R. 1675 defUieS wildlife·dependent recreation and establishes traditional 

public uses such as hunting and fiShing as permitted activities unless shown to be 

inconsistent with the principles of sound wildlife management, public safety or 

the purposes of a specific unit. 

This legislation reaffirms and restores to the refuge system the original 

goals and intent of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. It 

recognizes and maintains the integrity of the primary use for which each refuge 

unit was established, while assuring maximum public benefit through allowance 

of other compatible uses. Importantly, it assures that America's spommen will 

receive an equitable return on their financial investment in the 92 million-acre 

refuge system. Sportsmen conUibute through purchases of licenses, duck stamps 

a.nd targeted ell.cise taxes on equipment 

Passage of H.R. 1675 is of critical importance to America's 60 million 

spon.smen and to all future generations who will enjoy our nation· s outdoor 

heritage. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation extends its gratitude to 

House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) and to !he other 

members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus who have sponsored this 

timely legislation. 

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation is a non-profit foundation 

dedicated to preserving and promoting America's hunting and angling 

ttaditions. 
288 

COMMENTS OF IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 

TO THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINIS~TION ACT OF 

1966, aka: THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1m 

Presented to 

The Fisheries, WUdllfe and Oeeans Subi:onunittee 

Bouse Resources Committee 

U.S. Bouse of Representatives 

May 25, 1995 
289 

Chairman Saxton and distinguished members of me Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Subcommittee: Herein are the comments of In Defense of Animals submitted for the record 

regarding th" proposed Nariqnal Wildlife Refu.ge lmpravement Act of 1995. 

In Defense of Animals is a national, non-profit animal advOC<lcy organiZation with 

65,000 members nationwide. We are dedicated to me protection and preservation of animals 

and their habitat. We are. therefore, strongly opposed to the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1995 before you, (hereafter t..:ferred to as 'the bill") which proposes to 

amend the National Wildlife Refuge System and Administration Act of 1966 for the reasons 

listed below. 

RECREATIONAL ACTMTIES OF HUJ'io'TING AAlJ FISHING ARE 

INCOMPATffiLE wrm THE PURPOSE OF A NATIONAL REFUGE 

This bill provides that" ... when managed in accordance wim principles of sound fish and 

wildlife management, fishing and hunting in a refuge are generally compatible with the 

conservation of fish and wildlife and plants and their habitats and have no materially detrimental 

effect on the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge and !he purposes of the System." 

In actual icy, hunting and fiShing are by nature incompatible with the purpose of the 

refu~ and the purposes of !be System. A wildlife refuge: n. shelrer; asylum, retrear; 

sanctuary, as commonly defined, would be completely contradicted by !he presence of sport 

hunting and fishing, as has been proposed by Ibis amendment. Wildlife refuges should be safe 

havens, or sanctuaries, for wildlife. They should be places where fish and wildlife are 

proteCted. not lcilled for sport 

Statistics show that only approximately 7-10% of the population of the United States 

consists of hunters. The public at large does not support the principle of huntin.g or fishing in 

national refuge areas. 

Safety would also be an issue should hunting be introduced into national refuge areas. Ir 

would no longer be safe for any species, including hwnan.s, to roam the wilderness within the 

refuge, as stray bullets would be a real danger. Hil;ers, naturalists and educaticmal and 

environmental groups would no longer wish ro visit !he refuge, as the presence of hunters would 

cause the wildlife ro fear humans, in turll, changing their natural behaviors and preventing close 

observation of them in their natural habitat 

Finally. this amendmetll mandares a reevaluation of each "fish- and wildlife-dependeDI 

recreational use• (i.e., hunting and ftshing) at least every 15 years, while other existing uses are 

to be reevaluated no less frequently thaD every 4 years. This provision is completely 

inappropriate. If fishing and hu.DtiJii are to be allowed within a mtional refuge, this "use· 

should be reevaluated every 4 years to ensure that '!he use remains compatible with 1he 

purposes of the refuge and the purposes of the System ... ' 
290 

HUNTING AND CULLING ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY-SOUND FORMS OF 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

The bill authorizes the "taking' of fish and wildlife for purposes of "sound fish and 

wildlife management". Once again, these activities are contrary to sound principles of wildlife 

management. The principles of natural selection and sport hunting a.re diametrically-opposed, as 

hunters characteristically kill the strongest adult 'trophy' animals, leaving the weaker members 

to reproduce, and leaving the young of these trophy animals to starve or succumb to predators 

Controlled culling also acts to upset narural selection, as members of the species are randomly 

killed, again, possibly leaving the weaker animals to reproduce. What is conspicuously absent is 

the inclusion of other forms of wildlife population management, such as birth control. While this 

technique of wildlife management is still relatively young, it has proven very effective in 

controlling test populations of wildlife which are e:~:ceeding the carrying capacity of their habitat. 

It can also be adminlstered cyclicly, so uiat natural selection is still allowed ro operate, and the 

strongest. healthiest members of a species are allowed to reproduce. Lastly, wildlife 

management programs should be engineered and administered by biologists and scientific 

experts. not through legislative offtcials. 

LACK OF PUBLIC COMMENT 

The amendment provides that the Secretary shall permit fishing and hunting on a refuge 

if appropriate, and that "no other determination or findings, except the determination of 

consistency with State laws and regulations ... arc required to be made for fishing and hunting to 

occur.' As national refuges are public lands. the public should have the opportUnity ro comment 

on the appropriateness of fishing and hunting in national refuge areas. Again, because it has 

been shown that the public generally does not support fishing and hunting in national refuge 

areas, this appears to be a clear abdication of the democratic process. 

RESPONSffiiLITIES OF THE SECRETARY- LACK OF EXPERT INPUT 

This bill gives responsibility to the Secretary to manage and develop each conservation 

plan. As sucb, the Secretary is empowered to, among other duties, identify and describe the 

following: 

The distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations 

and related habitats; 

The archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit; 

Significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habiiats of fiSh, wildlife 

and plants within the planning unit, as well as actions necessary to correct or mitigate such 

problems; 

The opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, 

environmental education, interpretation of the resou:ces and values of the planning unit, and 

other uses that may contribute to refuge management. 

- 3. 
291 

Wit.ll all due respect to the Secretary, many of these activities are items that should be in 

the hands of biologists, scientific experts and wildlife e;q>eriS, not appointed or elecred officials 

or the legislarure. 

REFUGE CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRAM'S ALASKA EXEMPTION 

Section 6 af this amendment exempts refuge lands ill Alaska from 1btl Refuge 

Con...erVlltion PllUIIling Program. National refuge lands in Alaska should be treated no 

differently &om other refuge lands in the System, and should be held accountable to the same 

national laws and programs. Alaska wildlife should be afforded the same protections as the rest 

of our nation's wildlife and species. 

In Sum!Jl;tty. this bill is a threat to our national refuge system, our nation's wildlife and 

their habitat. It appears to be written to serve the interests of hunters and • sportsmen • rather 

than to protect and preserve wildlife and habitat of our National Refuge System. The provisions 

of this amendment are contrary to the ill'll:nded purpose of the National Refuge System. 

For ·the above-stated reasom, we respectfully request !bat 1btl National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1995 be defeated. Thank you for tbe opportunicy to comment on this 

matter. 

. 4. 
The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman. Resources Committee 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

292 

May 25, 1995 

Chairman, Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairmen: 

We the undersigned former Interior Department assistant secretaries 

for fish, wildlife and parks are writing to urge you to ensure that 

the integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System is protected. 

The Refuge System is a national treasure unlike any other. This 

complex of lands and waters was intended to be, and should be, 

managed primarily to conserve the nation's diverse fish and wildlife heritage. Because of the inherently federal trust responsibility for refuges and their migratory wildlife, it is in the 

best interest of the American people for the Department of the 

Interior/U.S. fish and Wildlife Service to retain the ultimate 

management authority for all refuges within the System. 

In addition, from our firsthand experience, we recommend that it is 

imperative that your legislation: 1} g1ve the Interior Secretary 

affirmative duties to protect the ecological integrity of individual 

refuges and the System as a whole; and 2} not limit the Secretary's 

d1scretion unnecessarily. 

We recommend also that if wildlife - dependent recreation and environmental education are elevated, as you propose~ from traditional 

secondary uses to Refuge System purposes that such be done with 

extreme caution and appropriate qualification. It is essential to 

the proper administration of the Refuge System to ensure that these 

activities are only purposes when and where they are appropriate and 

compatible with the conservation and management of refuge wildlife 

and habitat resources. Some refuges, such as Pelican Island (FL), 

can not accommodate any on-site recreation and other refuges may not be able to accommodate hunting or fishing because of low populations 

levels. 

We thank you for your attention to our views. 

Sincerely, 

Robert L. Herbst Nathaniel P. Reed 
298 

SURVEY AND EVALU-•TION OF WETLAl'fiiS ,\ND WILDLIFE ltA.BITAT 

FORT DEVENS, MASSAG!l'USETTS 

Prepared by the U~S. Fish and Wildl1fe Service 

to be •ubmitted to the Houae Appropriations Co.mittee 

Introduction 

The J.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a survey of the 

wetldnde and wildlife habitat at Fort Devenst Massachusetts. The purpose of 

this survey was to evaluate the potential of installation lands for possible 

inclusion in the adjacent Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge {NWR), administered 

as part of Great Meadows NWR. Service biologists have reviewed we~landa and 

wildlife habitat type' occuring on the installation, through an an~lysis of 

maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, biological data collected by the Army, 

and field inspections. This report presents the findin9s of our survey. 

Fort Devens, operated and maintained by the U.S. Army, is one of several 

proposed military base closures and realignments being considered under the 

Base Closure and Realignment Act (P.L. 100-526). A portion of this military 

installation has been found to support significant wildlife rescurces. The 

extensive wetlands occuring along the Nashua River floodplain, including 

associated wetland tributary drainages and headwaters, have been l i sted as a 

priority for protection under both the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan {NAWMP) and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (EWRA). The 

Naahua River is a direct tributary of the Merrimack River system, and as such 

is also included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency~s Priority 

Wetlands of New England listing (1987). 

Location and Background 

Fort Devens is situated approximately 30 miles northwest of Boston in the 

northern part of the state, less than 10 miles from the New Hampshire border. 

Roughly half of the Fort's land area lies adjacent to the northern boundary of 

Oxbow NWR, the other half is adjacent to the western boundary, the Nashua 

River, and includes the western side of its floodplain. The 711-acre refuge 

was formerly Fort Devens training Area 4, and was transferred to the service 

in the mid-1970s. The installation lies within four towns in two counties 1 

with the southern 80 percent in Harvard and Lancaster (Worcester county) and 

the northern portion in Ayer and Shirley {Middlesex county) (refer to Maps l, 

2, and 3). 

Fort Devens includes a total of approximately 9,400 acres. Over 6,000 acres 

are used for trainin9/rnilitary manuevers and 3,000 acres for housing, 

buildings, and other facilities. The installation is reportedly the largest 

single land holding in the north-central area of Massachusetts, and the areas 

of forest, wetland, recreation land and river "greenway" within its boundaries 

may constitute the largest single area of undeveloped land under a single 

management in this part of the state. Approximate acreage by town is as 

follows: Ayer- 1,140, Harvard- 2,720, Lancaster - 4,830, Shirley - 680, 
294 

For the purposes of habitat discussions, the Fort is roughly divided into 

t,l)ree areas (see Map 4): (1) the training area or "South Post•• located south 

of State Route 2, (2) the area referred to as the "Cantonment" (Areas 1, lAlE} north of Route 2, mainly developed lands but including some recreational 

areas such as a 90lf course and Mirror Lake 1 and (3) the extreme northern end 

of the Fort, including training Areas 2, 3, and the Airfield. Lands north of 

Route 2 are referred to collectively as the "North Post". 

Description of Habitat 

Fort Devens was origirtally established in 1917 aa Camp Devens, and since then 

has been expanded and reduced in size several times over the years. With the 

approach of World War II over 4~100 acres were added by 1941, and another 

1,100 by 1943. As with other military bases, it is important to note landuse patterns existing before military conversion, since this has "set the 

stage .. for present habitat types found ~t Fort Devens. Much of the area now 

oc~upied by the installation was formerly farmland, with an interspersion of 

pasture, woodlots, orchards, and some cropped fields, as was typical in New 

England. Much of the Fort is basically old fields farmed until about 1940, 

now in various stages of re-growth. The diversity of habitat types in 

existence today reflects various successional stages of abandoned agricultural 

land of the 1930s and 1940s 1 reverting back towards a forested state. 

The other extremely important factor at Fort Devens is the ongoing military 

training activity, which has had ~ direct effect on maintaining early 

successional stages of habitat types. Training is described as including 

special forces, combat engineers 1 heavy equipment operators 1 marksmanship, and 

more. Plant communities have been modified and altered by vehicles and 

equipment, fires caused by marksmanship practice; and in some areas 

intentional mowing or burning, such as the parachute drop zone. These 

activit~es have maintained a great diversity of habitat types, thereby 

supporting a corresponding high diversity of wildlife species. 

south Post 

The majority of the Sou th Post is forested, with different forest communities 

covering approximately 62 percent of its 4,830 acres. Early-successional 

forest types including black cherry, grey birch, aspen, red maple and similar 

hardwood species make up 8 percent of the area. Mixed oak-hardwoods comprise 

the majority of forest 1 covering 26 percent 1 and mixed hardwood/evergreen 

stands (19 percent) are dominated by white pine, pitch pine, oaks 1 and other 

hardwoods. Roughly 9 percent of the forest at the date of aerial photography 

(1980} uaed for mapping covertypes was solely evergreen, dominated by white, 

red, and pitch pine. All covertypes are summarized in Table l, and 

illustrated by Map 6, as mapped by a consultant under contract to the Army. 

Wetlands are summarized and discussed separately, as mapped by the Service's 

National Wetland Inventory project. Wetland acreages do not correspond 

directly with covertyping by the consulting firm, since these cover types 

focused on forestry applications. For example, in some cases forested wetland 

dominated by red maple was covertyped only as red maple forest by the 

consultant and not designated as wetland. Other lands on the South Post are 

dominated by mixed shrub communities {4 percent), including early-successional 
295 

species ouch as grey birch, black cherry, sweet fern, sumac, huckleberry, 

aspen, red cedar, goldenrods, grasses, and othere4 These dreas have been 

created and/or maintained by disturbance or fire, and add to the diversity of 

habitat types and create edge effect between types. Additional lands on ~he 

south Post have been co~ertyped as grasses and forbs, and are dominated by 

herbaceous plants. The Drop zone is a 200-acre grassland habitat zone, 

actively maintained as open land to facilitate parachute jumping practice by a 

combination of mowing and burning. This particular area is dominated by 

graases bet~een one to three feet in height, such as beardgrass, and provides 

a unique and extensive unbroken grassland habitat of unusual size for the 

northeastern United States. Although shrubs are invading along the edges, it 

is an artificially maintained grassland Mprairie" situation. Areas typed as 

having no vegetation due to heavy use, such as the firing range along the east 

side, make up approximately 4 percent of the area. 

The lar;e area in the center of the South Post that was lef~ un-covertyped is 

referred to as the "impact area". This area is used for target practice with 

various types of ordinance, for example mortar practice, and was not mapped 

for safety reasons. Study of aerial photos shows this area to be dominated by 

species tolerant of fire, due to frequent burns that are ignited by target 

practice activities. It appears to be an unusual and unique fire ecology 

situation, with obviously glaciated topography and rugged terrain, kettle 

holes, sandy dry soils, and species adapted to fire such as scrub oak and 

pitch pi0e. Much of the South Post contains sandy soils which are uncommon 

for an inland location in east-central Massachusetts and may be considered 

more Characteristic of coastal areas of the state. 

cantonment and Airfield 

The majority of the lands north of Route 2 are developed or urban covertypes, 

with developed land, golf course, airfield, and filter beds comprising 56 

percent of land types. Forested types occupy 36 percent of the land surface, 

with early-successional black cherry-aspen-hardwoods covering 2 percent, mixed 

~ak-red maple-hardwoods 20 percent, white pine-hardwood mixes 11 percent, and 

white, red, and pitch pine occupying 2 percent. Shrub and herbaceous types 

each cover less than 2 percent of the land area~ 

Wetlands 

The majority of wetlands occurinq on Fort Devens lands are classified within 

the Palustrine system, with some open water acreage in the Riverine and 

Laeustrine systems. Wetland habitats, ae mapped by the service~s National 

Wetlands Inventory project, are summarized in Table 2. A copy of the National 

Wetlands Inventory map for the Fort Devens area is attached as Map 7. 

Forested, shrub, and emergent wetlands on the east side of the Nashua River 

floodplain, within the Oxbow NWR, total slightly over 500 acres. There are an 

additional 190 acres of floodplain wetlands on the west side of the Nashua 

River, within Fort Devens Area 13, which are an integral part of the same 

system and exhibit an equally high degree of interspersion and diversity in 

the form of flooded oxbows and meander scare, emergent marsh, and mixed 

patches of shrub and forested wetland. 

3 
296 

The South Post contains approximately 709 acres of deciduouo forested 

wetlands¥ 73 acres of dec~duous ahrub-dominated wetlands 1 36 acres of emergent 

wetlands, 44 acres of open water in the forrn of ponds, and 15 acres of 

riverine open water~ Wetland mappLng ~nd~cates that important wetland 

habitats occur along South Post trit~taries to the Nashua, including Cranberry 

Brook (Area 5}~ Ponakin Brook (Area?), Spectacle Brook (Area 9), and the 

Slaterock Pond drainage. Wetland habitats mapped on the South Post total 877 

acres. 

The important Nashua River floodplain wetlands extend north of Route 2 into 

the cantnnment, and although mainly forested {153 acr~s) include similar high 

diversity in the form of small flooded oxbows, emergent marsh-dominated 

meander scare (11 acres)~ and shrub wetland (8 acres}~ Floodplain wetlands 

occuring along the Nashua River in Areas lA, lC, and 1 total 191 acree. 

Wetlands in Area 1 drain directly south into Oxbow NWR, and are hydrologically 

connected under the highwa;. Small iSOlated pockets of wetlands occur on 'the 

east side of the cantonment area, and include forest, shrub, and emergentdominated wetland 1 and two ponds smaller than 10 acres each and the 25-acre 

Mirror Lake (102 acres total). Total acreage for wetlands occuring within 

Areas 2, 3, and near the airfield is 143 acres, the majority being forested 

{109 acres). Much of thi~ forested and mixed forested-shrub wetland is either 

associated with the Nashua River or occurs along its immediate tributary, 

Nonacoicus Brook. The total acreage of wetlands for the entire Fort Devens 

installation~ as mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory, is 1,313 acres. 

Unique Plant Communities and Rare Species 

Recent vegetation surveys conducted for the installation found a high diversity of plant species, primarily attributable to the broad range of soil types 

which support a large number of commun~ty types. Soil types present span the 

range from dry~ sandy~ well-drakned soils to organic soils classified as 

hydric. Surficial geology, slopef and drainage patterns have influenced the 

development of unusual habitats. Some of these unusual habitats occuring on 

Fort Devens include dry, sandy pitch pine/scrub oak barrens or savannahs 

characterized by a fire-associated ecology; a wild lupine community of similar 

ecology; sandy alluvial banks, mudflats, and oxbow ponds bordering the Nashua 

River; kettlehole ponds with fluctuating water levels, and dry kettleholes; a 

calcareous fen along a stream; and acidic open bogs with floating peat mats 

and surrounding forested spruce/tamarack swamps~ A total of 1? rare plant 

species have been documented at Fort Devens. These include one Category 2 

Federal candidate species {blazing star), one State-endangered species (a 

spikerush), one State-threatened species {a sedge}, 13 State watch list 

species, and one additional rare species. The distribution of rare plant 

epacies iB illustrated on Map 9. 

Maior Wildlife Resource Values 

The importance of Fort Devens to a wide variety of wildlife species ie mainly 

due to the installation's diversity of habitat in various successional stages~ 

its location adjacent to the Nashua River, the amount and distribution of 

wetland present, and the unbroken-undeveloped nature and size of the South 

Post. Wildlife values have been well documented by the Fort's Natural 
~7 

Resources Office (NRO). Undeveloped lands of the installation are known to 

support migratory birds including waterfowl, wading birds, raptors, 

shorebirds, and passerines, resident mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and 

invertebrates~ Installation lands support breeding activity for at least six 

state-listed rare species, and provide migration, feeding, and resting habitat 

for two federally-listed endangered species and at least 10 species of federal 

and state management concern. The distribution of rare wildlife species 

identified to date on Fort Devens is presented on Map 9. Additional rare 

species may be present. Wetlands along the Nashua River and the Slaterock, 

Ponakin, and Cranberry Brook drainages, and Area l, have been identified on 

the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program's "Estimated 

Habitat Map of State-listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife". 

Although Fort Devens has a NRO, there is an existing Cooperative Agreement 

between the Army and the Service concerned with the protection, development, 

and management of fish and wildlife re!~urces on the installation. The 

agreement allows for research and management activities and provides for 

technical assistance by the Service on installation lands. The agreement has 

not been used~ 

Waterfowl and Wading Birds 

Wetlands along the Nashua River and tributary drainages at Fort Devens have 

been identified as a priority for protection under the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan, and the area is within one of seven F?cus Areas for 

the State of Massachusetts under this plan. Wetlands and open water bodies on 

the installation provide Lmportant migration, feeding, and nesting habitat for 

waterfowl species including the black duck, wood duck, mallard, green-winged 

teal, hooded merganser, and Canada goose. The black duck is currently a 

species of concern under the plan because of declining populations, with 

habitat loss an important contributing factor. It is important to note that 

black ducks nest in upland habitats surrounding wetlands that provide broodraising habitat, sometimes as much as a half-mile from water. Many additional 

waterfowl species use the area during mi9ration. Additional species utilizing 

wetland and open water habitats on the Fort include great blue and 9reenbacked herons; and common egrets. A great blue heron rookery is located in 

Area 5, at the south end, with additional nesting activity along the Cranberry 

Brook drainage. 

Raptors 

The diversity of open grasslands, shrub communities, and forested lands at 

Fort Devens provides for an abundant prey base, which supports many species of 

raptors. The peregrine falcon and bald eagle, both federally listed as 

Endangered, have been observed at the Fort during migration. Five peregrines 

have been banded at the Fort Devens raptor banding station since 1974~ This 

station has been operated by master bander Michael Olmstead since 1974, on the 

top of Whittemore Hill {Area 6, South Post), establishing a valuable 

continuous record of raptor migration activity. Birds banded at Devens have 

been identified at Cape May, New Jersey and in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, 

New York, Pennsylvania, and as far away as Florida and Quebec, indicating its 

position within the Atlantic migration route. 
298 

Raptors expected to use the base area during the breed~ng season include the 

kestrel, red- tailed hawk, screech, barred and great horned owlE, and possibly 

the forest dwelling sharp-shinned, cooper's, goshawk, red-shoulderedr and 

broadwinged hawks. Many addition a 1 spec .1.es have been ident.if ied during 

rr.igration. 

Other Birds 

In addition to those birds already discussed, the base provides habitat for 

all those pasaerines {perching bkrds} commonly found in Maasachuaette and 

southern New Hampshire - also woodpeckers, cuckoos, swallows, and upland game 

birds. There has been a general trend in New England for open land to be 

declining, with abandoned agricultural lands reverting to forest. Breeding 

bird surveys have ind~cated that open-field species such as the meadowlark, 

bobolink, savannah and gra9ehopper sparrows, and brush-land species such as 

the golden-~~nged warbler, field sparrow, and prairie wa bler are declining 

due to habitat trends and loss of grassland. Open lands at Fort Devens 

provide habitat for these types of species. 

The upland sandpiper, on the state's Endangered list, nests within the cleared 

grassland habitat of the parachute drop zone. This represents the only 

breeding -colony in northern Worcester county. Various New England states 

have listed or are considering listing this species, and it may be considered 

at the federal level in the future. The fourth-largest known breeding colony 

in the state of the grasshopper sparrow, state-listed as a species of Special 

Concern, occurs in the drop zone (13~19 pairs each year). 

The potential exists for the Henslow's sparrow (also of state concern) to 

occur on the Fort, but recent act~Vlty is presently unverified. Open fields 

and shrub thickets provide breedingr roosting, and feeding habitat for 

woodcock, a species of concern to the Service due to population decline. 

Ruffed grouse inhabit forested sectlons of the installation. Eastern 

bluebirds use nest boxes provided, and bank swallow, rough-winged swalla.,.,,, and 

belted kingfisher nesting activity is worth noting. In addition to providing 

functions such as flood storage capacity and water quality maintenance, 

vegetated wetlands on the base provide breeding habitat for many species of 

birds, including red-winged blackbirds, swamp sparrows, yellow-throats 1 yellow 

warblers, woodcock, and barred owls+ Additional species of either State or 

Federal management concern observed using the area during migration include 

such species as the pied-billed grebe, blackpoll warbler, American bittern, 

osprey, and northern harrier. 

The diversity and interspersion of open land, shrub, and forested habitat at 

Fort Devens are responsible for its ability to support bird and mammal species 

too numerous to provide a complete list. A partial list of resident mammals 

using early successional "open land" stages would include short-tailed shrews, 

meadow voles, and meadow jumping mice. Some species expected to use forested 

areas would include red, southern flying, and gray squirrels, woodland 

jumping, white-footed, and deer mice, red-backed voles, anowahoe hare, 

porcupine, fisher, and masked shrew. Species that use all habitat types (are 

6 
299 

not confined to a single habitat type} include white-tailed deer, coyote, red 

and gray fox, raccoon, opossum, long-tailed weasel, eastern cottontail, 

woodchuck, eastern chipmunk, striped skunk, eastern, hairytail, and star-nosed 

mole, and little brown and other bats. 

wetland habitats and open waters of the Cranberry Brook, Ponakin Brook, 

Slaterock, Spectacle Brook, Nonacoicus Brook, and Cold Spring Brook drainages, 

as well as the Nashua floodplain and installation ponds, are known to support 

populations of mink, river Otter, muskrat, and beaver. Beaver deserve special 

mention for their ability to modify habitat and increase diversity in the form 

of shallow open water ponds and marsh, thus creating habitat for many other 

species, as in the Ponakin and cranberry Brook drainages. The rare northern 

water shrew, a atate-listed Species of Special Concern, was observed during 

1986 in the Slaterock drainage, Area 14. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Approximately 18 species of reptiles and 13 species of amphibians are believed 

to utilize upland and wetland habitats at Fort Devens. The reptile species 

include various turtles and snakes, and amphibian species include mole 

salamanders, newts, lungless salamanders, toads, treefrogs, and true frogs. 

Although many of these species are generally associated with wetlands, it is 

important to note that most require both wetland and surrounding upland 

habitats on the installation for various parts of their life-cycles. Examples 

of upland species would be the garter, hognose, and rec-bellied snakes, redbacked salamanders, and eastern box turtle. Examples of species that depend 

on the Fort's wetlands to breed, but inhabit the undeveloped surrounding 

upland habitats for part of the year, are spotted and blue-spotted 

salamandersf American toads, wood frogs, and pickerel frogs. Examples of 

species that inhabit open water bodies or wetlands on the installation, but 

require the use of undeveloped surrounding upland habitats for nesting 

activities, are the snapping, spotted, painted and Blanding's turtles. 

Several species present (breeding populations) on Fort lands have been statelisted as requiring special status: Blanding's turtle - Threatened; spotted 

turtle - Special concern; blue-spotted salamander - Special concern. 

Additional species observed {breeding status unknown} include the eastern box 

turtle - Special Concern, and the wood turtle - Special Concern. The 

Blandinq#a turtle ie similarly protected in all other states where they occur, 

and it is worth noting that this species almost invariably nests from 300 to 

3000 feet from their home marsh in well-drained, sandy upland. As with many 

speciea, the value of large, contiguous undeveloped areas for the species 

long-term protection outweighs exponentially that of an equal area of disjunct 

refugia spread among suburban environs. The blue-spotted salamander has so 

far been found to inhabit at least three of the many vernal pools scattered 

throughout the Fort, in the woodlands around Slaterock and Cranberry Pondsw 

Iavertebrates 

One invertebrate species that is state-listed as of Special Concern has been 

identified within Area 8, referred to as the Mystic Valley amphipod. In 

addition, there is important habitat present for the Karner blue butterfly 1 a 
300 

species presently under considerat~on for Federal status as Endangered but not 

yet officially listed. Karner blues are found in wild lupine habitat in pine 

barrens and oak savannas in limited sections of the northeast and northcentral United States. An unusual local colony of wild lupine, which this 

species is dependent on, is located in Area 14. This habitat may be extremely 

important for possible population re-establishment. 

Related Resources 

Fort Devens and Oxbow NWR are located approximately 16 miles northwest of 

Great Meadows NWR, which includes floodplain along the Sudbury and Concord 

Rivers. The Fort is approximately 45 miles west-soothwest of Parker River 

NWR, which includes coastal marshes situated at the mouth of the Merrimack 

River, just south of the New Hampshire border in Massachusetts. 

Lands along the Nashua River, including ort Devens, Oxbow NWR~ Bolton Flats 

State Wildlife Management Area, and numerous State Forest and other conservation lands (Map 3} in this area have been recogni~ed as important wildlife 

habitat and a significant Greenway buffer by Federal and State agencies and 

local conservation groups. The Nashua River Watershed Association has 

described Fort Devens as the heart of this extensive conservation corridor 

along the Nashua and its major tributaries. 

The 923-acre Bolton Flats Wildlife Management Area, managed by the 

Massachusetts Di~ision of Fisheries and Wildlife, is located only about 4,000 

feet upstream {south) of the Fort Devens/Oxbow NWR eastern border. This 

section of Nashua River floodplain includes over 4 miles of riverfront in 

Bolton, Harvard, arid Lancaster. There are approximately 200+ acres of 

privately-owned floodplain wetlands separating Bolton Flats from the Fort and 

Oxbow NWR. These important wetlands are appropriate for future Service consideration for possible acquisition on a willing-seller basis. To the immediate 

west of the Fort, along the floodplain of the North Nashua River, are the 412-

acre cook conservation Area (protected by the Town of Lancaster} and the 

adjacent 220-acre Lane-Comerford Conservation Area {Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Management). Almost immediately downstream (north) of the 

Fort's airfield, at the confluence of the Squannacook and Nashua Rivers, are 

the protected Groton Town Forest/Ayer State Game Area/Sabine Woods/Groton 

Place lands {approximately 680 acres). Additional protected lands include 

Wachusett Reservoir State Reservation, the HC!-Shirley Greenway Trail (approximately one mile of riverbank conservation easement adjacent to the Fort), 

the 725-acre Squannacook River and 300-acre Nissitissit River Wildlife 

Management Areas managed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife, the 506-acre Rich State Forest, and other smaller areas. 

Fort Devens has long supported the Greenway concept by designating ita 10.2 

miles of riverbanks as a conservation zone in its Master Plan. The Joint 

Boards of Selectmen representing the towns of Ayert Harvard, Lancaster, and 

Shirley have identified the Nashua River floodplain and wetlands as a conservation/resource protection zone, on a proposed land use map forwarded to the 

Secretary of the Army. 

8 
301 

In ~ddition to managing the Nashua flooplain as a conservation zone, the Army 

has maintained the remainder of the South Poet in an undevel)ped state for 

training purposes. Undeveloped lands have also been utilized for outdoor and 

wildlife-oriented recreation. As a result of the Army¥s management and 

stewardship of these lands, the natural resource values have b~en maintained. 

In some eases these values have been enhanced due to increased habitat 

diversity resulting from military activities, and forestry/wildlife management 

activities conducted by the installation's Natural Resource Office. 

With the impending closure and disposal possibilities, undeveloped portions of 

the installation may be left vulnerable to eventual subdivision and 

residential/commercial development. Management activities responsible for 

maintaining habitat diversity will cease. The important resource values 

previously discussed could be compromised. In addition, development of 

installatton lands adjacent to Oxbow NWR could pose a threat to the existing 

refuge~s Hetland habitats~ with potential impacts to ater qunlityr 

disturbance, and habitat degradation. 

Contaminants 

Hazardous wastes at Fort Devens are described as having been generated mainly 

through routine maintenance operations 1 elimination of materials with expired 

shelf lives, spill cleanup, process operations, and laboratory operations. No 

major industrial operations are conducted at the installation, however smallscale industrial-type operations are located throughout the installation and 

consist of vehicle maintenance, painting, aircraft maintenance, training aids 

manufacture, photographic operations, and printing. Fifty eight potential 

hazardous waste sites have been recorded at Fort Devens by the U~S. 

Environmental Protection Agency {EPA), including: a 15-acre Explosive 

Ordinance Disposal range (South Post), where explosives and unusable munitions 

have been detonated and burned in open unlined pits since 1979; a 50-acre 

sanitary landfill (North Post), where household wastes, military refuse 1 

asbestos, construction debris, waste oil, and incinerator ash have been dumped 

since the 1930s; and Building 1650 (North Post), where battery acids, PCBs, 

pesticides, and solvents have been stored. 

It should be noted that it is the policy of the Department of the Interior to 

determine whether hazardous substances are present on real estate before such 

real estate is acquired. The Department's policy is that it will not acquire 

areas when the costs of remediation of contamination will be borne by the 

Department. Contamination on all sites will be addressed according to 

procedures set forth in the Installation Restoration Program Plan for Fort 

Devens, prepared by the u.s. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency 1 which 

is responsible for the identification, control, andjor elimination of 

migration of existing or potential contamination resulting from past 

installation activities. The EPA Superfund Section overviews the process 

under an Interagency Agreement~ The Service is providing technical assistance 

to EPA/DOD to ensure that impacts to fish and wildlife resources are addressed 

in remedial investigations. Remedial action, if warranted, is scheduled to 

begin in early 1993. 

9 
302 

Economic Concerns 

The Pentagon's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA} is coordinating overall 

government efforts by currently working with a local community committee which 

is developing the Base Re-Use plan. Th~s committee is particularly inte~ested 

in socio-economic issues. The Corrmunity Re-Use plan will be finished sometime 

in late l992. 

The community has held a series of meetings with various government agencies 

to explore its options. On November 16, 1991, the Service's Region 5 Director 

Ron Lamber;aon briefed the community leaders, Senator Kennedy, Congressman 

Atkins, and Governor Weld on the possible benefits of expanding Oxbow NWR. 

OEA reports that there has been strong local interest ~n expanding the Refuge. 

The Selectmen of Ayer, Harvard, Lancastert and Shirley have unanimously voted 

support for refuge expansion. The local National Guard and Reserve outfjts 

have also expressed interest in portions of the post. 

Conclusion 

This evaluation of habitat types and wildlife resources identifies the entire 

South Post as containing wildlife habitats recognized as a priority for 

protection at both the Federal and State levels. The area includes a 

diversity of habitat types and unique communities, and supports many species 

of Federal and State management concern. Similar valuable habitat exists 

north of Route 2, specifically Area 1 and portions of Areas 1A and lC (Map 5}. 

Area 1 contains wet l ands that are hydrologically connected to Oxbow NWR, 

draining immediately into the refuge to the south. Areas lA and lC contain 

important Nashua River floodplain wetlands, as identified for protection under 

the North American Waterfowl Management ?1an and Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act. These areas are identified with green shading on Map 5 as significant 

wildlife habitats adjacent to Oxbow NWR. Total acreage for the shaded areas 

is 5,268 acres 1 including the entire 4,830-acre South Post and approximately 

438 acres north of Route 2 (floodplain wetlands and upland forested buffer 

~one). Additional Fort Devens wetlands of importance to wildlife, but not 

adjacent to Oxbow NWR, include the Nashua River floodplain near the Airfield1 

Nonacoicus Brook wetlandsf and Cold Spring Brook to the east. 

10 
303 

fORESl & lAMD 00\IEJt TYPES - sntTM POST 

f!J!T DEVENS, IIASSACIIUSETTS 

Acreage by Area r,., O~scription 6 7 8 10 12/14 13 15 lA Totat 

BC Stack cherry - Hardwoods 101 24 93 zs 243 

8M G~ey birch ~ Jted maple 31 15 46 

PA Aspen 11 18 14 12 44 104 

RM Red maple 27 29 93 11 18 24 86 25 313 

011 06k - Hardwoods 48 13 7 15 16 68 7 174 

OM Mixed oak 41 13 95 41 284 109 25 27 87 722 

OR Red Oak 68 68 

wo Wtdu pine - Oak 56 34 29 48 22 189 

WH White pine ~ Hardwoods 59 171 85 40 137 82 59 14 8 655 

PO Pitch pine Oak 4 24 28 21 rr liP White pine: 60 20 34 38 41 87 286 

pp Pitch pine 52 21 2 18 51 144 

RP Rfrd pine 15 6 21 

PPO Forested wetland 22 32 54 

PFO/SS forested/shrub wetl~nd 8 8 

BR Shrubs 62 36 18 130 

AL Alder 6 

PS$1 Shrub lieU and 23 32 

PSS1/EM Shr-ub/emergent wetland 7 

GF Grasses & forbes 35 48 7 17 119 

oz Orop Zone 76 123 199 

PEM Emergent wetland 30 7 10 47 

PfH/011 Ett~tt9Mt/open water 8 13 20 41 

POW Open water 9 2 17 

NV No vegetation 68 11 43 96 218 

Transmission llne 32 32 

lw:pact Area 750 750 

UI'YJ'Ie"asvred/Other 128 128 

TOTAL 70? 440 631 304 579 273 457 413 149 750 128 4830 

Source: USf\lS sum~a ry. based on cover type mapping and area Nasurement by Leopold forestry service (1980 

aerial photography) 

TABLE 1 
Type 

BC 

PA 

RM 

OH 

Of< 

110 

VH 

liP 

pp 

RP 

PFO 

BR 

PSS1 

Gt 

PEM 

PEM/OY 

PW 

RIVER 

•v 

G-C 

FB 

TOTAl 

Source: 

304 

f(l:(_liJ & l..IJfl? COVER.TYPti_~~N! z. .. ~IRF)ELD AREAS 

FORT DEVENS • MASSACft.JS.ETTS 

Description \A 1B 1C 10 TE 2. 3, & iotat 

Airf i eld 

Black c:herry " Hardwoods. T3 T3 

Aspen 6 6 24 36 

Red snaple 34 17 30 11 146 238 

Oak Hardwoods 24 61. 195 ITO 43 436 

Mixed oak 6 116 107 246 

White pine Oak 77 77 

LJhite pine Hardwood 31 139 210 54 7 44t 

Uh'te pine 10 12 33 55 

Pi ch pine 7 

Red pine 10 13 

Forested wet land 14 14 

Shrubs 20 25 

Shrub wet land 25 29 

Grasses and forbs 24 20 46 

Emergent wetland 11 2 26 

emergent/open water 4 4 

Opet'l water, pond 49 49 

Open water, river 15 23 38 

No vegetation 11 16 

Golf course 6 80 86 

Developed land 35 478 231 1322 168 2234 

Fitter beds 32 32 

Airfield 1?6 176 

Urmeasured/other 116 25 141 

··-~···--- 125 279 12ll 427 1322 168 960 25 1.538 

USFIJS S\JllY'Iai"'Y, based on cover type mappir.g and area l'r>eaSu~"cment by leopol d Forestry Service (1980 

aeri at photography) 

TABLE 1 
WETLAND ACREAGE - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTO

FORT DEVENS, MASSACHUSETTS 

South Post N

Nashua R. & Ar

~ Description Acreage Acreage 

PFOl Forested wetland, deciduous 602 153 

PF01/0W' Forested/open water, mixed 64 

PF01/SS1 Forested/shrub, mixed 43 [709] s [158] 

PSSl Shrub wetland, deciduous 56 6 

PSSl/EM Shrub/emergent, mixed 17 [73 J 2 [8] 

PEM Emergent wetland (herbaceous) 20 3 

PEM/OW Emergent/open water, mixed 16 (36] 8 [ll) 

POW Open water-pond 44 2 

LlOW Open water-lake 

R20W Open water, river 15 12 

Total Acreage 877 191 

Note: ( ] denotes subtotals for Forested, Shrub, and Emergent t

Source: USFWS (based on 1975-77 aerial photography) 

TABLE 2 
306 

11111J 

~ THE WILDUFE LEG!SL\TIVE FC'ID OF A~!ERICA 

June 3, 1994 

The Honorable Robert c. Byrd 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Interior and 

Related Agencies 

United States Senate 

311 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, o.c. 20510 

Dear Chairman Byrd: 

,'iatwoal Affairs Office iOOO ConnectiCUt Avenut-, N,W 

Su1t~ 120~ 

Wa~hmgton. D.C :!00}0 

202-i~-+4()7 FAX 20:):AM-!'!{2':'" 

Traditional fishing and hunting programs face termination on 

units of the National Wildlife Refuge System unless Congress acts 

to change the policies of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

A series of actions by the new leadership has put FWS in a position 

in which it must terminate traditional wildlife-oriented recreation 

programs or preservationists and anti-hunting ideologues will be 

able to use FWS's new agreements and policies to shut out anglers 

and hunters. FWS has painted.itself --and anglers and hunters--

into a corner and only Congress can provide corrective measures. 

The FWS settlement of refuge litigation last fall was the 

first critical action. FWS agreed that fishing and hunting uses 

would be terminated "expeditiously" unless it made two express 

findings: (1) a written finding that fishing and/or hunting was a compatible use; and (2) a written finding that FWS had adequate 

budget to administer fishing and hunting programs. The out-of- court settlement appears to have raised the procedural bar that FWS 

has to jwop over to continue traditional fishing and hunting 

programs. The Refuge Administration Act and Refuge Recreation Act 

govern these programs on Refuges. For years, FWS has made the 

necessary determinations with a minimum of paperwork and 

administrative expense. The settlement will significantly increase 

the complexity of the findings and require the commitment of 

greater personnel resources to prepare a record that will satisfy 

the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. This extra cost and 

complexity will make it more difficult to sustain fishing and 

hunting programs. 

The second action was the Administration's proposed budget for 

fiscal year (FY) 1995. Funding to operate the Refuge system was 

increased two percent and most of that increase was related to 

NAFTA implementation with funds targeted for Texas and New Mexico. 

Refuge units in the other 48 states suffered reductions or paltry 

1ncreases. In contrast, major budget increases were proposed for 

the endangered species program (34 percent) and endangered species 

land acquisition (188 percent). 
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

June 3, 1994 

307 

Page Two 

The th.ird action was Director Beattie's March 7, 1994 "Refuge 

Funding Actions" dtrective. That directive found that the Refuge 

system is underfunded to such a degree that units must be closed 

down. Moreover, it directs that an array of uses, which can include fishing and hunting, be stopped to save money. Only those 

wildlife recreational uses that "are (1) high quality , (2) low 

cost, (3) not duplicated on other public lands, and (4) reach a 

wide and diverse audience" are to be continued. Fishing and 

hunting programs will have a very difficult time meeting these 

criteria and will face shutdowns. For example, fishing and hunting 

opportunities are available on many Federal lands (BLM and Forest 

Service) and state lands -- "duplicated" if you will -- and this 

ensures that many existing Refuge programs cannot meet the third 

criterion. Furthermore, fishing and hunting programs often do not 

reach a "wide and diverse audience" as defined in this era of 

political correctness. We know that fishing and hunting programs 

on dozens of Refuges are slated for curtailment or elimination 

because of this guidance. In fact, Refuge managers are 

interpreting this guidance to mean that fishing and hunting 

programs are to be given low or no priority. 

The fate of these programs is sealed by the interaction of the 

legal settlement and the Director's budget directive. It will be 

impossible for FWS to make written findings of adequate funding 

under the settlement or the Refuge Recreation Act with Director 

Beattie on record ordering unit closures because of funding 

shortfalls. Even if FWS could make such findings, it left itself 

open to be sued under the settlement. If parties disagree with FWS 

findings, they can go back to court and force closures based on 

inadequate funding. Plaintiff's exhibit number one in that lawsuit 

will be the Director's memorandum. 

Administration officials assure us that they have no plan to 

terminate fishing and hunting on Refuges. These issues have been 

raised with senior FWS personnel and we have offered to assist FWS 

in avoiding these consequences. We expect our dialogue to continue 

but we are persuaded FWS cannot extricate itself from its selfimposed predicament. 

The situation demands your attention and we urge that FWS be 

required to submit to the Subcommittee the recommendations from the 

field that outline fishing and hunting curtailments and closures 

arising from the budget guidance. We believe that these closures 

will occur unless congress steps in. 

One solution would be to increase funding for Refuge 

operations for the specific purpose of continuing fishing ana 

hunting programs. FWS should be asked to identify what earmarked 

funding would be needed in order to make the findings required by 

the settlement. We urge that this amount be added to the Refuge 
The Honorable Robert c. Byrd 

June l, 1994 

308 

Page Three 

operations budget by reallocating monies from other FWS or Interior Department proqraliiS. In any event, it is imperative 

that the March, 1994 budget guidance be rescinded and replaced 

with directives that accord fishing and hunting programs their 

traditional priority. Unless congress acts, fishing and hunting 

programs on Refuge units will start to close on October 1, 1994. 

Another solution is to amend the out-of-court settlement to ensure that the administrative requirements are the same as those 

employed for the past years. A return to traditional procedure 

(that existed before the settlement) would reduce costs and help 

FWS continue traditional programs. 

We urge you and your colleagues to provide funding to ensure the continuation of fishing and hunting programs on units of the 

Refuge system. America's anglers and hunters are asking that you 

step in to ensure that FWS acts to protect their traditional forms 

of wildlife-oriented outdoor recreation. On behalf of our members, we stand ready to assist you in any way that we can to protect our sporting heritage. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Rick Story 

Executive Director · Wildlife Legislative Fund of America 

' 

~UJ ~, , 

... .,.. carol Wynne 

Executive Director 

FUr Information council of America 

~·A 

Dick~?:!:~ President/CEO 

Archery Manufacturers 

and Merchants Organization 

,7> I ~~/~..- Susan Lamson 

Director, Federal Affairs 

National Rifle Association 

Dallas Miner 

President 

Congressional Sportsmen's 

Foundation 

/1 ' 

rh.:?!'u~_ American Archery Council 
The Honorable Robert c. Byrd 

June 3, 1994 

Robert E. DiGrazia 

Past President 

Foundation for North American 

Wild Sheep 

v.a. w'4fif'A. 

T.A. Wright, Sr. 

President 

309 

~ Kenneth R. Watkins 

President 

c. Truman Clem 

President 

Page Four 

Dallas Ecological 

Foundation 

Dennis Cain 

President 

Houston Safari Club 

Steven E. Nelson 

President 

International Bowhunting Organization Mzuri Wildlife Foundation 

Fred Richter 

Past President 

National Bowhunter Education 

Foundation 

Rob Keck 

Executive Vice President 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

(~~~~----~ J Tl.m Reea 

President 

Professional Bowhunter Society 

Steve Green 

Director of Marketing 

National Trappers 

Association, Inc. 

Bill Miller 

Executive Director 

~="'"Jt~"" Exe• Doucll~rann utive Director 

Wilt life Forever 
The Honorable Robert c. Byrd 

June 3, 1994 

R. Douglas Yajko, M.D. 

President 

Safari Club International 

310 

David Watkins 

President 

Dallas Safari Club 
OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR 

Harry Burroughs 

Staff Director 

311 

STATE OF DELAWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

89 KINGS HIGHWAY 

POBox 1401 

DOVER. DELAWARE 1 9903 

June 26, 1995 

House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

House Resources Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

805 O'Neill Building 

300 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Burroughs: 

I'm writing regarding some concerns about the proposed 

"National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1995" (H.R. 1675 --

Representative Don Young et al.). It appears that this proposed 

bill is a revised version of H.R. 833 from last fall 

(Representative Sam Gibbons et al.), and is also similar to a bill 

that was being developed in the Senate by Senator Bob Graham et al. 

I wrote to R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President of the 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), on 

3/10/95 regarding our concerns about Senator Graham's proposed bill 

(see attachment #1 for a copy of my letter), which also applied to 

old H.R. 833. Members of my staff also met with an aide of Senator 

Graham's on 1/25/95 to discuss our concerns. 

The newly proposed H.R. 1675 addresses several of our concerns 

that the previous proposed bills did not, especially regarding 

recognition of hunting and fishing activities on National Wildlife 

Refuges as essentially acceptable, compatible uses. However, a few 

other issues of concern have not yet been addressed in the new 

bill. The primary problem remains the need to strengthen 

recognition that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge 

management regulations, policies and plans must also substantively 

consider if refuge management activities, practices or restrictions 

are compatible with the well-being of people living in or visiting 

areas near refuge lands, in terms quality-of-life, public health, 

or economic issues. When problems are found to exist off -refuge as 

a result of on-refuge management, it's also important to recognize 

that conflict resolution must involve avoiding or remedying the 

off-refuge impacts to the extent practicable. 

While there are many on-refuge management activities, 

practices or restrictions where detrimental off -refuge impacts 

might occur, the primary focus in Delaware regards mosquito control 
312 

problema (again, refer to attachment #1). As a State fish and 

wildlife management agency that also has statewide responsibilities 

for delivering satisfactory mosquito control (done in an 

environmentally-acceptable manner), we have to he <>ttentive to this concern and the need for it to be recognized in H.R. 1675. Such 

recognition would be part of the hill's overall need for more attention to off-refuge issues. 

The American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) has 

recommended three amendments to H.R. 1675 that we endorse and would 

like to see incorporated into H.R. 1675 (see attachment #2). If 

the AMCA' s recommendations were adopted by the House, it would help 

resolve our concerns. There's an opportunity in H.R. 1675 to 

resolve many problems regarding important refuge management 

compatibility issues that cut both ways across refuge boundaries. 

We shouldn't let pass a good opportunity to lessen management 

problems on- and off-refuge, to the overall benefit of both natural 

and human environments. 

Would you please see that copies of this entire package be 

given to pertinent House of Representative members in timely 

fashion -- in particular, to Rep. Don Young (H.R. 1675's sponsor 

and Chairman of the House Resources Committee), Rep. Jim Saxton 

(Majority Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife 

and Oceana), and Rep. Gerry Studde (Minority Chairman of the House 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans). Thank you for 

this consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew T. Manus 

Director 

pc: R. Max Peterson, Exec. V.P., IAFWA 

Robert Graham, Exec. Dir., AMCA 

Attachment #1 

Attachment #2 

letter from ATM to RMP dated 3/10/95. 

recommendations dated 6/19/95 from the AMCA 

for amendments to H.R. 1675. 
313 

~!~ :--..;-r~~ -~~~ STATE CF DELAWARE 

DEPARTME~T OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

8::: ENVIRQ!";MENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR 

R. Max Peterson 

Executive Vice President 

~o 9.::~ 1a01 

OC.'O"' Ds_.>.N .a. R£ 19903 

March 10, 1995 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Hall of the States 

444 North Capitol Street, N.W. 

Suite 544 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Dear M?~on: 

Thank you for sharing your letter to Senator Bob Graham {Fla.) 

dated 1/13/95 regarding his pending reintroduction of legislation 

addressing management policies for National Wildlife Refuges. In 

general, we support efforts such as Senator Graham's that enable 

the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service to better control or eliminate 

activities on refuges that are truly incompatible with good 

resource stewardship. However, we share concerns with the IAFWA 

that the desired curtailment of incompatible activities be achieved 

in a way that minimizes new bureaucratic processes, and does not 

lessen opportunities for compatible refuge activities such as 

hunting or fishing. 

Another concern that we have, which has surfaced in Senator 

Graham's legislation and in separate administrative planning 

initiatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a lack of 

emphasis for considering how refuge features or Service management 

actions might adversely affect nearby human residents and their 

off-refuge lands. In many locations, federal refuge creation was retrofitted into areas already extensively developed, or extensive 

development has occurred in surrounding areas since the refuges were created. Expansions of existing federal refuge lands have 

occurred in other locations, often resulting in new impacts to 

nearby residents because of changes in land-use or land management 

practices. Examples of off-refuge compatibility issues include 

overpopulation& of deer, beaver or geese on refuges moving offrefuge, causing impacts such as traffic or aircraft accidents, 

property floodings, or damage to crops and ornamental vegetation; 

lack of control of weed or insect pests on refuges, which then 

causes economic, nuisance or health problems off-refuge; and 

1 
R. Max Peterson 

March 10, 1995 

814 

impacts of on-refuge hydromodifications that then alter off-refuge 

soil drainage characteristics, adversely affecting crop plantings 

or septic systems. In all cases, refuge planning processes and 

federal management policies must recognize that there might be 

refuge features or Service management actions that could be 

incompatible with nearby residents and their off-refuge lands, 

particularly regarding public health and safety problems, qualityof-life issues, or economic impacts. 

Much emphasis in the Senator • s pending legislation, and in 

Service planning proposals, seems to focus on making compatibility 

determinations about on-refuge activities in relation to protecting 

or enhancing fish and wildlife resources, which is of course a very 

desirable and critically important emphasis. However, there should 

also be a requirement for the Service to recognize in its policies 

and plane the need to determine compatibilities of refuge features 

or Service management actions as they affect surrounding residents 

and lands. 

A specific example of this recol!llllended dual emphasis when 

making compatibility determinations is provided in Delaware 

relative to saltmarsh mosquito control. Saltmarsh mosquitoes can 

be produced in Delaware's two National Wildlife Refuges in prolific 

n'Ulllbers. Saltmarsh mosquitoes routinely fly considerable distances 

off-refuge, causing problems for human quality-of-life, public 

health, and local economies. The needs and methode to control 

saltmarsh mosquitoes are often contentious issues for National 

Wildlife Refuges (and National Seashores) near populated areas 

along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. State-based, county or local 

mosquito control programs have to be able to control these pests 

on-refuge, using water management techniques or modern insecticides 

in an environmentally-compatible manner that minimizes non-target 

impacts while achieving cost effective, satisfactory control. 

Waiting to control saltmareh mosquitoes until after they've left 

the refuges is enviromnentally irresponsible, eliminating non- chemical source reduction options and always requiring much more insecticide use than with on-refuge treatments (while also costing 

more money to treat}. Additionally, having potentially diseasecarrying mosquitoes on-wing in populated areas before taking 

control actions is much more dangerous to public health. 

The responsibility for mosquito control in Delaware falls to 

the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, a State-mandated task 

in our diverse range of duties and activities. Our ability to 

achieve efficacious control depends heavily upon the Service's 

fully recognizing their responsibility in helping to solve the 

problem, and in the Service's accommodating in their management 

policies and plans practicable control options and actions 

compatible for on-refuge use. Two members of my staff, Chester 

2 
R. Max Peterson 

March 10, 1995 

315 

Stachecki and Dr. William Meredith, met in Washington, D.C. on 

1/25/95 with Valerie Wagner of Senator Graham's staff to discuss 

such concerns, prompted by the Division seeing a need for the 

Senator's legislation to also address off-refuge compatibility 

problems that stem from refuge features or Service management 

actions. We hope that the Senator will take the opportunity in his 

legislation to try to improve federal policies for this important 

aspect of refuge management. Most of the mosquito control issues 

in Delaware's two federal refuges have been successfully handled to 

date because of good communications and relationships between 

Division and Service administrators and professional staffs. 

However, without a strengthening in federal policy of the need for 

Service accountability and responsiveness in addressing off-refuge 

impacts originating from the refuges, these interactions will 

always be temporary and somewhat fragile, dependent upon 

personalities-of-the-moment and ad hoc agreements. 

We welcome Senator Graham's proposed legislation and other 

similar efforts to better the management of our National Wildlife 

Refuges these are initiatives worth championing when they 

promote balanced considerations of the multiple needs and uses of 

natural resources and human environments. If you wish to share 

this correspondence with Senator Graham, please feel free to do so. 

pc: Chester J. Stachecki 

William H. Meredith 

H. Lloyd Alexander 

3 

Sincerely, 

~J Andrew T. Manus 

Director 
316 

AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION 

Early-Warning Legislative & Regulatocy Network Update 

Date: June 19, 199.5 

To: All Network Volunteers From: Wade Gates/Martha Craddock 

LANGUAGE CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR HR 1675 

Initially introduced during last year's session as HR 833, HR 1675 will a:tnend the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration. However, the bill does not consider public health 

int~Sts, thereby maldng it more difficult, if not impossible. to perform mosquito control 

on the national wildlife refuges throughout the U.S. Following are n:commended 

language changes that would ensure public health interests are considered: 

1.) ·Amend Section 4, Administration of the System, by adding (F) which would rewi 

(f) consider the impacts of refug.: and system operations on the bealtb and well 

being of humans who use the refuges and system. or who live nearby, and tak!t 

n:asonable siCps to reduce these impacts. 

2.) Amend Section 5, Compatibility Standards and Procedures, by adding at the end of 

(3) (8), (XI) which would read: 

Om Provide for steps to be taken to rc:duce lillY unintended or inadvertent risks to 

the publjc heulth associated with the roanaeement of refue;es 

3.) Amend Section 5, Compatibility Standards and Procedures, by adding at the end of 

(4) (E) which would read: 

lEl AnY steps taken to reduce any unimcnded or jna.dyenent risks to the public; 

heallh associated with the management of refuges~ 

From the Executive Director 

Please contact Harry Burroughs, Natural Resources Committee at 202/226-0200 1111d voice 

your support for the language changes to HR 1675. Please reference !he language 

changes in any phone calls or correspondence. If you need additional information, call 

Martha Craddock at 214/969-1800. 
~£ND~<j> 

Q <S' 

. . 0 "' /0 ,"-

llinu'-

Tcny C Pdscrr 

Nt"WYori! 

Rt:ldger Schlick15Cn 

VirgtonQ 

Dr. StrphcnR ~lltn 

Conn((fi ~! 

Tl!\5('1!1 

AlanW. Sccinbtrg 

""'"" 

Rolxn R.Uorstn 

EdwardAsnu 

Ullifomw 

Kc-nncth!krlm 

W<JJ.Iungton, D.C 

jimBran!knburg 

"''""csotcl 

Thomas C. T. Brokaw 

OliverA. Houck 

Hucyjohnson 

Calt/omiG 

Anhur C. Maninc:: 

11/inots 

WinSOfllot Dunn Mcintosh 

W<JU.inglon.D.C. 

Bren<b T. Moorman 

W<lshington. O.C. 

RUih Musgr.~vc 

NtwMo:ico 

BrumB. O'Nctll 

u.,... H. Pttcrfreund 

v"K'"'" 

Johnlbm\Ondo 

""'"'" 

U shcD. Schill•ng 

l.olu st<JII<I 

w,UiamR. Stoct.Jr 

Wu.c:un.lon 

Or Charlcsi'. Wursu:r 

N,.,.· Ymk 

1101Four1«nthSnnt.NW 

Su\lt 1400 

a~ inaton , DC 20005 

Telephone 101-682-9400 

FnlOl-681- 13)1 

317 

The Honorable James Saxton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

805 O'Neill House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Saxton: 

June 23, 1995 

I am writing to request that this statement be included in the record of 

the May 25, 1995 hearing by your subcommittee on H.R. 1675, the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act. 

Defenders of Wildlife is a national conservation organization with over 

100,000 members. Defenders has long been a leading advocate of 

strengthening the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 

1992, for example, we released a report by the Commission on New Directions 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System entitled Putting Wildlife First. This 

report contained the recommendations of a distinguished panel of wildlife 

scientists, conservation historians, state natural resource mangers, legal 

scholars and academics who conducted an eighteen-month review of the 

Refuge System. This report, along with earlier reports by the General 

Accounting Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, emphasized the 

need to strengthen existing refuge law. Since 1990, Defenders of Wildlife and 

other conservation Nganizations have been urging Congress to enact the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act, a bill sponsored 

during the past two Congress' by Senator Bob Graham and Representative 

Sam Gibbons (S. 823 and H.R. 833, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. ). We 

enthusiastically supported the version of S. 823 that was reported last August 

from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (S. Rep. No. 

103-324, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)). 

While S. 823 would have significantly improved the National Wildlife 

Refuge System's ability to help conserve this nation's fish, wildlife and plants, 

the same cannot be said of H.R. 1675. Defenders believes that, despite its 

significant flaws, current law better serves the interests of wildlife conservation 

in the National Wildlife Refuge System than the changes proposed in H.R. 

1675. 
318 

Defenders agrees with many of the specific points made in the statements of the 

National Wildlife Refuge Association and The Wilderness Society and will not repeat 

them here. Instead, we wish to highlight four fundamental flaws contained in the bill. 

These flaws are: 1) establishment of system purposes that fail to give clear priority to 

wildlife conservation, including the Refuge System's role in conserving the nation's 

biological diversity; 2) creation in statute of a compatibility standard that would actually 

weaken FWS's ability to regulate potentially harmful secondary uses of refuges; 3) 

diminishment of the federal government's ability to manage its own lands, and 4) failure 

to adequately systematize and unify the current network of federal refuges. 

System Pumoses 

As emphasized by the Commission on New Directions for the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, the need for a clear and comprehensive statutory statement of the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System is one of the most important reasons for new 

legislation. Political pressures and changing administrative philosophies have long 

contributed to weak and inconsistent administration of the Refuge System. These forces 

have helped prevent the Refuge System from living up to its potential in national efforts 

to conserve fish, wildlife and plants. Unfortunately, the system purposes contained in 

H.R. 1675 would severely undermine the Refuge System's wildlife conservation mission 

by making recreation a co-equal purpose. While uses of refuges such as various types of 

recreational activities and environmental education can and should play an important 

role in the system, such uses should not be made purposes of the system. Moreover, in 

marked contrast to S. 823, H.R. 1675 fails to even acknowledge the vital role of Refuge 

System in the conservation of our nation's biological diversity. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System can and must play a significant role in this 

nation's efforts to conserve biological diversity. The Commission on New Directions 

recognized this fact in Putting Wildlife First by calling for the enactment of new 

legislation which, while recognizing other important refuge purposes, urged that the 

"maintenance and restoration of the "biological diversity of endemic species" be 

established as the "overarching goal" of the refuge system. Defenders believes that the 

purposes of the Refuge System must include biodiversity conservation and are pleased to 

note that the Fish and Wildlife Service raised this same concern in its testimony. 

Providing the Refuge System with a mandate to manage for biodiversity was an 

important element of S. 823. The version of S. 823 reported last August by the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee stated that one of the purposes of the 

Refuge System was: 

to conserve, manage, and where appropriate restore fish and 

wildlife populations, plant communities, and refuge habitats 
319 

so as to provide in perpetuity for the diversity of native 

fish, wildlife, and plants and the ecological processes that 

sustain them. 

According to the Committee report, 

Although the USFWS, other federal agencies, and State fish and 

wildlife agencies have large and effective programs to conserve 

endangered species and certain game species, there are no federal 

programs designed to conserve the full diversity of native 

species. In the last several years, however, the loss of 

biological diversity has been recognized as one of the most 

important environmental issues facing the United States and the 

entire world. 

Statutory direction to manage the Refuge System for an expanded wildlife conservation 

mission was also contained in other provisions inS. 823. For example, Section 5 of S. 

823 required the Secretary of the Interior to: 

plan, propose, and direct the expansion of the System in the 

manner that is best designed to accomplish the purposes of the 

System and the purposes of each refuge and to contribute to 

the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States. 

Further, repeated references inS. 823 to native species would have assured that 

appropriate management emphasis was placed on those species in greatest need of 

conservation. Something that could be accomplished, it should be noted, without 

precluding consideration of non-native species such as pheasants. 

The system purposes contained in S. 823 struck a careful balance between FWS's 

obligation to manage for traditional so-called "trust" species and the recognition of the 

Refuge System's need to help conserve the diversity of this nation's fish, wildlife and 

plants. H.R. 1675 lacks this crucial balance. 

Compatibility Standard 

H.R. 1675 would undermine the FWS's ability to effectively control potentially 

harmful secondary uses. S. 823 would have strengthened FWS's ability to regulate uses 

by statutorily defining a compatible use as one "that will not have a detrimental effect on 

the fulfillment of the primary purposes of the refuge or the purposes of the System." 

This standard would have replaced the existing weak, administratively-established test of 

prohibiting activities that materially interfere with refuge purposes. H.R. 1675 would 

make it even more difficult to prohibit harmful activities than is now the case under the 

existing administrative definition of compatibility by allowing activities that do not have a 
320 

4 

"materially detrimental effect" on the purposes of a refuge or the System. Establishing a 

weak compatibility standard invites the renewed proliferation of the very sort of 

widespread secondary use problems that have been identified in various government 

reports issued over several decades. 

Through several interrelated provisions, H.R. 1675 would improperly establish an 

almost unassailable presumption in favor of allowing "fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreation." By elevating these recreational activities to a system propose in Section 3 

and weakening the existing compatibility standard in Section 5, the bill creates a very 

strong presumption in favor of allowing hunting and fishing. Additionally, another 

provision in Section 5 of the bill requires that the Secretary of the Interior, in 

promulgating new regulations governing compatibility, to: 

provide that when managed in accordance with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management, fishing and hunting in 

a refuge are generally compatible with the conservation of 

fish and wildlife and plants and their habitats and have not 

materially detrimental effect on the fulfillment of the 

purposes of the refuge and the purposes of the System. 

Recreational uses should be subject to the same standard as other uses potentially 

harmful to the conservation purposes of the refuges. 

Federal-State Relationship 

H.R. 1675 is also fundamentally flawed because it would likely diminish the 

federal government's ability to manage its own lands. Under Section 4, the Secretary of 

the Interior would be authorized to "enter into cooperative agreements with State fish 

and wildlife agencies, pursuant to standards established by the Director, for the 

management of all or parts of a unit or units within the System consistent with this Act 

(emphasis added)." The FWS has a long history of effective cooperation and 

coordination with the states. At the same time, federal refuges are wildlife habitats of 

national significance. Most were established to protect federal trust species, such as 

migratory birds, waterfowl, endangered species and marine mammals. In the case of 

species that migrate across state boundaries, the federal government is the entity most 

effectively able to execute coordinated management strategies and assure that the 

interests of the greater public are carried out. Moreover, many states simply do not 

devote resources and attention sufficient to adequately address the national interest in 

the conservation of endangemd and threatened species as well as the diversity of fish, 

wildlife and plants found within their borders. To be clear, we are not suggesting that 

the FWS assume management responsibility for all species. Rather, the FWS can and 

should play an important and unique role in accomplishing national conservation 

objectives. This role should be conducted in concert with other state, local, federal and 
321 

private partners. The FWS can continue to most effectively represent this national 

interest by maintaining sole management authority over Refuge System lands. 

Making Refuges into a System 

5 

Unlike S. 823, H.R. 1675 fails to recognize the critical need to unify the National 

Wildlife Refuge System through the requirement of a System plan. System-wide 

planning is critical to managing an integrated network of wildlife habitats. The only 

comprehensive plan governing the entire refuge system was prepared nearly 20 years 

ago. Moreover, the refuge system stands alone among the major federal land 

management agencies with regard to planning. 11te National Park Service, U.S. Forest 

Service, and the Bureau of Land Management all conduct comprehensive planning of 

their lands pursuant to the organic legislation governing those agencies. 

In summary, Defenders of Wildlife believes H.R. 1675 would weaken, not 

strengthen, management of the National Wildlife Refuge System and would encourage 

more potentially harmful commercial and recreational activities on federal refuges. In 

view of these concerns, we must respectfully oppose enactment of this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

~&a Director, 

Habitat Conservation Division 

0 
ISBN 0-16-047662-3 

9 7801 76624