IGRATORY WATERFOWL CONSERVATION AND WOLF CREEK, KY., FISH HATCHERY TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, ongworth House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (chairman the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DINGELL. The subcommittee will come to order. Gentlemen, the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservaon will please come to order. This morning, the subcommittee will begin hearings on several bills signed to provide additional funds for the acquisition of greatly eded lands for migratory birds, especially migratory waterfowl. As I am sure all of you are aware, there is only a limited number of luable wetland acreage remaining in the United States. These lands e rapidly disappearing because of the rapid pace in which agriculral, industrial, and urban developments projects continue to expand. nce you encroach on these areas and destroy natural habitat, you also stroy the wildlife and once they are destroyed, they are gone forever, d wildlife lands are no more to be available for the citizens of the untry and for the preservation of fish and wildlife. If we are to conrve this precious heritage for future generations of American sportsen and for all nature lovers, we must act now while there is still time acquire these areas. The bills to be heard this morning are as follows: H.R. 354 by Mr. Carter to provide for the establishment of a new fish tchery below, or as near Wolf Creek Dam on the Cumberland River ar Jamestown, Ky., as is feasible and practical. H.R. 480 by the Chair, and identical bills, H.R. 4216 by Congressan Conte, and H.R. 8348 by Congressman Reuss. These bills would ve the effect of extending the wetlands acquisition program for an ditional 8 years. Also to be heard are H.R. 490 by the Chair, and a similar bill on e same subject, H.R. 481 by the Chair, and identical bills to H.R. 1, as follows: H.R. 1019 by Congressman Ottinger, H.R. 3538 by Congressman onte, and H.R. 5768 by Congressman Karsten. All of these bills ould require that no lands within the national wildlife refuge sysm could be disposed of without the approval of the Migratory Bird onservation Commission. Another bill to be heard is H.R. 482 by the Chair, which will incresse the migratory waterfowl hunting stamp from $3 to $5 and for the first time require a $2 hunting stamp for the taking of migratory birds A final bill to be heard will be H.R. 497 by the Chair, which wo provide that any surplus moneys remaining in the national wildli refuge system and any proceeds from the transfer of lands within this system for State road purposes would be transferred to the migratory bird conservation fund to carry out the purposes of that act. Without objection, the bills and departmental reports will appear the record at this point. (The bills and departmental reports follow :) [H.R. 354, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To provide for the establishment of a new fish hatchery below but as near the Wolf Creek Dam, on the Cumberland River, near Jamestown, Kentucky, as is feast and practicable Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United State of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is author ized and directed to establish, construct, equip, maintain, and operate a new sh hatchery below Wolf Creek Dam on the Cumberland River near JamestoTML Kentucky, in south-central Kentucky. SEC. 2. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. [H.R. 480, H.R. 4216, H.R. 8348, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Act of October 4, 1961, relating to the acquisition of wetlands for conservation of migratory waterfowl, to extend for an additional eight years the perio during which funds may be appropriated under that Act, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the first section of the Act entitie "An Act to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential waterfowl habitat, and for other purposes", ap proved October 4, 1961 (16 U.S.C. 715k-3), is amended by striking out severyear period" and inserting in lieu thereof "fifteen-year period". (b) Section 3 of such Act of October 4, 1961 (16 U.S.C. 715k-5), is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 3. Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be treated as an advance, without interest, to the migratory bird conservation fund. Such appropriate funds, beginning with fiscal year 1977, shall be repaid to the Treasury out the migratory bird conservation fund, such repayment shall be made in ant amounts comprising 75 per centum of the moneys accruing annually to such fu In the event the full amount authorized by the first section of this Act is appr priated prior to the end of the aforesaid fifteen-year period, the repayment is such funds pursuant to this section shall begin with the next full fiscal year." U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your committee has requested this Department's rep on H.R. 480, a bill "To amend the Act of October 4, 1961, relating to the acqu tion of wetlands for conservation of migratory waterfowl, to extend for an additional eight years the period during which funds may be appropriat under that Act, and for other purposes.", and H.R. 482, a bill "To amend the Act of March 16, 1954, relating to hunting stamps for the taking of migrator waterfowl, to require a hunting stamp for the taking of any other migratory bird, and for other purposes." We strongly recommend that the enclosed draft bill be enacted in lien e H.R. 480 and H.R. 482. Our draft bill combines what we consider to be the best features of both bills, as follows: 1. The draft bill extends the advance appropriation authorization of $105 million to buy wetlands for migratory waterfowl for 8 years to the end of fiscal year 1976, and defers the present repayment obligation in the Wetlands Loan Act (75 Stat. 813) until the end of that 8-year period. Recently, in proclaiming December 8, 1966, as "Migratory Waterfowl Day", President Johnson said: "December 8 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the day President Wilson proclaimed a Treaty with Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds which fly between Canada and the United States. "A similar Treaty with the Republic of Mexico was proclaimed in 1937. "A 1940 Treaty, ratified by 11 American countries, also protects nature and wildlife in the Western Hemisphere. "All three of these Treaties recognize the value of migratory birds for food and commerce. At the same time they recognize that for so many thousands of sportsmen, game hunting is a part of healthy outdoor recreation. This, too, is part of our heritage. "But these Treaties also affirm the need to protect waterfowl, as a precious natural treasure. "Over the years, Congress has enacted many laws, including the recent Endangered Species Preservation Act, to strengthen these treaties. The Federal Government, working with the States and with Canada, has developed the most advanced waterfowl management practices in the world. Public refuges and other protected areas have been established to conserve habitats for waterfowl and many other migratory species. "But laws, treaties and regulations are not enough. We cannot sit idly by as the bulldozer and dredge destroy the natural environment that birds must have for survival. "More land in public ownership is needed. We shall continue to accelerate land acquisition for waterfowl and other birds." In 1961, Congress enacted the Wetlands Loan Act (75 Stat. 813), which authorized an advance appropriation to the migratory bird conservation fund of up to $105 million over a 7-year period beginning in fiscal year 1962. The advance must be repaid to the Treasury out of the migratory bird conservation fund beginning in fiscal year 1969. The purpose of the 1961 Act is to provide for an accelerated land acquisition program for the benefit of migratory waterfowl and other birds. When the 1961 Act was considered by the Congress, this Department estimated that about 2.5 million acres could be acquired in fee and easement during the 7 fiscal years following enactment, using about $35 million in estimated "duck stamp" receipts and $105 million authorized by the 1961 Act. Since the beginning of this program in fiscal year 1962, about 741,000 acres have been acquired in fee and easement to June 30, 1966, at a cost of approximately $54 million. This figure includes $32.5 million appropriated during fiscal years 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966 under the 1961 Act, and about $21.5 million in "duck stamp" receipts. There has been appropriated for the current fiscal year $6 million. Thus, a total of $38.5 million has been appropriated of the $105 million authorized. There still remains to be acquired under this accelerated program, 14 million of the 2.5 million acres which we estimated could be acquired in the 7-year period. Unfortunately, the program has not proceeded at the pace estimated in 1961, primarily because of three factors.. First, initially the program was slow in getting started because preliminary work was necessary in the first fiscal year, namely, fiscal year 1962, to assure success of the accelerated land acquisition program. Funds were first appropri ated for fiscal year 1963. Seven million dollars were appropriated that year. Second, during fiscal years 1964 and 1965, the program was delayed due to local opposition in some if the key States to Federal land acquisitions with their resultant adverse impact on county revenues. In 1964, Congress amended the antiquated Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, and this provided a more equitable formula for the distribution of revenues beginning in fiscal year 1966 from the National Wildlife Refuge System to the local counties. This new revenue formula will lessen the impact of the Department's acquisition program for waterfowl on the counties, and should permit the Department to carry out this program at a better pace with available funds. Third, some delay was, and still is, caused by the rising costs of land acquisitions. In this regard, the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives in a report (H. Rept. No. 1405, 89th Cong.) recently said: "the Committee expects that the Bureau [of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife] will continue the 79-885-67—2 policy of more widespread acquisition by easement instead of purchase in fee and reduce the cost of the program." We have considered very carefully this comment of the Appropriations Committee, and we agree that to some extent the cost of this program could and should be reduced through the continued use of easement acquisitions. Ease ments, however, if they are to serve a useful purpose, must be acquired in conjunction with, and not independently of, fee acquisitions. The whole program is based on the need for a balance of fee and easement acquisitions. We estimate this balance to be about one fee acre for each two easement acres. Generally, the types of land being acquired under the program in fee simple are the more permanent wetlands. Undue emphasis on the easement aspects of the program would materially reduce the effectiveness of the program. Thus, while we will continue our policy to acquire lands by easement, we do not want to lose sight of the need for fee acquisitions to accomplish the program objectives. With the exception of the escalation of land costs, which is a difficult problem to resolve, we believe that the early impediments to the program have been resolved and we can proceed at a better pace, as exhibited in the last two fiscal years. Unfortunately, the program will terminate at the end of fiscal year 1968, unless it is extended. We know now, that, even under the best of conditions, we cannot acquire 14 million acres by the end of fiscal year 1968, namely, June 30, 1968. Additional time will be needed. We now estimate this to be an additional 8 years. The enclosed draft bill provides this time. 2. The proposal repeals the provision in the 1961 Act which prohibits the Secretary from acquiring lands in a State with money from the migratory bird conservation fund until the Governor or an appropriate State agency approves the acquisition. The primary reason for the "veto" provision in the 1961 Act was the problem of decreased tax revenues in local counties due to Federal acquisitions. This loss will be substantially reduced by the new revenue-sharing formula. For this reason, we believe that this consent provision is unnecessary and should be deleted. 3. The enclosed draft bill increases the price of "duck stamps" from $3 to $5. We estimate that a $5 "duck stamp" would result in revenue of $5.6 million the first year, and revenue of $6.8 million annually thereafter, which is about a 41.7 percent increase in present revenues of $4.8 million. An increase in the "duck stamp" price will give the Department about $56 million rather than $40 million over the next 8 years, which together with the balance of the $105 million, will enable the Department to purchase the needed wetlands at a quicker pace and, hopefully, at lower prices. It will also enable us to buy more lands during this period as our estimate of land needs are adjusted to reflect current needs. Lastly, it will help us to repay the $105 million advance in a shorter period than is now anticipated, based on a $3 charge. We believe that such an increase is highly desirable. If it is coupled with the extension of the $105 million advance authorization, it should greatly help the program. The increase alone is not sufficient. 4. The bill establishes a $1 Federal permit system for migratory game birds other than migratory waterfowl. We believe that such a system is sorely needed. The two primary needs of this program are: (1) To provide funds for research, development, and management programs for these birds, and (2) to obtain names and addresses of hunters for use in data gathering surveys designed (a) to measure species composition and magnitude of the harvest, (b) to measure number and distribution of hunters, and (c) to provide other information which will increase the effectiveness and measure the efficiency of management tools used in migratory game bird conservation. Migratory game birds other than waterfowl have a potential of unknown dimensions for providing more recreation than they now supply. Game managers need more knowledge about these species, the people hunting them, and the impact of hunting on the birds before their full potential can be realized. Additional funds for research and management activities and details concerning the number and distribution of hunters who participate are required. At the present time, mourning doves and woodcock are the two most important species within the group, and we believe the bulk of the funds should be channeled to programs on these two species. As needs are demonstrated, however, funds obtained from this permit should be made available for research and/or management on all migratory game bird species that are now hunted as well as some of those that are not. The draft bill contemplates that these permits could be sold either by the Department, or by the States. The latter would be most preferable, since they could be sold at the various outlets now utilized by the States for the sale of their fish and game licenses. This would probably be more convenient to the sportsman. We would enter into an arrangement with the States for the sale of the permits. The cost of printing, distributing, and selling the permits and the applications therefor would be deducted from the gross receipts. The net receipts would be covered into the present migratory bird conservation fund earmarked solely for migratory game birds other than migratory waterfowl. These revenues will be available in the same manner as "duck stamp" receipts for use by the Secretary, i.e., they will not need further appropriation and will be available until expended. The draft bill also provides that up to 50 percent of these net receipts will be available to the States under contract for research, survey, and data collection work. The jobs to be done are so many and varied that no one agency can provide all the manpower and talent needed. We would solicit the States' assistance in research and management activities, including basic research on life history, physiology, and ecological relationships of the individual species, implementation and analysis of population and distribution surveys, and nationwide surveys to determine characteristics of the hunter take (wing collection surveys, mail questionnaire surveys, analysis of banding data, etc.). The remainder of the net receipts would be used by the Department to carry out research and management work and, to a limited extent, some land acquisition. In both of these areas, we would use our existing authorities. For example, land acquisition would be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended. Any area that is acquired would be considered as a wildlife refuge area and included in the National Wildlife Refuge System to be administered under section 4 of the Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 927). The most obvious habitat need insofar as migratory game birds is concerned is breeding habitat for white-winged doves. It is possible that the extent and/or quality of breeding habitat is an important need of marsh birds, such as the king and clapper rails, but additional research is needed first. There is no immediate concern about either breeding or wintering habitat for such species as mourning dores, woodcock, or band-tailed pigeons insofar as the requirements of these species are now understood. We would expect to use a portion of the funds collected to increase the Federal law enforcement effort. The funds could be used to assign Federal game management agents to areas of the nation where the protection of this category of birds required added effort. As mentioned above, it is important that the legislation or regulations issued pursuant thereto require that all applicants who purchase permits for hunting selected migratory birds, other than waterfowl, supply their names and addresses. This is particularly important when considering the problem of ascertaining hunter characteristics and measuring the kill of lightly shot populations of the so-called minor species. All individuals purchasing this hunting permit will be required to fill out a postcard application, addressed to the Department, which could be a detachable portion of each permit. Information requested on the postcard would be the name and address of the applicant, and the name or names of species he intends to hunt. We now lack reliable data on the number of persons who hunt migratory game birds other than waterfowl. We estimate roughly that there are about 2 million dove hunters. The number of people 12 years of age and older who hunt migratory game birds other than waterfowl is estimated at 2.2 million (1965 National Survey of Hunting and Fishing). Thus, under the terms of the enclosed bill, annual gross receipts from the sale of $1 permits is expected to be over $2 million. We are confident that such a fund (less printing costs and expenses of States distributing permits under contract) could be put to purposes beneficial both to the birds and the people who enjoy them. The Department now budgets about $500,000 for research and surveys directly or indirectly applied to the conservation of migratory game birds other than waterfowl. The States are also underfinanced in this department. During fiscal year 1966, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and 38 States spent an estimated $513,033 (Federal and State funds) on projects affecting migratory game birds other than waterfowl. Of this amount, $145,733 were State funds and $367,300 Federal (Pittman-Robertson) funds. Our experience clearly demonstrates that the States would be unwilling to increase expenditure of State funds to any great degree for species which are primarily a Federal responsibility. |