July 2008 Congressional Testimony
This week, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on declining birds. Below, is a synopsis of the hearing and links to the testimony of the witnesses. If particular interest is the support for Joint Ventures in the testimony of Dave Erickson from the Missouri Department of Conservation, John Weins from PRBO, and Paul Schmidt. Also of note is the apparent interest of some Committee members in providing explicit legislative authorization for the joint venture program.
On Thursday, July 10, 2008, Paul Schmidt, Assistant Director for Migratory Birds, testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans at an oversight hearing entitled, "Going, Going, Gone? An Assessment of the Global Decline in Bird Populations." The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of bird populations in the United States and abroad, and raise the profile of successful programs. The hearing may serve as a starting point for legislative action in the 111th Congress. The Subcommittee was primarily interested in a general overview of what the federal government is doing to help birds; relevant research and data the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other agencies have gathered regarding declining bird populations and factors contributing to those trends; current or planned efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other agencies to address factors impacting birds, and to stabilize and recover bird populations; and other issues that are important for the Subcommittee to consider in assessing the global decline of bird populations.
In addition to Paul Schmidt, other witnesses included: David Erickson, Missouri Department of Conservation; Dr. John Wiens, Point Reyes Bird Observatory; Dr. George Wallace, American Bird Conservancy; Tom Bancroft, National Audubon Society; and Dale Humburg, Ducks Unlimited. Dr. Wayne Thogmartin, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Upper Midwest Environmental Services Center (UMESC) in La Crosse, Wisconsin, was also present to respond to questions. All of the witnesses expressed concern over declining bird populations and strong support for the work of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although most felt more resources were needed. A copy of all the witnesses' testimony can be found here:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=27&extmode=view&extid=199
Subcommittee Chairwoman Bordallo (D-GU-1st), Congressman Wittman (R-VA-1st), Congressman Kind (D-WI-3rd), and Congressman Gilchrest (R-MD-1st) all attended the hearing and expressed concern over the decline of bird populations. Chairwoman Bordallo noted the ecological and economic importance of birds, her concern over loss of habitat, and the importance of addressing invasive species like the Brown Tree Snake on Guam. Congressman Wittman, who served as Ranking Member at the hearing, also underscored the economic importance of bird populations to many communities, the large number of bird species that are imperiled (especially the Northern Bobwhite and Red Knot), and the importance of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Congressman Kind expressed his desire to raise the consciousness of Congress and the public about the plight of birds. He also noted that the public is familiar with Ducks Unlimited and Audubon, but not many of the important federal and state programs that help birds. He stated his strong support for strengthening the Neotropical Migratory Bird program. Congressman Gilchrest gave an opening statement focusing on the value and need to conserve not only birds, but their habitat and other species.
Following the opening statements of the witnesses, Members asked a number of questions, including the following to Paul Schmidt (unless otherwise noted):
Cong. Bordallo
* (to Anyone) I am surprised about the breadth of federal and non-governmental partnerships to help birds. Even so, can we ever expect the non-regulatory approach to succeed? Do we need more regulation to safeguard bird species?
* (to Anyone) Many witnesses commented that bird declines are correlated to habitat loss. Is it possible that we've altered the landscape so much that we cannot recover bird populations?
* Regarding Executive Order 13186, how many federal agencies entered into MOUs with the Service on migratory birds within the mandated two year time period? How many of done so to date? Why haven't additional federal agencies entered into MOUs?
* Did the current Administration convene the Council for the Conservation of Migratory Birds as required under Section 4 of Executive Order 13186?
* (to David Erickson) You mentioned how monitoring bird populations is crucial for bird conservation. How much funding do the states devote to monitoring? How about Missouri?
* The Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires strict liability for take unless permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. If a renewable energy project will take migratory birds, can you provide an incidental take permit?
* What is the current status of the wind power guidelines?
Cong. Wittman
* Regarding Joint Ventures, can you: (1) Explain the source of funding for Joint Ventures that was used to conserve 15.7 million acres; (2) Explain the relationship of Joint Ventures to the President's Birds Forever Initiative; and (3) Explain whether you think Joint Ventures should be codified in law?
* What is your view of captive breeding programs? Are they important for conserving bird species? Are captive bred birds counted in wild population numbers?
* (to Dale Humburg) Congress has been appropriating a significant amount toward NAWCA, what short- and long-term benefits would been seen if federal funding was increased? How would an increase in the Duck Stamp factor into these benefits?
* (to Dale Humburg) What is Ducks Unlimited's position on increasing the price of the Duck Stamp? Would this compensate for the lack of funding under NAWCA?
* Why did the Service reject the emergency listing proposal for the Red Knot?
Cong. Kind
* (to Anyone) As we move forward with reauthorization of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, we are looking for feedback on what changes might need to be made to make the program better. One issue we want to address is to increase the funding under the Act.
* (to Anyone) Is it time to formally codify Joint Ventures? Do we need to give the program a broader landscape approach?
* (to George Wallace) How do we bring in more bird watcher dollars to help conserve the outdoors like hunters do through the Duck Stamp? Do we want something like a Duck Stamp for birders so they have a direct way to contribute to conservation?
* (to Anyone) There are huge economic forces out there that we need to plug into. We need to look more comprehensively to address these issues in the long-term. Communication towers, windpower, and many new industries are putting a strain on the environment.
* (to Wayne Thogmartin) It has been suggested that we need long-term bird data to tease out population trends. Can you describe what data is presently out there?
* Full Committee Chairman Nick Rahall requested the Department of the Interior to provide a legal opinion on whether the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for an incidental take permit program for migratory birds. Why hasn't the Department responded to this request?
Based on the comments by the Chairwoman, we may receive additional, formal follow-up questions. If anyone has any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks,
- Matt
-----
Matthew C. Huggler
Senior Legislative Affairs Specialist
Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 330
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-2243 (tel)
(202) 460-8402 (cell)
(703) 358-1780 (fax)
email: matthew_huggler@fws.gov