Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
WITNESS
ROLLIN D. SPARROWE, PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Mr. REGULA. I call the meeting of the Interior Subcommittee to order. For all of you who are testifying, all statements will be made a part of the record. We have five minutes for each one and I am going to have to adhere very rigidly to the five minutes or we will never get through the day. Five minutes until 4 o'clock today, so, we have a full day for listening to testimony and all the statements will be evaluated by the staff.
So, we will start out here with Green Farming Systems. Mr. Roddy.
He has not checked in.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Sparrowe. Thank you for coming.
Mr. SPARROWE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, we, at the Wildlife Management Institute generally support the President's budget proposals.
Mr. REGULA. Is this a nonprofit organization?
Mr. SPARROWE. Yes. We are a nonprofit organization located in Washington with a few field staff.
Mr. REGULA. With a membership across the country?
Mr. SPARROWE. Yes. We are not primarily a membership organization. We are a very small organization that works to advance good wildlife management and pays particular attention to the public land agencies. We have worked with them extensively.
I appeared last year representing the CARE group on behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge System and I want to thank you for your support and your staff 's support for the refuge program and their needs in maintenance and operation.
I would just make the point that the operational needs of refuges need attention every bit as much as the maintenance needs. An example, I was on Desert National Wildlife Refuge just a few weeks ago. That is the largest refuge south of Alaska, 1.5 million acres, about 50 miles north of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in North America, and they have no on-site facilities or people to manage that refuge.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
They are managed from a satellite office in the city and they have three other field stations, all of which have endangered fish, the Desert Pup fish and other sorts of things. This is the example of the kind of things in some of these refuges.
In order to cope with future public use that refuge really definitely needs operational funding. So, we would urge you to please do all you can, again, for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Endangered species funding is critically important and I want to just speak in general support of the large increase being requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service and note that a surprising array of disparate organizations have been talking to each other about the logic of supporting this kind of an increase.
This includes everyone from commodity interests to environmental groups, people who usually are at war over these issues, but they believe that the administrative reforms put into place by the Department of the Interior——
Mr. REGULA. How do you feel about the camp fire bill?
Mr. SPARROWE. As an organization, the Wildlife Management Institute believes that there is a lot to work with in the Kempthorne bill and that the opposition to it has been unduly harsh. We think there is a building block.
The Biological Resources Division in USGS, I want to comment on just a minute. We are part of an organization called the BRD Watchers, Bird Watchers, who has been meeting with Interior to study them and understand how they have coped with all the changes. Obviously, they have been a point of considerable controversy and have lost some sizable portions of their budget.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Our reading at this point is that they very much need the increases. We are concerned, however, that the Administration has changed the focus of a bunch of research and left out the cooperative research units for the coming year.
There are 15 position vacancies in the unit and some of them have been open for many years. We would advocate that out of any budget increase there ought to be attention to filling those positions so those units can do their job.
Finally, the two other agencies, we work a good deal with includes the Forest Service. We are very supportive, particularly of their challenge, cost share and related activities, seeking common ground and these cooperative programs. Obviously again the Forest Service has been a real lightning rod and is receiving a lot of criticism.
Mr. REGULA. We have a lot of those.
Mr. SPARROWE. And we support the President's budget for the Forest Service as well.
The Bureau of Land Management seems, to us, to need a lot more attention than it gets. Massive development is going on in the Northern Rockies and I do not see it reflected in their budget proposals this year.
Mr. REGULA. You mean our attention for operations or attention for——
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SPARROWE. For operations, I think. Their staff have been cut back. They are facing a horrendous pace of development in Wyoming, for example, for oil and gas and they simply do not have the people to do the job. So, we support the modest increases that are listed for the Bureau, as well.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
Mr. SPARROWE. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Rollin Sparrowe follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WITNESS
DAVID TOBIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT
Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be David Tobin from the Cooperative Alliance For Refuge Enhancement.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
David, good morning and welcome.
Mr. TOBIN. Good morning, thank you.
My name is David Tobin, and I am Executive Director of the National Wildlife Refuge Association but I am here today to represent the Cooperative Alliance For Refuge Enhancement which is an unincorporated alliance of 17 national conservation and sportsmen's groups that comes together out of a mutual concern for the health and future of the refuge system.
Last year this subcommittee provided the National Wildlife Refuge System with an unprecedented increase of $41 million for operations and maintenance. That appropriation was preceded by a request from the Cooperative Alliance for precisely that amount as the first year in a seven-year plan to restore the refuge system to a minimal level of funding that our analysis determined was necessary for the refuge system to fulfill its mandate, its responsibilities to Congress and to the American people.
So, we are here again this year to request an increase in refuge operations and maintenance as the second year of this seven-year restoration effort.
The appropriation that this committee provided last year not only put into place a seven-year process, and I will talk a little bit about what is going to be done by the Fish and Wildlife Service with that 1998 appropriation. But it also had a profound effect on the morale and the energy and the outlook of the men and women who work for the National Wildlife Refuge System and I want to share with you a few comments. We receive a great many letters from the Fish and Wildlife Service personnel responding to that appropriation.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And some of these illustrate, I think, the change that is taking place and we hope to perpetuate. From San Francisco Bay the refuge manager wrote to us and said, ''You have no idea how much this means to us in the field. Please, come visit us to see the wetlands that will be restored, public access developed and environmental education programs established.''
From the Yukon Delta in Alaska, a refuge manager commented, ''I suspect that in the process of raising this money that the results may seem elusive. I want you to know that your efforts are going to have real, on-the-ground, tangible results on the refuge.'' And then he goes on to describe the many projects that they are going to put into place.
For Fiscal Year 1999, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting an increase in refuge operations and maintenance to a total of $277 million, which exceeds the President's request by $30 million and exceeds the 1998 appropriation by $57 million.
As was detailed in a report that we provided to this committee last year and we are going to update for you later this year, we are working toward an annual operations and maintenance budget by the year 2003 of $495 million.
Our job now is to watch closely as the Fish and Wildlife Service makes use of that 1998 appropriation and makes sure it is done so in a manner consistent with the needs that were identified and presented to this committee. That is going to include securing abandoned mine sites, rehabilitating grasslands, replacing equipment, providing access ramps for the disabled, and implementing volunteer programs and environmental education programs.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Picking up on the comment that Rollin Sparrowe made earlier, on the difference between operations and maintenance, I have to point out that in the President's request for Fiscal Year 1999, the budget actually exceeds by $2 million the amount that we are requesting for maintenance, but falls short in the area of operations by $30 million.
That is significant since the organic legislation, the Refuge System Improvement Act that was passed last year, actually increases the need in the operations area. It calls for increased planning activities, public use programs and other work that accentuates the need in the area of operations.
So, we hope that this committee will be responsive to the operational need as well as the need in the area of maintenance.
That is all I have to say this morning. We are looking forward to working with this committee and providing you with more information as we did last year. And also expect a lot of continued cooperation that we have received from the Service in the way of data and accountability for funds that have been spent.
[The statement of David Tobin follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobin.
I think a lot of us will be very interested but it is going to take more than just a few months, obviously, to see the results of the added funding that we have provided last year, to see the beginnings of this seven year effort to see the restoration of wildlife habitat and the involvement of the public in this, but I appreciate very much getting this update and your request, which will obviously be considered very carefully by the committee.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. TOBIN. Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobin.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
WITNESS
BOB JENKS, NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION
Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be Bob Jenks from the National Wild Turkey Federation.
Mr. JENKS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Good morning.
Mr. JENKS. I am substituting for Dr. Kennamer, of the Federation, who regrets that he is not able to be here today and I am a former board member of the NWTF.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The NWTF is an international nonprofit conservation organization. We have 150,000 members. They are spread amongst 1,000 chapters throughout the U.S. and we work closely with the State and Federal conservation agencies to manage wildlife resources.
We have a strong partnership with the Forest Service through the Making Tracks Program. Currently there are over three-quarters of a million dollars that are available for wildlife management partnerships through the Federation, but the Forest Service cannot fund the work force necessary to identify and implement these projects.
Similarly, the loss of trained and experienced wildlife biologists on any forest has reduced the level of expertise to the point that there are simply not enough qualified people to do the field work. Their time is primarily spent doing office work such as legal appeals, threatened and endangered species work and land management planning.
Despite the 1998 increase, the Forest Service budgets are still 17 percent below the 1993 agency request and the President's 1999 budget is only 48 percent of the estimated funds needed for minimum professional standards for wildlife habitat management.
The reduction of the wildlife budget is so great the Forest Service can no longer be expected to do more with less. They are doing less with less and our national forests and their valuable timber and wildlife resources are beginning to show the strain, Mr. Chairman.
For example, all forest level wildlife and fishery staff officer positions have been eliminated from the Southwestern Region; technicians, rather than biologists, now do most of the wildlife work in the Southeast; and much money in Challenge Cost Share funds are not reaching the ground.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In 1998, the Congress and the Administration responded to this concern and they did increase the funding for wildlife habitat improvement projects. The NWTF applauds this action, however, we feel that wildlife resource and recreational users are being adversely impacted disproportionate to their value.
The National Wild Turkey Federation urges Congress to increase the funding of wildlife habitat improvement budget to $38.5 million, a level near the 1994 funding without inflation. This money will be leveraged by cost-share funds from the private sector allowing for more and better habitats for wild turkeys and many other wildlife species, including some neotropical migrant birds of concern.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the National Wild Turkey Federation urges the committee to fund the President's request for noxious weed control programs to fight a real problem in many forests and rangelands.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak this morning.
Are there any questions, sir?
[The statement of James Earl Kennamer follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenks. I think this is a very good and thorough presentation. I was just making some notes as we went through here, and I appreciate very much your bringing this information to our attention.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. JENKS. Sure, thank you.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
WITNESS
ANDREA COLNES, DIRECTOR, THE NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE
Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be Andrea Colnes, Director, Northern Forest Alliance. Andrea, good morning, thank you very much for being with us here.
Ms. COLNES. Good morning.
Mr. KOLBE. Obviously, as for all the speakers this morning, all the presenters, your entire statement is being put in the record, of course.
Ms. COLNES. Thank you, thank you for being here this morning. It is a long day.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I guess I have not spoken with you before. I have been here a couple of years speaking about the Northern forest so I will give you a brief sense of who we are and what it is.
I am Andrea Colnes, the Director of the Northern Forest Alliance which is a coalition of some 35-plus recreation, forestry and conservation groups from across the Northeastern part of the U.S. And together, we represent probably more than a million people who live and/or visit that area.
The Northern forest is the 26 million acres of forest land that stretches from Maine through Northern New Hampshire and Vermont, across the Adirondacks to New York out towards the Western part of the State. It is really the last wild forest in the Northeastern part of the Eastern part of the country and it is a place that is facing great change, it is a place that is at risk. It is almost completely privately held and the economics, the national economics and international economics of the timber industry have put the land base at risk. Essentially it is hitting the market to the highest bidder.
This brought Congressional attention down to the region over the last eight years or so and there has been a major study and recommending body called the Northern Forest Lands Council, convened by Congress and the governors of the four States, to look at the region and come up with strategies for addressing its future and enabling the people of the region to take some action instead of simply sitting by.
At this point there has been fairly strong recognition of the importance of this region. A little bit different from years past, I have some help in explaining why this region is a place of national importance.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In the President's budget address this year, you can see on the top of your pile there, he identified three eco-systems across the country as a focus for 1999 and one of them is the Northern forest, recognizing that it is of immense economic, cultural and environmental importance to the country as a whole.
That was backed up last week by the New England Governors Conference as a part of the National Governor's Conference. It passed two resolutions which they had never done before, recognizing the critical threats facing their region and asking specifically for this committee and Congress and the Administration to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State side of that program and also to fund the Forest Legacy Program.
These two programs are critical to the future of the area. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is, as I am sure you well know, beneficial on both its Federal and State sides. The State side of that program is particularly important because this part of the country does not have a big Federal land base and if we are to find the kinds of creative highly leveraged investments that we need to make right now, where money is so scarce, the State side of that program is quite critical.
The Forest Legacy is a program specifically designed to protect private forest lands from conversion to non-forest uses. And the USDA has estimated that about half a million acres annually of our important private forest lands, which are becoming increasingly important to the timber base, are going out of production and being converted to non-forest uses.
So, both of these programs have a real role in addressing issues in the Northeast and across the country as a whole.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Briefly, what we would very much like to see is full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as Congress did last year, at the $900 million level. With this funding, provide some funds within that $900 million for the State side of the program, because without it, it will not serve the interests of the Northeastern part of the country at all. Well, not at all, but it will not serve them adequately.
Likewise, the Forest Legacy Program is a wonderful idea. It is a partnership between the public and private sector, the Federal and the State governments and it has been woefully under-funded since it was conceived in the 1990 farm bill. It would again be a highly leveraged, highly cost effective investment in this time of scarce Federal resources and scarce State resources.
I guess I would just close by pointing out that also in your pile is a detailed listing of our priority projects, the most urgent needs for this year. I think one of those projects in particular speaks to the kind of need that we are facing just to give you a taste for it. Champion International has announced that they are selling out all of their holdings in the States of New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and their mill in New York. That is——
Mr. KOLBE. Who is this?
Ms. COLNES. Champion International. It is 325,000 acres of extremely high-valued land. In Vermont it is the Mohican Basin. It is the heart and soul of the Northeastern part of the State and the whole Northern part of our ecological base and cultural base. In the Adirondacks, it is the Northern flow of rivers that run in the Northwestern quadrant of the park and in New Hampshire it is a special tract known as the Blue Mountain tract. It is highly valued by recreationalists and for timber supply.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
That is just one of the kinds of examples that stands there as the kind of land that needs these creative, State-side funding mechanisms.
So, thank you.
[The statement of Andrea Colnes follows:]
Offset folios 42 to 45 insert here
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you. Most of the pressures on the land up there, are they resource pressures or are they development pressures, population development pressures?
Ms. COLNES. It is both. The changing economics of the timber industry have made it basically put pressure on for short-term quarterly returns. And there are two ways of servicing. As the lands are sold and debt load is increased, there are two ways of generating that short-term cash.
One is in over-cutting the lands and there is intense attention in the States on the need to address large-scale over-cutting. The second and more fundamental issue, I think, is development pressure. Seventy million people live within one day's drive of this place and second-home-development pressure on lakes and rivers in high-value areas is quite strong.
Mr. KOLBE. The Forest Legacy Program, that is not the State grants program, that is different?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. COLNES. Yes. Forest Legacy is a Federal program created in 1990 in the farm bill and it provides Federal matching funds to the States at a 75/25 percent match to help private land owners purchase or sell conservation easements on their land.
Mr. KOLBE. It is conservation easements.
Ms. COLNES. Yes. It also provides for a full fee. It can be used either way.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony.
Ms. COLNES. Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Has Mr. Roddy ever appeared?
No? Well, okay, we will scratch him off of our list for the day.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
CONSERVATION OF NATIVE PLANTS
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
WITNESS
C.W. ELIOT PAINE, CHAIRMAN,
CENTER FOR PLANT CONSERVATION
Mr. KOLBE. Our next person is Eliot Paine, Chairman of the Center for Plant Conservation.
Mr. Paine, welcome, and thank you very much.
Mr. PAINE. Good morning.
I am testifying this morning in my capacity as Volunteer Chairman of the Board of the Center for Plant Conservation, known as CPC, which is the only national organization in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to the conservation and recovery of native U.S. plants.
The Center for Plant Conservation is a consortium of 28 leading botanic gardens and arboreta located around the country including, by the way, the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix and the Flagstaff Arboretum.
Our headquarters are located at the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St. Louis. Of the 2,000 or so very rare U.S. plants, 553 are listed as endangered by the Federal Government representing 62 percent of all U.S. endangered species.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While plants thus constitute the most imperiled of the major groups of organisms in the United States, they remain the least understood, the least protected and the least funded. In other words, plants represent about two-thirds of U.S. endangered species but, as a group, they receive less than 3 percent of Federal expenditures on species conservation, in recovery in 1993, which was the latest year for which statistics are available.
A single animal, a threatened salmon, alone, received more than three times the total amount expended on all listed plants in this country in 1993. Many critically endangered plants, down to single digits in the wild, receive no Federal funding at all.
The CPC believes that our nation's plant heritage deserves better. Apart from their well-known aesthetic value, importance in the web of life and our obligation to pass them on to future generations, plants constitute the natural capital upon which our economy and our very lives depend.
Our research has shown that 80 percent of the rare plants of the U.S. are closely related to plants with economic value somewhere in the world. In this age of bioengineering, the possible loss of so many native plants means we ultimately lose countless options to improve our lives in a highly unpredictable future world.
Since its founding in 1984, the CPC has created a unique program of conservation, research, restoration and education within our framework of botanic gardens. With total attendance of over 5 million people a year, these gardens collect, store and grow the national collection of endangered plants, a living collection which today contains 507 of our nation's rarest species. About half of these plants are listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal Government.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We maintain these species as security against extinction, as source material for recovery and as resources for research and education. Collectively, no other organization knows more about the horticulture of America's rare plants than the CPC. No other organization maintains a scientifically curated collection of endangered species of this size in such a cost-effective manner.
To permit the Center to resume the technical and leadership roles that have been identified for it by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the draft policy regarding controlled propagation of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, we request an appropriation of $1.2 million in the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies.
We ask that these funds come from one or more accounts managed by the land managing agency of the Interior Department or other appropriate accounts. The amount requests is the same amount as the Center anticipates receiving from private sources in 1999.
We are, thus, asking the Federal Government to match in 1999 what private citizens and organizations are contributing to our national program to conserve and restore rare U.S. plants.
Doubling our annual budget in 1999 in this manner will permit the CPC to develop the relationships and the operational protocols with Federal agencies that are needed to implement the expanded role in recovery that is identified for the Center in its long-standing and now growing assistance to government.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In addition, we request that the annual appropriations to Interior Department recovery accounts, like the recovery account of the Fish and Wildlife Service, be increased by very significant amounts beginning in 1999. We would like to see Congress exert its influence in ensuring substantially greater equity between plants and animals in the disbursements made by the Department of Interior agencies in their endangered species program.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
[The statement of C.W. Eliot Paine follows:]
Offset folios 53 to 59 insert here
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Paine.
You will be happy to know that on the property, the ranch where I grew up in Southern Arizona, we have one of those 553 endangered plants and years ago, my siblings and I gave a conservation easement to the Nature Conservancy to help to protect that grass there.
Mr. PAINE. Well done.
Mr. KOLBE. The statistics that you give are very interesting about the amount of attention that we give to endangered species that are animals as opposed to plants. I think it is something that Bambi catches our attention a lot more than grass does.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But we certainly appreciate your helping to bring this to our attention.
Mr. PAINE. Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN
WITNESS
SCOTT SUTHERLAND, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.
Mr. KOLBE. Our next speaker is Scott Sutherland, Director of Government Affairs of the organization Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Good morning, Mr. Sutherland.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
We have had the opportunity to join you for this austere occasion a couple of years in a row and we thought we would try to do something a little different since you are going to spend a fair amount of your day here and others from the subcommittee, as well. We thought we would do something a little bit graphic this morning to help deliver our message.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We appreciate your inviting Ducks Unlimited to testify this morning. We know that there is a huge demand for this opportunity. We have a number of programs that we are interested in under this bill. We are going to focus on one of those programs this morning, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. And those familiar with Ducks Unlimited know that that is sort of—we do not work on very many programs up here, but this is one that we think is very, very important. It is achieving wonderful results and so we want to focus on that.
This Act has only been around since 1990. As you can see, every year it racks up—part of the primary reason for this Act is to formulate partnerships between government and private entities, a variety of private entities. It seems like since last year when we were here, there have been about 70 additional partners added to this list so that now there are nearly 700 partners. And, frankly, tomorrow the North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet again, as they do three times a year, and this list will grow.
Our partners include everybody from corporations, small business, State governments, nonprofit groups like ours, farm groups and private land owners. There are a significant number of private land owners willingly participating in this program by putting up their land to restore wetlands on low corners of farm fields where wetlands might have existed when they were children or their grandparents were children, bringing back a little bit at least on some of those private lands, some of those wetland values and wildlife values.
There are 240 projects on the ground in this program in its first eight years in the United States. It does projects all up and down the flyways that migratory birds, not only water fowl but shore birds, neotropicals et cetera, use. So, it is doing work in Mexico and Canada. And there are 524 projects total on the continent now.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Significant for the money that you folks have been kind enough to put up for this program, it is now $317 million in non-Federal, non-NAWCA funds that have been matched, to match the money that you folks have put up. That is a ratio continentally of about two-to-one. Here in the United States it is larger than that. It is even higher.
And 47 States have NAWCA projects on the ground now. We thought of a way to try and make this a little more real, instead of just throwing all these statistics, is to focus on one State. Now, at random we chose a State that happened to be the State of Ohio. Do not ask me why. [Laughter.]
Mr. KOLBE. You should have picked Arizona this morning. You did not know who was going to be chairing this morning, did you? [Laughter.]
Mr. KOLBE. I can think of a couple in Arizona we could have worked on.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Well, actually this has funded a project in Arizona and I will show you something on that. You know, in Ohio, just as an example, nine projects have been funded. And $3.3 million of Federal money under this program has been put up for those budgets; $6.9 million in the match there. So, a little over two-to-one in Ohio.
And $3 million—you know, people always talk about how the things that we care about, your subcommittee and our organization care about compete with economic interests. Well, we pulled a statistic out of a Department of Interior document that demonstrates that 3 million people in Ohio have participated in wildlife related activities, and that is not even counting bird watching, by the way, but those 3 million people generated $2 billion in economic impacts in Ohio.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A list of the projects in Ohio, the NAWCA money, the partner match, the acreage, the totals of these monies. So, that is where we get those statistics. Now, let us just look at one project in Ohio off this list. We are going to look at Metzger's Marsh.
Chairman Regula has actually been to Metzger's Marsh. He helped dedicate this project earlier this year. The program here, the project here was to restore—this used to be a barrier beach across here for years and years and years. And behind that barrier beach—this is Lake Erie—there was a nice wetland area, a marsh area that provided food and shelter for a host of wildlife. And in the 1950s there were tremendous storms in Lake Erie, a series of winter storms that took this barrier beach out and what happened was it essentially made this marsh into just another finger of Lake Erie.
There is still some marsh left back here along the back edge but in terms of productivity this area plunged. So, the NAWCA project that was funded sought to restore the barrier and that is what this dike is. This was one of the largest projects ever done under NAWCA in terms of infrastructure. This is quite an undertaking. We are going to see a closer picture of this in a moment.
What they did was to restore the barrier and there is now a water control structure. This was the initial stage. There is a water control structure about right here that allows inflow and egress of water regimes and the goal was to bring the marsh vegetation back. So, it is 980 acres and the NAWCA program between the partners and the funding that came out of this was $1.4 million.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There was other Federal money involved in it, too. This is a portion of the dike right here. And this is the water control structure and it is a fish egress and ingress structure. But the important thing in this photo is look behind it. That is the area that was all open water, that is the marsh vegetation coming back and that is what the wildlife like, that is what the fish eat, this is the key to the success right here. It really has made a difference.
This wall has only been in place now for about two and a half years. And already the 980 acres is practically filled in with marsh vegetation. So, the program is making a tremendous difference and I have a list of two things that you might be interested in here.
This is a list of the partners in the program.
Mr. KOLBE. We are going to have to bring this to an end here.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. That is fine. And this is a list of the projects that have been funded under the program separated by State. And a breakout of matches and all that sort of thing. So, we thank you very much for your time.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
[The statement of Scott Sutherland follows:]
OFFSET FOLIOS 68 TO 73 INSERT HERE
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. That is certainly a very impressive demonstration of what can happen with a project like that.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SUTHERLAND. We hope you will support it.
Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Sutherland.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
WITNESS
RONALD J. TIPTON, DIRECTOR, U.S. ECOREGION CONSERVATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Mr. KOLBE. Our next speaker will be Ron Tipton, Director of U.S. Ecoregion Conservation for the World Wildlife Fund.
Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I am not going to read my testimony. I am going to summarize a couple of the major points. Obviously our testimony, our written testimony, covers a range of programs in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that are in the budget that you consider and put together.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
It focuses primarily on restoration of the Everglades, the need to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, specific programs within the Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly those that relate to protecting a number of species in other countries, and finally, pieces of the Forest Service budget. But I am going to focus in my comments this morning on two things. The Everglades and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
At World Wildlife Fund, we went through an exercise this past year of identifying what we considered to be the most important and the most endangered or threatened ecoregions in the world. We picked out 25 that we were going to focus attention on during the next five years at least, and one of those is the Everglades.
As has often been said, there is only one Everglades and it is in great jeopardy. But I think the prospects for its survival and its return to environmental health are improving greatly, for many reasons, not the least of which is that this subcommittee and the Congress in the last couple of years has become increasingly focused on the legitimate needs of the Federal Government's share of the cost of restoring the Everglades. And we were certainly prepared to thank the chairman and I want to thank the members here today, for the budget that you approved last year for the $136 million in the Department of the Interior for Everglades restoration.
The request for this year, for the similar program, is a very slight increase over that amount. It is $144 million. We are generally in favor of that request. We will probably come to the subcommittee and talk with the staff about some minor, fairly modest changes in that request, but I would say that it is an excellent start.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We do believe that this subcommittee needs to look, as do other members of Congress that have an interest in this, we have got to get on with the job of finishing the land acquisition in the South end of the Everglades and, specifically, the area called the East Everglades which was actually added to the park in 1990. There are no developed lands there. It is all undeveloped property.
After seven years we have only acquired about half of it, and the problem is, we need to begin moving water from the West side of the Southern end of the Everglades over to the East side and you cannot do that until you control the land.
It is just a matter of there being a very generous amount of money in Fiscal Year 1998 budget for this purpose, there is money in the requested budget, it is going to happen. But we may need to figure out a way to accelerate that so that we can actually begin to do the hydrologic restoration sooner than five years from now. The situation is pretty serious down there.
We believe, just to summarize on the Everglades, that there are several major reasons why we are making the progress we are and we really encourage and urge the subcommittee to stand behind this problem. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take another 5 or 10 years of a strong commitment by the Federal Government but the public support is high, and the bipartisan political support has never been stronger at either the Federal level or the State level.
There is no partisan tinge to restoring the Everglades. I think everyone that has looked at this situation carefully—and I applaud the fact that Chairman Regula and Congressman Miller made a trip down there with some staff earlier this year. We have talked to them since they got back. I think they were impressed with what they saw. They pointed out some issues we need to address. We hope that kind of attention continues.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But we are at last at the stage where we are beginning to make some specific water management decisions and initiate some projects that are actually going to begin to restore the natural timing flow and delivery of water through South Florida. So, it will benefit the entire Everglades and particularly, Everglades National Park in Florida Bay.
We have a lot of hurdles ahead of us and a lot of tradeoffs with other water users, but I think that we are optimistic.
The final thing I will say segues me over into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We depend very heavily on the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the conservation and outdoor recreation needs of the entire country.
The largest single beneficiary over the last several years, except for the two major land acquisition projects that the Administration had requested and an agreement was worked out last year, has been the Everglades. There is $81 million in the request this year for Everglades restoration, acquisition money. The State of Florida is matching that money virtually dollar-for-dollar. The State has the largest land acquisition conservation program in the United States. It needs it, given the pace of development and population growth in South Florida.
But we really urge this subcommittee not only to continue to fund the Everglades portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund but to sustain the funding interest it showed last year when we finally got back to the level of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that we had started to attain in the late 1970s.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This program is authorized at $900 million a year. It was authorized at that level almost 20 years ago. The buying power of $900 million today is about $350 million and as Will Rogers used to say, ''They ain't making any more land.'' And it is not getting any cheaper.
And we need a long-term interest. We need a long-term sustained interest in funding this program at that level. I noted yesterday that the Senate increased transportation funding by 40 percent in their transportation bill. The Congress needs to look at the recreation and the outdoor conservation needs of the country and fund those needs.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ronald Tipton follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you. I certainly appreciate your passionate plea here for the Everglades. It is one of the areas that I think this Congress has certainly been looking upon very favorably and it is very important.
And we appreciate your bringing it to our attention.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM
WITNESS
JEAN HOCKER, PRESIDENT, LAND TRUST ALLIANCE
Mr. KOLBE. Next we are going to hear from Jean Hocker, President, the Land Trust Alliance.
Ms. HOCKER. Good morning, Congressmen.
I am happy to be here this morning to talk to you about two programs that are very much on the minds of the nation's land trusts and those who support voluntary land conservation. Let me tell you just a little bit about the Land Trust Alliance. The Land Trust Alliance promotes voluntary land conservation and provides the leadership and support for over a 1,000 nonprofit land conservation organizations known as land trusts.
These groups, ranging from fairly large organizations to several small all-volunteer organizations, are helping land owners conserve open spaces and green places all across the country. They are rapidly growing organizations in number and that includes the State of Arizona where there are now eight or nine land trust organizations and Virginia, as well. And all across the country land trust organizations are helping land owners save land through a variety of means.
They also are increasingly working in partnership with local, State and Federal conservation agencies to help acquire and manage land that is valuable for conservation or frequently they hold conservation easements for the public benefit. And I was delighted to hear you say that you are very familiar with conservation easements from a landowner's standpoint.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to talk about two programs that use Federal funds to leverage private voluntary land conservation in really cost-effective ways. These are the Land and Water Conservation Fund, especially matching grants to States, and the Forest Legacy Program. You have heard something about both of those this morning.
As you know, historically the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been tremendously successful in promoting community and nonprofit involvement in conservation. Grants have to be matched one-to-one. So, this part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program fosters a real conservation partnership between communities and it is a really good deal for the Federal Treasury as well as for conservation.
Unfortunately, as you know, the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has suffered a dramatic reduction over the past five years. In fact, at this point, the State program is all but shut down.
In an era when power and responsibility are being returned to the States it is really ironic that such a highly successful, highly leveraged grant program to States has been decimated.
At one time $375 million out of a total of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation of $737 was appropriated to the States. That was 50 percent of the total. But in the past three years the appropriation for State grants has been zero and yet, these are leveraged and they provide money to help protect land and provide recreational opportunities close to where people live.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We encourage the committee to increase the appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund overall and we strongly urge you to include funding for State grants in the program as well as the equally important funding for Federal projects.
I also want to talk about a much newer program, the Forest Legacy Program. You have heard from the Northern Forest Alliance about this program. It was authorized in the 1990 farm bill and it enables the purchase of conservation easements on environmentally sensitive timber land that is threatened with conversion to non-forest uses.
It is a wonderful program, theoretically. It is voluntary. It is private. It is non-regulatory. It encourages partnerships among willing land owners, local, State and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. It is highly leveraged. It requires at least a 25 percent State match.
It preserves the nation's privately owned forests, at the same time, improving water quality, air quality, protecting habitat, curbing sprawl, and promoting sustainable economic land uses. It is a pretty good use of Federal money. It is a program where everybody wins.
Fifteen States, from Washington and California to Rhode Island and New York, have undertaken the really pretty complex process of qualifying to receive Forest Legacy funds. Four more States are working on it right now and over $50 million worth of projects are currently in the pipeline.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And you know how much was appropriated last year for the entire nation—$4 million. That is about $266,000 for each eligible State, not including ones that are currently trying to become eligible.
The President's budget this year has $6 million. Still, a paltry sum. It is a very effective, potentially very creative program that is a good use of Federal funds and it is doomed to failure because it does not, it has virtually no funding, or minuscule amounts.
The Land Trust Alliance urges you, we actually implore you to increase the funding for the Forest Legacy Program to $50 million.
Now, I know that that is a really substantial increase as a percentage of what has been appropriated, but it is a minuscule amount when you think of the Federal budget and you think of what this highly leveraged investment can do for conservation and for the timber economy in States all across the country, and I think it is terribly important.
We think it is very important that we have sufficient funds to make this program work. I believe that was the intent of Congress in enacting the program in the farm bill and we just wanted a chance to show what it can do.
So, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including a fair share for State side and Forest Legacy funded. They are two of the best deals I know for conservation and for the American public and I urge you to fund them both adequately.
Thanks very much.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The statement of Jean Hocker follows:]
OFFSET FOLIOS 114 TO 119 INSERT HERE
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Ms. Hocker.
You certainly make a very passionate plea for this program and we will take that into account.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
FOREST HEALTH
WITNESS
FELICE PACE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE
Mr. KOLBE. We will move on to Felice Pace, Executive Director of the Klamath Forest Alliance.
Mr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Good morning. I would like to summarize my testimony this morning. Chairman Regula, Mr. Kolbe, and members of the committee, Klamath Forest Alliance appreciates the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. Our testimony will address two items—the U.S. Forest Service budget and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget request for the Klamath River Basin.
The Forest Service budget has been the subject of controversy for some time because of appropriations which subsidize private corporations and result in harm to the environment. We commend Chief Dombeck and the Clinton Administration for finally beginning the task of addressing these problems and urge Congress and this committee to get on board the reform train.
Specifically, we support the intent of the Chief to address problems of a massive road system which is inadequately maintained and which, as a result, is causing irreparable harm to the environment and aquatic ecosystems in particular.
Attached to our testimony is a report we have completed concerning road maintenance on the Klamath National Forest. Our analysis of the Klamath Forest road situation, which was submitted to the Forest Service folks at the Klamath and their engineers for peer review prior to publication, indicates that while funding appears adequate to maintain 75 percent of the road system, nothing near that amount of maintenance is being done. I might add, the monitoring report for the six rivers said they did 100 miles of road, of 3,000 or more miles they have, last year in road maintenance.
This suggests that the engineering department may be over-staffed, and that maintaining inappropriate staffing levels is requiring excessive overhead. We recommend Congress consider substantial cuts in Forest Service engineering staff at the supervisory level.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In May 1997, we audited maintenance records for 36 Klamath National Forest roads, most of them in key salmon watersheds. We found that during the prior five years, 29 of these roads received no maintenance, whatsoever, and maintenance was minimal to inadequate on the other six roads. Details are in the report which is attached to the testimony. It looks like this.
The Forest Service has requested funds this year to decommission 350 miles of roads during Fiscal Year 1999. This amounts to about 1 percent of a system, which according to the Chief, 60 percent of the roads are not being maintained in that system. That is not enough.
We need to get to a National Forest road system which is environmentally safe and which we can afford to maintain and the people I represent all live, work and play in those forests. We like our roads but we got too many of them.
So, in the Citizens Forest Appropriations Initiative, which will be presented formally later by the Western Ancient Forest Campaign—and it already has many organizational signatures including ours—we are asking for an additional $25 million for road decommissioning and an additional $25 million for road maintenance. There are cuts in there, too, that go up even further than that.
We strongly recommend that these additional funds, as well as managers report language instruct the Forest Service to decommission roads which pose the greatest risk to aquatic resources. We should be aiming to get rid of about 25 percent of these roads by the year 2010 in order to begin to get to a road system we can afford to maintain.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I want to just skip down and say this year the Clinton Administration announced a new clean water initiative. We support it. However, when we look at the Forest Service budget request's explanatory notes, we see that $3 million of the $60 million supporting the initiative is for timber sale management and another $2.3 million is for forest land vegetation management. That usually means either cutting trees or spraying herbicides. And we do not understand how these things are going to get us to clean water. They do not look appropriate. They look like we are hiding some timber sales in there.
I want to turn my attention now to one of the West's great and least known river systems, the Klamath River of Northern California and Southern Oregon and the Basin Six Wildlife Refuges, which the Fish and Wildlife Service management plan calls the greatest wildlife display in North America and some folks have called it the Everglades of the West. I threw in the Everglades of the West because you heard about the Everglades and everybody knows them.
But 80 percent of the Pacific flyaway goes through the Klamath Basin and yet we cannot get the kind of money we need either to restore the salmon, to recover the endangered species, or to take care of the needs of these wildlife refuges. And we do not understand why we are not getting this.
So, last year we began coordinating my organization and Appropriations Initiative for the Klamath Basin. This year we are working very closely with Senator Boxer and her staff on Senate appropriations on this and there is a specific request for increasing the salmon restoration funds pursuant to the Klamath Act of 1996, of $3.5 million, and for marsh restoration in the upper basin that we need to improve water quality. We had a fish kill in the Klamath last year that extended about 30 miles and for about two to three weeks due to high water temperatures and poor water quality and marsh restoration can do a lot for that.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So, the details of that particular initiative are still being, the sign-ons are still being put together but you will see that.
[The statement of Felice Pace follows:]
OFFSET FOLIOS 127 TO 131 INSERT HERE
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
FOREST SERVICE—SALVAGE SALES
WITNESS
GWEN MARSHALL, PROTECT BIODIVERSITY IN PUBLIC FORESTS
Mr. KOLBE. We will hear from Gwen Marshall, Protect Biodiversity in Public Forests.
Gwen.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA [presiding]. Thank you. Your testimony will be made a part of the record and you have five minutes.
Ms. MARSHALL. Thank you.
All right, the main topic that I am going to talk about is the relationship with the Forest Service budget. What you will see there is basically an increase in budget, decrease in returns and an ever decreasing percentage of returns in relation to expenditure.
Mr. REGULA. That is because it is the multiple uses driving this.
Ms. MARSHALL. I am not really going to make a point of what it is or it is not. It is just that is the numbers.
Mr. REGULA. Yes. I understand.
Ms. MARSHALL. But I did get them from the Congressional Quarterly which may or may not be the best resource.
Mr. REGULA. Yes. I understand. I am sure this is true.
Ms. MARSHALL. Mostly what I am going to be talking about is what I call the slush fund. So, these are the ones, in particular, from the Forest Service budget. And also this is a letter from the Forest Service directed to its rangers a couple of years ago that I will be referencing. So, I wanted to make sure you had all that.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Basically what I found in reading the Forest Service budget is that it did not seem all that interested in having us do the math. I will give you a copy of my intended oral so that you can kind of keep up with me a little bit.
Basically the Forest Service tells us that it costs them $113 per thousand board feet to prepare a timber sale but when I did the math I found it was somewhere between $331 and $610. And the qualifying information on that is in the written testimony.
The Forest Service told us that they planned to earn about $102 per thousand board feet but I have got a letter saying that they are charging $44 per thousand on mixed hardwoods and $9 for pines. So, it seems like they are going to have a hard time catching up to that.
I also found in doing the math that the grazing program is losing 9.5 times what it is bringing in, mining is 1.7, and half of what they take in on recreation is going just to pay the costs of collection. Those are just numbers that I found in there.
Mr. REGULA. Is that money since the fee program was put in place or is this prior to that?
Ms. MARSHALL. All I know is it was in this year's budget comparing expected income to expected expenses.
Mr. REGULA. On the fee program?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. MARSHALL. Yes. I mean I am just using their numbers. I have not used any other groups' numbers. Frankly, reading their book took me long enough.
Okay, basically what I notice is the Forest Service expects to be able to spend their appropriations as well as any earnings from the commodity program and they are not returning money to us. And they are losing money based on the assumption that all the resources they are using actually have zero value. So keep that in mind that the only way they bring any money in is by assuming the trees were worth nothing.
Of course, you know that I think it is time to end the commodity program. So, we have gone through that one before. The point that I am trying to make though is about the 25 percent fund and the fact that the Forest Service, even though they have got all this money, still is having a hard time paying their taxes. And that is what that letter is about from the Forest Service is on the delinking idea or the problem with the fact that their employees have put so much money in KV and salvage and they specifically reference that that they did not have the money for their taxes.
But they did promise their employees that they would come up with a long-term solution. And, again, I am quoting their letter.
Last year, part of their long-term solution to the tax problem was trying to eliminate the purchaser road credit program, because they are paying 25 percent out on the 25 percent fund on nonexistent money. And if you do not want to do that then that would be one way. This year they are proposing to eliminate the 25 percent fund.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Okay. So, where does the money go? Why cannot the Forest Service pay 25 percent of its income on taxes? Most of us are doing that so why not them?
Well, what I did was I tried to learn more about this stuff and so I read the CRS book on the special funds. And what I found when I was reading this is that what we really need is maybe a CRS book on Forest Service slush funds for dummies. And then I came to the conclusion that I was the dummy because I read the book and there is just a lot to it.
And what we really need instead is a Forest Service budget for common sense that we tell the Forest Service here is your money, here is what we want done, you earn any money give it back. Do not worry if you do not earn money. You are not giving us anything back. But what I am looking for is a clean bookkeeping system. Not all this stuff that is described in this booklet. I will leave you a copy of that.
That is the special copy with my handwritten notes and the updates from last year and the comparisons to the prior years so you can see the numbers. But anyway, what I think we need to do is stop playing the games with the bookkeeping system.
So, where they hiding money? KV is the big account but my favorite is the salvage fund because that is the one that we are talking about more recently.
The salvage fund has turned $43 million worth of appropriations from Congress into $160 million which sounds really good but the way they do it is they have written a rule in their own manual, and the specific number is 2435.12, that lets them keep their salvage earnings to build or maintain a fund equal to one and a half times their annual needs. So, that is why we are not seeing any of that money.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. You mean you are saying it goes into a fund and unless that fund is equal to one and a half times the total Forest budget or just that——
Ms. MARSHALL. No, no, salvage. The national Forest Service has figured out how much money they think they need to do a salvage program next year. They have said that do not worry, any income——
Mr. REGULA. Preparing it for sale?
Ms. MARSHALL. Right. Any income that they get from the salvaged sales they believe that they should be allowed by their own rule to keep one and a half times the need for next year which means that they are keeping all the money, which when the program was first set up was not as big a deal as it is now in terms of the 25 percent fund.
But then in 1988, Congress started considering that income for the 25 percent fund. Meanwhile the Forest Service was still keeping all of their money in the salvage fund. So, then the 25 percent taxes were paid out of other income.
So, we are actually losing more money from salvage and instead of having that system, they cannot tell me how much money is earned in salvage and green anyway. Why pretend that there is a difference?
Like I said, what we really need is to just totally clean up the bookkeeping system and you guys can be suggesting this because a lot of these slush funds were created in the Interior appropriations. What we need is, yes, we should pay 25 percent.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I totally agree with that, totally agree with delinking. It should be a separate line item but it should be a straight in-and-out budget. Congress tells the Forest Service what they want them to do and the Forest Service does it and returns any income.
And if we do that we would have an open and honest bookkeeping system and it would stop this group from managing our resources for their benefit instead of be managing it for the benefit of all of us.
[The statement of Gwen Marshall follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. You have all of that information in here?
Ms. MARSHALL. Yes, everything is in there.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Ms. MARSHALL. And I would like you to keep that.
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. MARSHALL. And then the other promise I made you was that if we did it straight in-and-out, the budget would look like this instead of like this and it would save us hours and hours of reading. Now, is that not incentive for all of us?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I am all for that.
Okay. Thanks for coming in.
Tuesday, March 3, 1998.
TIMBER PROGRAM
WITNESS
PAUL HOUGHLAND, JR., EXECUTIVE MANAGER, NATIONAL HARDWOOD LUMBER ASSOCIATION
Mr. REGULA. Our next speaker is the National Hardwood Lumber Association, Mr. Paul Houghland.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Houghland and I am the Executive Manager of the National Hardwood Lumber Association, in Memphis. We represent producers and users of hardwood products, ranging from the saw mill up to the finished product in furniture manufacturing.
Mr. REGULA. Is this just in the private sector or is this coming off of public lands?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOUGHLAND. In both, both.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, in both.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. The statements today address three general areas of concern in the proposed Forest Service budget for Fiscal Year 1999 for the timber sale program, the forest roads program and research. If we look at the National Forest they grow approximately 22 billion board feet a year which is one quarter of what the country needs for wood products and paper products. Yet, the President's proposed budget would allow for only 3.4 billion board feet to be harvested in the National Forest.
In other words, the National Forest could supply 25 percent of the annual needs of wood but, yet, it actually supplies only 4.5 percent. So, there is 18 billion board feet of wood annually which goes unused and about twice as much as what is being harvested each year dies and rots.
We consider that an unnecessary waste of renewable natural resource which we need to address.
The NHLA strongly urges this subcommittee to support efforts to begin rebuilding and restoring a strong Forest Service timber sale program as originally provided for in the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 100 years ago and further supported in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act in 1960.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Forest roads program as contained in the proposed budget and in the recently announced proposed moratorium on roads would further cripple the National Forest. The Forest road system is critical, not only for timber production, but recreation access, wildlife habitat management, wild fire control, as well. The proposed moratorium on road construction further threatens the health of much of our National Forest and the economies of small—yes, sir? One minute left? That was a fast five.
Mr. REGULA. Time goes quickly.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. It sure did. Well, let me just very quickly on that last four minutes of my five, in Forest Research Service or the Research Service, we believe that a lot of the research that is being conducted ends up on the shelf and not being used. We think this subcommittee needs to address that waste and direct the Forest Service to make certain that the conducted research is put into the hands of small businesses both saw mills and producers. They can use this.
[The statement of Paul Houghland follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Do you think that the Forest Service is not disseminating the information they are gaining from research?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. That is correct.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. How would this be done? A mailing list or could people write and seek information?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. If the people do not know the research has been conducted, they do not ask for it. I think that there needs to be a pipeline developed and our association could certainly sit with this subcommittee or the Forest Service and develop a dissemination process.
Mr. REGULA. The staff tells me that they do have an aggressive Web Site to disseminate this information.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. And that is fine. But if you are looking at saw mill operator in Appalachia——
Mr. REGULA. They probably do not have a——
Mr. HOUGHLAND. They do not have a Web Site or would not know how to access it. And it is like saying, I got a $50 bill out here under the table, if you pick it up, you can go but I will not tell you where it is.
Mr. REGULA. All right, good point. Okay.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. I appreciate my five minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, thank you.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
You just deal in hardwoods?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. So, you are in the Eastern part of the country?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Well, we are national. There are hardwoods on the West coast as well. Primarily East of the Mississippi and North of the line down through Tennessee or so.
Mr. REGULA. Is hardwood private, public, together, growing more than is being cut?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes. There is more hardwood in the United States today than there was at the turn of the century.
Mr. REGULA. Interesting.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. And there is more grown each year than is harvested.
Mr. REGULA. We have a big basket company up our way and they use maple.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. You know, they cut it and make it into the strips to make the baskets and they seem to have no problem getting it.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. It might be accessible. If you look at the finest cherry and walnut in the country, you will find them in Appalachia and a lot in the National Forest are no longer accessible. You would not have this nice table.
Mr. REGULA. There is a shortage of those?
Mr. HOUGHLAND. There is not a shortage of available timber, there is a shortage of what is being harvested because of the restrictions that have been placed primarily in the Forest Service.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.
Mr. HOUGHLAND. Thank you.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WITNESS
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
EDWARD M. NORTON, JR., VICE PRESIDENT FOR LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. REGULA. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mr. Norton.
Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward Norton. I am the Vice President for Law and Public Policy at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear this morning to testify on the Fiscal Year 1999 Interior Appropriations.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that the National Trust appears not seeking general appropriation for the National Trust from the Historic Preservation Fund. So, I appear here this morning as an unfettered, unencumbered advocate for historic preservation generally.
The point I would really like to make is——
Mr. REGULA. You are a statesman today?
Mr. NORTON. Right. No, I am an advocate actually.
An advocate for historic preservation but not for the National Trust's appropriation.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The principal point I want to make is to thank you for allowing us to have a three-year period of withdrawing from the Federal appropriation and specifically to thank you for your strong advocacy in defense of that agreement both in this subcommittee and in the full committee and on the floor of the House. We appreciate that. We think that, in the long run, this will work out for the betterment of all of us.
That being said, we are here as an advocate for funding for historic preservation and specifically we would like to ask that our $3.5 million that we have received over the last three years go specifically to the State historic preservation offices, not as the total appropriation, but for an increase that is very much needed by the state historic preservation offices for $10 million.
Mr. REGULA. Well, let me ask this. The State budgets are in better condition than ours. They have surpluses in most of the States because the economy has been very strong and most of them have had historically balanced budget requirements. Why cannot the States do their own financing?
Mr. NORTON. Well, I think there are a couple of answers to that. First of all, I think it is very important to understand exactly what the State historic preservation offices do in the Federal partnership set up under the Historic Preservation Act. They play a very important role, but the Federal Historic Preservation program could not take place without the Federal Partnership.
Mr. REGULA. Are you saying they are partners?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. NORTON. They are partners. They are full partners and, in fact, you could say they are mandated partners, in the administration of the Federal tax credits, for example.
I think that they should receive Federal funding for their partnership in their Federal role in that Federal/State partnership.
Secondly, of course, they match their funds. I think that States should increase their funding for historic preservation, but I think that the Federal role played by the State historic preservation offices should receive adequate Federal funding. We should take into account the fact that that funding has declined in real terms over the last 10 years.
[The statement of Edward Norton follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. NORTON. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Do you appear before State finance committees urging them to give more?
Mr. NORTON. Well, I certainly would if I were asked.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Well, we will suggest that to them, at least in Ohio.
Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only other program that I wanted to specifically mention this morning was the millennium program. That is Saving America's Treasures Program——
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Mr. NORTON [continuing]. Which we strongly support and hope you will, too.
Mr. REGULA. Well, we are interested. We want to make sure that that money is used wisely, though.
Mr. NORTON. So do we and we have suggested some specific priorities and made some recommendations to the White House on that so that that will happen.
Mr. REGULA. Very good. Thank you very much.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
WITNESS
ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
Mr. REGULA. National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Mr. Eric Hertfelder.
You are going to tell us you get plenty of money in the States, right?
Mr. HERTFELDER. Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of preservation that needs to be done.
Mr. REGULA. I will agree with that.
Mr. HERTFELDER. This is a very rich——
Mr. REGULA. Both Federal and State.
Mr. HERTFELDER [continuing]. This is a very rich country in terms of historic properties.
I brought an aide today. Thank you. My name is Eric Hertfelder. I am the Director of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and in order to save time I am going to refer to them as SHPOs from now on if that is okay. That will cut my testimony in half.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
On behalf of the 57 State and Territorial SHPOs first I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for your steady support over the years for the State Historic Preservation Officers and the Historic Preservation Fund. These programs pay dividends in property saved every day, every year.
The State Historic Preservation Officers have been saving America's treasures since 1966 and are very proud to be a part of the Historic Preservation Fund Partnership with the Federal Government and local governments. We think of the States as the infrastructure of the National Historic Preservation program. They actually are the 57 regional or field offices for the National Park Service and the Advisory Council in the historic preservation actually delivering the services of the national program to the public.
For this year, we are requesting $40 million from the Historic Preservation Fund for States and certified local governments and for Fiscal Year 1999 we also support the special $50 million appropriation for millennium grants requested by the President, $22 million of which is proposed for the States.
There are many significant cultural and historic properties at risk and the preservation community will find the matching funds to ensure that some of the most important sites in each State will survive in good shape into the next millennium.
Our request for the base program for the States is more than requested in the Administration budget, although it is within the overall totals and reflects our difference over the funding priorities with the National Park Service which has tended to create new programs rather than reinvesting and boosting existing successful programs.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The proposed 1999 level will be the sixth year in a row that the States have had decreasing or level funding. This is very discouraging as the workload on the States grows and it is even more serious if you acknowledge that over time level funding is actually losing ground.
I have done two little houses here to illustrate that. The one on your left is the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation to the States in relative size in 1981 and this is in 1998 in 1981 dollars proportionally.
Mr. REGULA. I understand. But our allocation has also been shrinking in real dollars. So, what are we supposed to do?
Mr. HERTFELDER. No. I understand. I am making a proposal within the bounds of what the President proposed.
Mr. REGULA. But his proposal is a billion and a half over last year's allocation, and I think that it is unlikely that is going to happen——
Mr. HERTFELDER. Yes.
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Unless he has a billion and a half that we do not know about.
Mr. HERTFELDER. In his back pocket.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Yes, right.
Mr. HERTFELDER. I am sure you are right, but the point I want to make is that level funding over time is actually losing ground.
Mr. REGULA. Well, I understand that very well.
Mr. HERTFELDER. And States in the face of this are losing positions to service the Federal side of the program.
Mr. REGULA. Well, how are the States' appropriations going? Are they keeping pace with inflation? Or most of them, I would think.
Mr. HERTFELDER. They are basically level funded except for special grants programs. The States, in 1981, the Historic Preservation Fund was cut by almost two-thirds.
Mr. REGULA. So, the States are shrinking in real dollars also, is that what you are saying?
Mr. HERTFELDER. If I could finish what I was going to say.
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HERTFELDER. In 1981, there was a very large cut from $60 million down to about $20 million——
Mr. REGULA. In the States?
Mr. HERTFELDER [continuing]. For the States. And what happened was that the States lost virtually all ability to give bricks and mortar grants to provide assistance. They were carrying on the demand functions like the rehab tax credits, environmental review of the National Registry which they still are. But what the States have done mainly since that time is to rebuild some of the grants programs. Some of them have gambling money, some of them have special taxes and so we find that some of that ground has been made up in terms of being able to help properties with grants.
But the basic core functions, staffing and so forth, have been pretty level and the States generally appropriate to match the Federal appropriation as part of the State/Federal partnership.
So, in closing, we recommend and hope that the committee will continue to invest and reinvest funds as they become available in these existing programs because I think we are very successful. You will find in my written testimony, for example, last year, Fiscal Year 1997, the States certified $1.73 billion worth of construction activities under the rehab tax credits. That was one of the best years ever.
Now, granted that was in part because the economy is booming but if that infrastructure was not in place and the staffs there ready to handle all the developers when they came in, that would not have been possible and that is a tremendous private sector contribution to the national program.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The statement of Eric Hertfelder follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. HERTFELDER. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. We, in this committee, are blessed with so many good things that need to be done and with an amount not adequate to do it.
Mr. HERTFELDER. Right.
Mr. REGULA. And we are going to do the best we can in terms of national priorities to meet the needs of all these great programs, all of which are productive and good.
Thank you for coming.
Mr. HERTFELDER. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. I hope you all understand if I interrupt you I am trying to get this information and I have only five minutes to do it. I do not want to be rude but I want to get as many facts as I can. And, so, I hope you realize that that is what we are trying to do and thank you.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HERTFELDER. I would rather have a conversation.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WITNESS
MANUEL GOMEZ, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. REGULA. Okay. The University of Puerto Rico, Mr. Manuel Gomez, Vice President.
You have an interest in what is happening this week, do you not?
Mr. GOMEZ. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. You are going to hold me to the five minutes, right.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GOMEZ. Yes, I will be taking my five minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Did the alarm go off?
Mr. GOMEZ. No, I will keep the time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address you. I am the Vice President of the University of Puerto Rico and with me is Andres Gomez, who is the President of the UPR Foundation who is helping out for the project I am going to talk about.
Mr. REGULA. Is this a State University?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is a State University.
Mr. REGULA. How many do you have?
Mr. GOMEZ. 68,000——
Mr. REGULA. No. Do you have one main university?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is a system of all the——
Mr. REGULA. Satellite areas?
Mr. GOMEZ. We have 12 campuses and 68,000 students. It is the major Hispanic-serving institution in the United States.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Do you have a football team?
Mr. GOMEZ. No. We do not. We have basketball. We do not have football.
Mr. REGULA. I am just curious.
Mr. GOMEZ. That is okay.
Mr. REGULA. Because it is such a big deal at our Big Ten schools.
Mr. GOMEZ. I know, I know.
Mr. REGULA. I happen to be a football fan. So, go ahead.
Mr. GOMEZ. The purpose of my presence in this committee is to talk about the preservation of a historic site——
Mr. REGULA. A site?
Mr. GOMEZ. A site. The University of Puerto Rico Theater. The Puerto Rico Theater is part of the quadrangle which is a historic——
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay. How much money do you need?
Mr. GOMEZ. We need $5 million.
Mr. REGULA. How much can you raise locally?
Mr. GOMEZ. Ten.
Mr. REGULA. So, is it $15 million total?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is $15 million total.
Mr. REGULA. And you would like to get $5 million from us and the 10 you will raise?
Mr. GOMEZ. We are raising the following form. The University of Puerto Rico puts $5 million from its sources and the private sources—this is an alliance—the private source will raise from three from the foundation and another $5 million.
The significance of the Theater of the University of Puerto Rico is as a landmark, it is a symbol and an icon.
Mr. REGULA. My staff tells me historically we have not funded brick and mortar. That is what you are talking about, I assume.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GOMEZ. No. We are restoring it. It is not a construction.
Mr. REGULA. Is this a free-standing building?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is a free-standing building, part of the University quadrangle, which is a historical site as certified as a historical site.
Mr. REGULA. And it is a theater?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is a theater. To give you an idea of size it compares with the Kennedy Center. It is 2,088 seat capacity. It is a big building. It has a long history. Pablo Casals Festivals were initiated in that theater.
Mr. REGULA. Is it being used now?
Mr. GOMEZ. It is—that is the problem. It is not being used because it has deteriorated and needs renovation.
That is the crux. It is a symbol and I think that I want to emphasize that because as you may know Puerto Rico did not have a higher education system or an educational system K–12 during the Spanish time. So, this is a very appropriate time because of the centennial of the Spanish-American War.
Mr. REGULA. Do you offer a full range, do you offer law, medical?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GOMEZ. We offer all those, law, engineering.
Mr. REGULA. The works.
Mr. GOMEZ. To give you an idea, the University of Puerto Rico is the sixteenth largest in the nation, not minority, the sixteenth largest in the nation. We have engineers in NASA, and the university has graduated 225,000 people. And that 225,000 are the leaders of Puerto Rico.
Mr. REGULA. I would be interested, do you get the students that come from out of your country?
Mr. GOMEZ. We are getting more from Latin America and from the mainland that come down to study in the UPR. We are making a special effort with New Mexico. I am sorry, the scheme will work out because we have an alliance with the New Mexico universities to join forces to exchange Hispanics. We have a Hispanic tradition that we share with them. So, we are working in all kinds of these directions.
The other importance of the theater is that it has been the meeting place for Latin American exiles, Spanish exiles, and victims of dictatorships. So, it has been a forum for freedom and democracy.
Mr. REGULA. Now, it is closed.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GOMEZ. Now, it is closed. We cannot do that, we cannot use it, and it is depriving us of a cultural facility. It is part of a unique history which could be a symbol; it should be a symbol of the country and the United States' education in the island of Puerto Rico.
[The statement of Manuel Gomez follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much. Your testimony will be made a part of the record.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
LAND CONSERVATION
WITNESS
BRUCE RUNNELS, CHIEF CONSERVATION OFFICER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. REGULA. The Nature Conservancy, Bruce Runnels, Chief Conservation Officer.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RUNNELS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Good morning.
Mr. RUNNELS. My name is Bruce Runnels. And I am the Chief Conservation Officer of the Nature Conservancy. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on next year's appropriations.
As background, and I think you know, the Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. We have 900,000 members, and we protected 9 million acres in the last 48 years of our work.
It is really on the strength of that foundation, and in the spirit of doing the best we can for future generations, that we offer the following comments.
Mr. REGULA. Do you go onto private lands as well as public?
Mr. RUNNELS. Yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. And you work with private land holders in conservation practices?
Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. The Big Darby project is a good example of how we work with private land owners and other stakeholders in communities to foster a community based approach to conservation.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Mr. RUNNELS. But we own and manage almost two million acres in 1,600 preserves.
Mr. REGULA. It will turn over as appropriate to a public agency?
Mr. RUNNELS. As appropriate, but we do that on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. REGULA. What do you do? Do you have a lump sum of money to work with that contributors have built up for your organization?
Mr. RUNNELS. We have a revolving loan fund and then we raise money for each of the projects as we undertake them and repay the loans on an ongoing basis.
Mr. REGULA. It is some good work.
Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you very much.
In terms of Interior appropriations we strongly support and urge continued use of land and water conservation funds to support land acquisition and maintenance of high priority areas. We cited 36 projects that we think we support particularly——
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Is that in your testimony?
Mr. RUNNELS. It is in the testimony—in 21 States totaling about——
Mr. REGULA. The real problem is that you have such a backlog of maintenance that if we add land and/or buildings it just contributes to that difficulty in keeping things up to date.
Mr. RUNNELS. I appreciate the point because once acquired, it is critical that we provide adequate maintenance to sustain these sites——
Mr. REGULA. And development, too.
Mr. RUNNELS [continuing]. Over the future. And it needs to be balanced, I think, with land acquisition.
Mr. REGULA. Are you familiar with Big Darby?
Mr. RUNNELS. Yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Well, somebody raised a question with me that the adjacent land owners were not happy about having their lands taken for this purpose. Does that ring a bell with you at all?
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RUNNELS. My understanding of the project is, in fact, the private land owners, including the farming community, are supportive of a program to establish a refuge here, which would include land acquisition, but also the purchase of development rights to achieve, I think, the community vision for it.
Mr. REGULA. So, this would be more than a greenway, it would be an area for wildlife conservation, is that correct?
Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. The main focus of that project is the river——
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Mr. RUNNELS [continuing]. And the biological elements that are in the river but it is more than a greenway and is an integrated effort to include the lands and waters in order to conserve them long-term.
Mr. REGULA. And this would be operated by the State?
Mr. RUNNELS. Right now it is really a partnership involving the local park department.
Mr. REGULA. Local, meaning the city of Columbus?
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. I believe it is the city of Columbus.
Mr. REGULA. Probably, yes.
Mr. RUNNELS. The metro park area.
Mr. REGULA. That is right.
Mr. RUNNELS. The university, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think the management of the refuge would be under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service but that is not the entire area.
Mr. REGULA. I believe that is correct.
Mr. RUNNELS. So, that would be one part of a patchwork of partners that would conserve this area.
So, we support continued use of land and water and I just would cite other programs and initiatives that we have included in our testimony. Mainly because they represent high-leverage use of Federal funds through public/private partnerships and matching funds and I want to mention particularly the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
That organization has been in existence 12 years and they have made over 2,400 grants. It attracts $3 for every $1 of Federal funds. So, over that 12 years, they have attracted $195 million of outside money from the 82 invested in Federal funds. And I think that is the kind of high-leverage program that we think deserves continued support.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The statement of Bruce Runnels follows:]
Offset folios 202 to 205 insert here
Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you.
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998.
CARTER BARRON AMPHITHEATRE RESTORATION
WITNESS
GLORIA J. HIGHTOWER, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FRIENDS OF CARTER BARRON FOUNDATION OF THE PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. REGULA. Ms. Hightower for the Friends of the Carter Barron.
We are running behind schedule so that anything you can do to keep it tight, we will appreciate.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, sir.
I would like to say, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity for me to speak here on behalf of the Friends of Carter Barron. We established our 501(c)(3) in 1991 to form a partnership with the National Park Service to preserve and interpret the Carter Barron Amphitheater. Being that I am a professional artist I got involved and when I began to start performing at the facility I——
Mr. REGULA. This is in Chicago?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. No. This is in DC, on 16th Street.
Mr. REGULA. Oh, okay.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, when I went up to perform I began to look at the structure, how it was definitely demising. It is in such a roofless state——
Mr. REGULA. Well, who owns this structure?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. The National Park Service.
Mr. REGULA. It is a part of the——
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes. Park Service, yes, sir.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Part of the Rock Creek Park?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, what the Friends—what I said I wanted to form a community group so that we can identify funds to restore and revitalize Carter Barron so that it can continue to serve as a facility.
Mr. REGULA. Tell me what is Carter Barron? Is it an auditorium or what is it?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Sir, it is an amphitheater that is an outdoor facility that seats 4,200 people. Shakespeare comes every year to kick off the free-for-all, the National Symphony Orchestra comes and performs.
Mr. REGULA. So, it is operating right now?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Absolutely but it is in a state of demise. It is in total——
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, what it is, is that two years ago we recruited Mr. Arthur C. Moore, who is a renowned architect. He has prepared a sketch to restore the facility. And we have presented that to the National Park Service.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. How much?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. It is approximately $1.5 million.
Mr. REGULA. To do the whole job?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. To do the whole job. But, sir, we are not asking the Park Service to give us the money. We are saying that give us the opportunity to renovate it and we can do it.
Mr. REGULA. You can do it with private funds?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. We can do it with private funds. We have Mark Touhey from the Board of Trade and we have Jack Evans.
Mr. REGULA. Why would anybody object to your doing it?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Well, counsel.
Mr. POPE. That is a good question.
Mr. REGULA. The Park Service is being an impediment?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. It is a bureaucracy, sir. Absolutely, absolutely.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. At the moment?
Well, I will get their story. That does not seem to add up.
Mr. POPE. I think that, you know, in all candor, I think it takes another session probably to go over some of the finer details as to some of the rough waters that we have been over. And there is a lot of undercurrent that is involved in this.
Mr. REGULA. Well, if you have time, you can visit with Debbie Weatherly on it at some other time and give her more background.
Mr. POPE. That is very good.
Mr. REGULA. But we will question the Park Service.
Mr. POPE. We have had problems with communication with them trying to resolve whatever misunderstandings and communications that exist between the nonprofit organizations board and the bureaucracy.
Mr. REGULA. You normally do. Does your nonprofit lease it or do you just use it?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Absolutely. Let me tell you what happened. In 1993, we kicked off our first outreach program to children. We have a two-fold mission. We work to preserve the facility and we provide education initiatives to the District of Columbia youth in the field of the arts.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
So, this is our fifth arts summer season coming up. Shakespeare comes in, the National Symphony Orchestra, they love it. We service each consecutive summer 50 to 100 children. So, I am saying that I do not know what the problem is.
All we want to do is——
Mr. REGULA. Well, let us try to find out.
Mr. POPE. We do have a management agreement with the——
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Memorandum of agreement.
Mr. REGULA. But you are the only ones that use it.
Mr. POPE. No, no.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. No, we are not.
Mr. REGULA. Are there other organizations that——
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes, it is but not to the capacity of what we do. No one is offering to restore the facility. No one has offered the pro bono——
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Except your group?
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Exactly! What we get is a lot of barriers and we wanted to come before the Interior Committee so that we could be heard and at least some kind of collaborative effort can be examined.
[The statement of Gloria Hightower follows:]
Offset folios 213 to 217 insert here
Mr. REGULA. Okay. We will check into it.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you for coming.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. And you said we could meet with Debbie?
Mr. REGULA. Yes, right.
Ms. HIGHTOWER. Oh, okay. Yes, okay, that is great.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Not today, maybe in the future.
Page 82 PREV PAGE