49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–320 

ACCESS TO NAVASSA AND DESECHEO NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGES 

DECEMBER 6, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. POMBO, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1183] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1183) to require the Secretary of the Interior to provide public access to Navassa National Wildlife Refuge and Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1183 is to require the Secretary of the Interior to provide public access to Navassa National Wildlife Refuge 

and Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of federal 

lands that have been acquired or reserved for the conservation of 

fish and wildlife. The System is administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. Totaling about 

97 million acres, the system provides habitat for hundreds of fish 

and wildlife species within 545 refuges. It has been estimated that 

39 million visitors travel to at least one refuge each year to enjoy 

the experience. 

Within the System, 88 units located throughout the United 

States are closed to the public because of the presence of endangered species, unexploded ordinance, the storage of nuclear waste 

and access safety concerns. However, individuals who wish to visit 

2 

these refuges may apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the Service’s Refuge Manual a specialized use is defined as, ‘‘Any refuge service, facility, 

privilege, or produce of the soil provided at refuge expense and not 

usually available to the general public through authorizations in 

Title 50 [of the Code of Federal Regulations] or other published 

regulations. Such use requires specific authorization from the refuge manager.’’ The National Wildlife Refuge System has long provided opportunities for public outdoor recreation. In recognition of the demand 

for recreational opportunities, Congress enacted the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. This law clearly stated that the System should 

be available for public recreation as incidental or secondary uses 

provided that the activities are ‘‘compatible with, and will not prevent accomplishment of, the primary purposes for which the . . . 

areas were acquired or established.’’ The Recreation Act also stated 

that public recreation shall be permitted ‘‘to the extent that it is 

practicable and not inconsistent with previously authorized Federal 

operations,’’ and directed the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘to cooperate 

with public and private agencies, organizations and individuals 

. . . and . . . accept and use . . . donations of funds and real and 

personal property’’ in furtherance of public recreation. The Secretary was authorized to issue permits and establish reasonable 

fees and charges for public use of refuges to implement this policy. 

Encouragement of public recreation on refuges was not without 

reasonable limits. Discretion was given to the Secretary of the Interior to curtail public recreation only after determinations that the 

recreational use would not interfere with the primary purpose of 

the refuge and that adequate resources were not available for ‘‘the 

development, operation and maintenance of . . . recreation.’’ Congress consolidated and clarified management authority for 

the Refuge System in 1966 when it passed the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act (Public Law 89–669). Under this law, 

the Secretary of the Interior was also authorized to permit ‘‘secondary’’ uses or activities provided that these activities were compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Secondary activities included traditional recreational uses such as 

hunting and bird watching, as well as other decidedly non-recreational uses including farming, grazing, mineral extraction and 

oil exploration. 

The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 reinforced the importance of recreation in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. As defined under the 1997 Act, wildlife-dependent recreation includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The law 

further stated that these uses are to be given priority consideration 

over other uses for comprehensive conservation planning and determinations of compatibility. This law did not, however, expressly 

prohibit other uses of refuges, recreational or otherwise. In fact, the 

plain language of the statute authorized the Secretary 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 addition, the law unequivocally preserved pre-existVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Dec 07, 2005 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR320.XXX HR320
3 

ing authority requiring public access for recreation in stating that 

‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend, repeal, or 

otherwise modify the provision of the [Recreation Act] which authorizes the Secretary to administer the areas within the System 

for public recreation.’’ Desecheo and Navassa are small uninhibited islands in the western Caribbean Sea. They are managed as refuges within the Caribbean Island National Wildlife Refuge complex. Desecheo lies approximately 14 miles west of Puerto Rico. It was used as a target 

for aerial bombardment from 1940 to 1952 and as a survival training area for the U.S. Air Force from 1950 to 1960. It was transferred to the Department of the Interior and established as refuge 

in 1972. For nearly two decades, Desecheo was open to the public 

despite the fact that the Department of Defense had issued a preliminary risk assessment in 1991 confirming specific locations of 

unexploded ordnance on the island. In 1998, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service closed Desecheo to all public access and stipulated that the 

decision was made because of unexploded ordnance and threats to 

pubic safety because of trespassing illegal aliens and drug smugglers. There are only a few wildlife resource values on the island, 

including three endemic species of lizards, an endangered cactus 

species and an occasional nesting hawksbill turtle. 

Navassa is located about 35 miles west of Haiti in the Jamaican 

Channel. Once the site of a guano mining operation and maintained by the federal government for lighthouse purposes, it was 

designated a refuge by Secretarial Order 3210 in December 1999. 

A 1998 scientific expedition described the island as a unique preserve of Caribbean biodiversity. The Secretarial Order creating the 

refuge stated that the Service would continue ‘‘to administer this 

area under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act . . ., the general regulations governing the . . . Refuge System 

. . . and in accordance with all applicable laws, policies and rules.’’ Despite this directive, the island has been closed to the public since 

its establishment except for government employees and certain scientists from private conservation organizations. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service considers this closure necessary to protect the pristine condition of the island and the safety of visitors who must 

navigate dangerous cliffs to gain access to Navassa. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service closures of Desecheo and Navassa 

islands apply not only to general public use but also to proposals 

for use via special use permits (SUP). These closures, based jointly 

on faulty compatibility determinations, concerns for public safety, 

and claims of insufficient budgetary resources to facilitate use, 

demonstrate that the Service has failed to exercise sound professional judgment in evaluating SUP applications. These closures appear arbitrary and non-compliant with underlying law, pre-existing 

public use, and SUP policies at other remote refuges. 

In the case of Desecheo, the Fish and Wildlife Service has justified its closure based on purported threats to public safety due to 

unexploded ordnance and illegal trespassers. However, as noted 

earlier, SUPs to visit Desecheo were issued regularly up until 1998, 

when suddenly, the Service reversed course and closed the island, 

even though the locations of unexploded ordnance were well documented by a preliminary risk assessment. An additional 2002 U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Defense Environmental Restoration ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Dec 07, 2005 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR320.XXX HR320
4 

gram report corroborated the preliminary assessment and concluded that the unexploded ordinance on Desecheo did not constitute a catastrophic or critical risk. The Committee also finds the 

perceived threat posed by visitors running afoul of drug traffickers 

or smugglers to be unfounded, since there is no where in the administrative record any recorded incidents to legitimize this concern. 

In the case of Navassa, the absence of a pier or convenient site 

to land people and equipment at the island has lead the Service to 

conclude that access is simply too great a liability, a conclusion 

reached despite the fact that Service personnel, personnel from private non-profit organizations, and local fishermen have routinely 

and safely landed on the island for years. 

Finally, there is a glaring inconsistency between the public closures imposed at the Navassa Island and Desecheo Refuges and access allowed at other island refuges in the Pacific Remote Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge complex. It is indisputable that both islands are valuable ecologically or that they are remote and difficult 

to access. However, three island refuges located in the Pacific 

(Baker, Howland and Jarvis) are no less ecologically sensitive. 

They are, however, far more remote from their headquarters in 

Honolulu than either Caribbean island is from their headquarters. 

Despite ranging 1,300 to 1,600 miles from Hawaii, these islands 

are publicly accessible via SUPs. The latest SUP was issued for 

Baker Island in 2002. 

A small number of amateur radio operators have sought to obtain SUPs from the Fish and Wildlife Service for access to these 

islands. The first applications were filed on November 26, 2002. In 

these documents, the applicants sought permission to operate amateur radio equipment on the islands for a five day period, and they 

stipulated to a number of conditions including that they would 

‘‘avoid all wildlife and sea-life on or near the island.’’ Their applications were denied and their appeals of these decisions have been 

rejected. Since that time, they have met with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and have agreed to assume all financial costs (including 

any reimbursement to the Fish and Wildlife Service), to waive liability for any injuries that may occur during their visit and to 

comply with all reasonable stipulations required by the Service. 

H.R. 1183 is designed to codify a SUP in this case by requiring 

the Service to provide recreational access to Navassa and Desecheo 

with certain limitations. These restrictions are: the Fish and Wildlife Service may limit access to Desecheo and Navassa to specific 

time periods; the Service shall give priority consideration to permit 

applications that do not negatively impact opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation; and the Service may establish specific 

conditions for the permit that are necessary to protect fish and 

wildlife resources or public health and safety. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1183 was introduced on March 9, 2005, by Representative 

Nick J. Rahall II (D–WV). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

Fisheries and Oceans. On October 19, 2005, the Full Resources 

Committee met to consider H.R. 1183. The Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans was discharged from further consideration by 

5 

unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was 

ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 

unanimous consent. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

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

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

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

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

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

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

contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase 

or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of this bill could increase offsetting receipts and direct spending by less than $500,000 a year. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does not 

authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

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

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1183—A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

public access to Navassa National Wildlife Refuge and 

Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge 

H.R. 1183 would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to allow public use of the Navassa National Wildlife Refuge and the Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge, both of which are 

located on islands in the Caribbean Sea. Under the legislation, the 

agency would provide access to the two refuges under permits that 

would contain provisions to protect local fish and wildlife and public health and safety. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the federal government would incur one-time costs of 

about $10 million over the next two years to provide safe access to 

Navassa and Desecheo islands. About $8 million of this amount 

would be used by the Department of Defense to inspect Desecheo 

6 

(which was once used for military training) and remove any 

unexploded ordnance. (This expenditure would probably occur even 

in the absence of legislation, depending on future appropriation action, but not for several years.) The remaining funds would be used 

to construct minimal access and other visitor facilities on the two 

islands. 

We expect that, once the islands have been deemed safe and accessible, the USFWS would use existing authority to impose recreation or special-use fees and spend the proceeds to issue permits 

and escort visitors to the islands. We estimate that these activities 

would increase offsetting receipts and resulting direct spending by 

less than $500,000 a year. Enacting H.R. 1183 would not affect 

other direct spending or revenues. This estimate is based on information provided by the USFWS and the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Finally, allowing more people to visit the Desecheo refuge (which 

might contain unexploded ordnance even after Corps inspections) 

could increase the government’s liability under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, but CBO has no basis for predicting the likelihood that 

future visitors to the islands would be injured. 

H.R. 1183 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

Æ