Testimony of Eileen McLaughlin, Project Director Before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related March 18th, 2005 On behalf of the Wildlife Stewards I am submitting testimony for the House Appropriations Enhanced Visitor Services to match the rapid growth in public use of refuges. Retention of uniquely qualified FWS staff and the capacity that they bring to management, biological and maintenance staff. Funding Basis: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 brought together issues that summarized and detailed the American intent for this system of lands. It confirmed the wildlife-first mission of land management and for the first time specifically defined how the lands will serve the American people. More recently, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Act of 2003, reaffirming direct participation by citizen-conservators as valued extensions to NWRS labor pools. We ask for funding that ensures that the objectives of these laws will be fulfilled. The specific request for a $16 Million increase is the only no-net-loss alternative to automatic losses produced by cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA). This net loss, unfortunately, was generated in the FY05 budget, representing a ~4% reduction on funds appropriated. As my testimony will demonstrate, the NWRS cannot afford another such year. 1. Visitor Services and Public Access In a nutshell, increasing rates of public access require complementary growth in Visitor Services. The very good news is that wildlife-dependent public use, defined and directed by the NWRS Improvement Act of 1997, is underway and increasing rapidly (see Department of the Interior Services chart on page 2). The quandary that we face is that funding must support the use. Wildlife Stewards is a Refuge Support Group working with the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. We recognize that the shortfalls of Visitor Services on our local refuges represent problems extant throughout the NWRS. Further we agreed with the NWRS's own slogan during its Wildlife Stewards testimony to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies March 18, 2005. Page 1 1985 1990 1993 1995 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fiscal Year Chart Source: Robert Lamb, Department of the Interior, February 2005 Wildlife Stewards testimony to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies March 18, 2005. Page 1 Please consider examples of Visitor Services issues as observed by Wildlife Stewards on our local refuges: ■ Visitor Services staff that has not added a headcount since 1979 in a region where population numbers during the same period expanded dramatically. No staff in Visitor Services that is specifically qualified nor dedicated to serve the increasing and extensive multi-cultural needs of our surrounding communities. No staff role in Visitor Services dedicated to expanding local awareness of refuges. Repeatedly, refuge signage that fails to support basic needs e.g. site maps and directions, plant identification, wildlife-dependent regulations for public use, trail markers, and notice of available programs and resources. Visitor Center exhibits have not changed in nearly 20 years and continue to demonstrate just two of the seven refuges in the Complex. ■Trail maps and waterway maps that are either embarrassing in content and presentation or nonexistent. Quite simply, the American people are underserved in public access that Congress intended to provide. We ask that the FY06 budget support quality public use with a no-net-loss addition of $16 million. . 2. Volunteer Program As recently as 2003, Congress passed new law reconfirming the value of volunteers to the NWRS. We need the budget to sustain the intent of that law. Two major issues continue to limit NWRS Volunteer Programs and the cheap but committed labor pool that they provide. The first is directly related to issues identified in the above discussion of Visitor Services. If people don't know about a place, they will never think of investing their volunteer hours in that place. If they visit a place and don't enjoy their visit, they won't be interested in helping the place. Thus ensuring funding for Visitor Services, as requested above, will increase the pool of potential volunteers. The second issue is funding infrastructure for Volunteer Programs. There are 545 refuges and less than 20 Volunteer Coordinators. Where there is no dedicated Volunteer Coordinator, 100% of Volunteer Program effort falls to managers, biologists and other members of staff. On such refuges, given the career specialization of each staff member and related time constraints, the volunteer program is heavily dependent on qualified citizens coming forward solely on his or her own. Such arrangements create a volunteer job that ends when that volunteer's availability ends. This arrangement can hardly be called a "Volunteer Program.” We ask that the FY06 budget support the volunteer labor pool that Congress intended with a nonet-loss addition of $16 million. Wildlife Stewards testimony to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies March 18, 2005. Page 3 3. Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program: Very much like humankind's medical and dental check-ups, the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program provides our refuges with a prevention tool, a tool that can reduce habitat loss and habitat restoration expense for years to come. Its funding has been a very welcome addition to the NWRS budget. Like regular dental cleaning, it will only be useful if it continues over time. On our local refuges we are faced with numerous instances of invasive species. This includes Spartina alternifora and its hybrids, marsh and mudflat grasses that have the potential to forever alter the future of the San Francisco Estuary and several over thousands of acres of local National Wildlife Refuges. The Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program is a critical tool locally and across the country. We ask that the FY06 budget support the continuation of the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring 4. Retention of National Wildlife Refuge System staff For each $1M net loss produced by COLA in the NWRS, eight staff positions on our refuges can be lost. Going into the FY05 fiscal year, the NWRS managed 545 refuges and 95,000,000 acres with just 3100 staff positions. Even at that level of staffing, many refuges, each with a wildlife-first mission, had no wildlife biologist. These biologists would be the individuals who evaluate both wildlife management options and issues relevant to wildlife-dependent public access. Due to overall budget reduction and COLA in FY05, refuge management was repeatedly placed in the position of not filling open positions, making effective wildlife management and suitable public access far less likely to occur. We cannot afford this continued drain on the NWRS. We ask that the FY06 budget support retention of NWRS staff through a no-net-loss addition of $16 million. On behalf of Wildlife Stewards I thank you for your consideration of these requests. We will happily respond to any other questions that the Committee may have. Wildlife Stewards P.O. Box 1177 Alviso, CA 95002 408-262-5513 ext. 106 408-262-2867 FAX WildlifeStewards@aol.com Wildlife Stewards testimony to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies March 18, 2005. Page 4 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS March 18, 2005 The Honorable Charles H. Taylor, Chairman Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations B-308 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 TESTIMONY ON FY 2006 APPROPRIATIONS Pat McElroy, President of the National Association of State Foresters INTRODUCTION The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) $4.88 billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2006. Representing the directors of state forestry agencies from the states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, our testimony centers around those program areas most relevant to the long term forestry operations of our constituents. State and Private Forestry programs multiply the public benefits of federal funding by leveraging in-kind contributions through cost-share programs and matching funds from states. Wildland Fire Management supports essential State and Private Forestry and federal programs that address wildland fire. We commend the President's commitment to the Forest Stewardship Program and the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program in the USFS budget for FY 2006. Our recommendations include restoring funding to our top three priorities (State Fire Assistance, Cooperative Forest Health Management, and Urban and Community Forestry) and discussing other opportunities for Congress to further the advancement of sustainable management on both public and private forestland nationwide. STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAMS STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE (SFA) State Fire Assistance (SFA) provides much-needed financial and technical assistance to states for wildland fire management. It helps to ensure preparedness of state and local resources who serve as the first line of defense for their forests and communities. These fire fighting resources function as both "first responders" for local situations and as "ready reserves" for large federally managed catastrophic fires. Further, SFA is the only program that currently provides funding for fuel reduction work on non-federal lands. It is also one of the few programs that helps communities develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans, which are an important component of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. |