U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

46–178 CC u WASHINGTON : 1998

HEARING ON H.R. 2376, THE NATIONAL FISH

AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ESTABLISHMENT

ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director

JOHN RAYFIELD, Legislative Staff

JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 25, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Statement of Witnesses:

Adler, Jonathan, Director of Environmental Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute ................................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Ahnert, Edward F., President, Exxon Education Foundation ...................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Eno, Amos, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation .... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Fullwood, Charles R., North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 83

Glaser, Don, Executive Director, Western Water Policy Review Advisory

Commission ................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62

Hoover, Lois Van, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition ................................. 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79

Miller, William C., Jr., President, Malpai Borderlands Group ..................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 130

Sallabanks, Rex, Ph.D., Director, Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Meridian, Idaho, prepared statement of .......................................................... 39

Taylor, Don R., Vice President, Sustainability and Stewardship, Champion International Corporation .................................................................... 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies ................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Turnstone Ecological Research Associates, Ltd., Moscow, Idaho, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 39

Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,

U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Additional material submitted:

Text of H.R. 2376 .............................................................................................. 84

Disclosure requirements .................................................................................. 93
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 2376, THE NATIONAL FISH

AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ESTABLISHMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISH- ERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COM- MITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:42 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. SAXTON. [presiding] We are going to change the order, the

sequence here. So if Ms. Clark and Sally Yozell, if you would take

your places at the table, we would appreciate it.

Welcome aboard, ladies. We are glad you are here. Unfortunately, we will likely be interrupted again. So we usually give a

great deal of latitude with time, but I am afraid that for purposes

of today, particularly as it relates to this issue, we are going to

have to stick to the 5 minute rule.

So, Ms. Clark, if you would like to go ahead as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, DIRECTOR, U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I

greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on

H.R. 2376, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Improvement Act. The Foundation is a great friend and an asset to the

service. It is an engine that powers many of our most important

and successful partnerships.

We strongly support enactment of H.R. 2376, but do have some

suggestions for improvements. The Foundation has pioneered the

concept of public-private conservation partnerships. This approach

is now generally recognized as the most productive and cost effective approach to sustaining and enhancing our fish and wildlife resources. The Foundation has assembled an impressive expertise in

this area. This expertise, coupled with the flexibility available to

the Foundation as an entity outside of normal bureaucratic requirements gives it the tools to foster these partnerships in a wide variety of circumstances. The Foundation is especially effective in

sparking cooperation in situations where a government agency

might meet with skepticism or suspicion.

The Foundation’s contributions to the service have been many.

We have provided extensive testimony on the Foundation’s accomplishments during the last year’s oversight hearing by this Subcommittee. So I won’t attempt to repeat or duplicate what you will
2

hear from following witnesses. Rather, I would like to focus on two

areas where they have been trailblazers in assisting us on major

priorities, assistance for our national wildlife refuges and conservation efforts on endangered species. The Subcommittee has been actively seeking to address the backlog in refuge operational and

maintenance needs and I would like to state for the record how

much we appreciate your efforts.

One approach you have been taking is to encourage volunteer assistance for refuges. I want you to know that the Foundation has

also been active in this approach, as they have provided a grant to

the National Wildlife Refuge Association for development of the

program to create and expand the Friends groups. The Refuge

Friends have proven to be an invaluable source of additional refuge

support in local financial and in-kind support for refuge facilities

and projects.

In addition, the Subcommittee has worked for increased appropriations for refuge operations and maintenance. Beginning this

year, the Foundation has joined the effort by initiating a grant program to help meet operational and maintenance needs at individual refuges. The Foundation has also been very successful in

helping to unsnarl complex endangered species issues, and in the

process, building bridges between the government and the private

sector. For example, in Wisconsin, the Foundation has helped us

bring the forest products industry together with the service and

other Federal and State agencies to begin development of a statewide habitat conservation plan for the endangered Karner Blue

butterfly, whose habitat coincides with areas managed for timber

production. The Foundation was able to raise $75,000 and combined with $30,000 of their own funds, pay for several projects essential to the development of the HCP.

This HCP in the process by which it was developed serve as a

model for future cooperation in addressing complex endangered

species issues. These projects and many others are testament to

the unique and irreplaceable role that the Foundation plays in today’s conservation efforts. They are the best kind of partner. They

bring expertise, they bring experience, and they bring dollars.

The Foundation has had an impressive record in leveraging Federal funds with private money. Since their inception, they have

raised over $172 million in private sources. While the statute requires a one-to-one match, they have always sought a two-to-one

ratio, and for several initiatives, have exceeded two-to one, not a

bad return on our investment, Mr. Chairman.

In order to continue these returns, the Foundation must have a

continued access to sources of private funds. Principally, this access

is provided through the members of the Foundation’s board of directors. Therefore, we strongly support strengthening the Foundation’s board of directors. A strengthened board should provide an

additional fundraising capacity for the foundation and enhance its

ability to support conservation initiatives. H.R. 2376 addresses this

need by expanding the board from 15 to 22 members. While the administration can certainly support this proposal, discussions are

ongoing among a variety of parties as to the best way to constitute

such an expanded board.
3

Finally, Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest strengths of the Foundation has been its ability to pull diverse partners together in support of fish and wildlife conservation projects. This includes many

Federal agencies, as well as corporate and non-profit entities. It’s

vital to the continued success of this organization that it has a statutory authority and direction to work with a variety of Federal

agencies. To that end, we suggest an amendment to recognize specifically that the Foundation may work with the Bureau of Land

Management and the Bureau of Reclamation on fish and wildlife

conservation issues.

Again, we strongly support reauthorization of the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation, and urge your consideration of our suggested changes to H.R. 2376. This concludes my formal statement,

Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clark may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Clark. We want to welcome you here, which I neglected to do at the beginning in our

haste to get started. We are very pleased to have you. Obviously

this is your first appearance as director. Congratulations, and welcome.

Ms. CLARK. Thanks so much. I appreciate it.

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Yozell?

STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE

Ms. YOZELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the

Subcommittee. My name is Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at U.S. Department of Commerce. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of NOAA to highlight the agency’s evolving relationship with the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, and offer the agency’s views on H.R. 2376, a

bill to reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

The Foundation has been very successful and has produced demonstrable conservation results through private-public partnerships. What is attractive to NOAA is that many of the Foundation’s

projects take place at regional and local levels, where communities,

businesses, civic and trade associations, government and non-government organizations and others have come together to complete

a common goal, such as restoring damaged stream corridors to improve habitat for Pacific salmon, or assisting local economies in

areas hard hit by the continuing New England fisheries prices.

NOAA believes the Foundation is a unique and powerful tool and

strongly supports its reauthorization. I would like to submit my full

written statement for the record, and in my time remaining, summarize NOAA’s growing relationship with the Foundation, and

offer some minor recommendations to H.R. 2376, as drafted.

NOAA has worked with the Foundation on a limited basis since

1992. The agency was added to the Foundation’s statement of purpose during the 1995 reauthorization. In fiscal year 1996, NOAA

allocated $2.1 million in base appropriations to begin working

closely with the Foundation to develop public-private partnerships

in 22 different project areas. I am very pleased to report that in
4

the past year, the Foundation has found partners and over $1.5

million in private matching funds for approximately half of these

projects.

Projects with matching funds include restoring habitat for Pacific

and Atlantic salmon, assessing options for managing harmful algal

blooms, and improving local level monitoring and management of

coral reefs. Rather than review all of NOAA’s existing projects with

the Foundation, I would like to submit for the record a list of the

many projects that NOAA has undertaken in conjunction with the

Foundation.

NOAA is very interested in the future work with the Foundation.

The Foundation continues to offer us unique mechanisms through

which NOAA can participate with the private sector to accomplish

goals beyond what is possible with NOAA’s resources and capabilities if the agency acted alone. Because of this Subcommittee’s

strong interest in coral reef conservation and protection, I do want

to emphasize that the Foundation has been particularly successful

in supporting coral reef conservation projects. This is another area

where significant future opportunities exist. In the past year, the Foundation matched $300,000 funds from NOAA with $200,000 in funds from private for its projects addressing coral reef conservation issues. Currently 15 projects are underway to strengthen local level monitoring, education, management,

and other elements of the U.S. Coral Reef Initiative in America

Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands. The success of these projects has helped us begin

to identify the areas of interest and the types of projects best suited

for the NOAA and Foundation to pursue in the future.

Specifically, NOAA suggests that the Subcommittee consider

using the Foundation and as an alternative to the Coral Reef Conservation Fund proposed in your bill, H.R. 2233. The Foundation

has already established and can receive appropriations and/or private donations for coral reef conservation projects. As indicated in

the September 16, Department of Commerce newsletter regarding

H.R. 2233, NOAA strongly supports its general intent, but believes

that Congress has already created a vehicle through the Foundation to accept private donations and Federal appropriations and to

create public/private partnerships of the type described in the

Coral Reef Conservation Act.

Given NOAA’s growing and successful relationship with the

Foundation, we encourage the Subcommittee to seriously consider

using it in this role instead of proceeding with a new fund as established in H.R. 2233.

Also of interest to the Subcommittee, NOAA has already begun

discussions with the Foundation on possible private-public partnerships to support a national public awareness campaign for the

world’s ocean as part of the 1998 international Year of the Ocean.

Before closing, allow me to offer a couple of recommendations to

clarify and improve upon H.R. 2376. One of the limitations we

found in working on the Foundation, is that unlike the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, who receives the bulk of its funds for work

with the Foundation through direct appropriations, NOAA funds

Foundation projects on an ad hoc basis, thus making it difficult for

the Foundation to plan for and provide the staff and resources nec-
5

essary to fully pursue projects. While NOAA has been able to allocate funds on a limited basis, it remains questionable from year to

year what funding NOAA will make available to joint Foundation

activities.

Secondly, NOAA generally supports the amendments in H.R.

2376 that would increase the size of the Foundation’s board and expand the board’s composition to include four members knowledgeable and experienced in ocean and coastal resource conservation.

However, NOAA suggests that the Under Secretary for Oceans and

Atmosphere be listed as the ex officio member on the Foundation’s

board and not the assistant administrator for fisheries, as is currently listed in the bill.

In conclusion, the Foundation is a unique mechanism and an important tool for NOAA to help build the public-private partnerships

and leverage limited Federal dollars. We believe we are well on our

way to identifying with Foundation areas of significant opportunities where real results will be achieved through creative partnerships for the private sector.

That ends my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions

the Subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yozell may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. With your permission, or

without it, either one, we’re going to move to Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mrs. Chenoweth, would you like to go ahead?

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on Chairman Saxton’s bill H.R. 2376 which reauthorizes

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I also thank you for inviting Lois Van Hoover of the Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition

in Idaho to testify. I apologize for not giving the Subcommittee a

copy of my statement ahead of time, but I chaired an 8-hour hearing yesterday on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative that

ended after 8 last night.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, I testified at your oversight hearing on

the Foundation and cited some of its controversial grants affecting

Idaho. Since that statement is already part of your official printed

record, I will try to cover new ground and make recommendations

regarding Chairman Saxton’s bill.

In 1984, Congress originally provided the Foundation with

$100,000 annually in Federal funds, which according to a former

Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan and others, it was intended as a

one-time seed money grant from the U.S. Congress. Currently, the

Foundation receives $20 million in Federal funds to increase from

a one-time authorization and appropriation of $100,000 to currently

$20 million in Federal funds. H.R. 2376 would authorize $25 million annually for the next 3 years, for a total of $75 million.

Let me say at the outset that the Foundation does fund some

very excellent conservation projects. You will hear about some of

them today. But unfortunately, several of the most divisive resource issues promoted by preservationists in Idaho have been par-
6

tially funded by this foundation. Idaho’s entire delegation, Governor Phil Batt, Attorney General Al Lance are strongly opposed to

the introduction of grizzly bears in our State, but unfortunately,

the Foundation for years has provided grants to researchers and

others to bring back this creature which threatens human life in

my State and wherever it exists.

Likewise, Idaho’s Congressional delegation, including a Member

of this Committee, its Governor and legislature have repeatedly

fought efforts to introduce the gray wolf into our State. Unfortunately, the Foundation has provided at least $140,000 in grants to

reintroduce this creature to the Northern Rockies. Clearly, Congress did not conduct proper oversight in these grants or they may

not have occurred.

Regarding Congressional oversight, I tried to get the salaries last

year as a Member of Congress of the Foundation’s employees. I was

told that information on individual salaries was confidential. I am

astounded that a Member of Congress cannot receive this information from a group that receives $20 million annually in Federal

funds. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you and your staff may be able to

obtain this information before you proceed with the markup on

H.R. 2376.

However, let us focus on the future of the Foundation today. Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who will testify later at this hearing, aptly compares the Foundation with the

National Endowment for the Arts. This is an excellent analogy. He

states that both entities have funded very worthwhile projects and

also some not so worthwhile projects. Both have funded things that

are unobjectionable and both have funded things that are extremely controversial. Finally, there are reasons to question the

continued Federal funding of both endeavors, a step that the House

has taken in the case of the NEA.

Despite the Foundation’s funding of many worthy projects, they

spend millions of dollars funding some of the most strident environmental groups such as the Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon

Society, and the Environmental Defense Fund. These groups and

others regularly engage in lobbying and litigation that is harmful

to Idaho and other States. Although the Foundation may have restrictions against its grants being used for lobbying and litigation,

money given to non-profit groups is fungible. By giving grant

money to one group for a specific effort, that group is able to free

up other money for other efforts that may include lobbying and litigation. Mr. Adler lists several examples of this, including a landmark case in Idaho that I discussed last year, a case that shut

down almost all of our national forests. It involved $143,500 in

Foundation grants to the Pacific Rivers Council which later was involved in litigation over salmon that affected most of the forests in

my State.

My recommendations for H.R. 2376 are as follows. No. 1, phaseout Federal funding over three years, as the House did with the

NEA. The Foundation has a tremendous ability to raise private

funds, as illustrated by grants of over $1 million from Exxon,

Ducks Unlimited, and Unocal Corporation. Moreover, the Subcommittee should examine the status of other federally chartered

foundations like the National Park Foundation and the National
7

Fallen Firefighters Foundation, which I understand now receive little or no Federal funds. These are foundations which honor our

firefighters who lost their lives in the line of duty on public lands.

How can I ask a millworker in Orofino or St. Maries, Idaho, making $9.50 an hour to help provide $25 million for a foundation

which has the ability to finance itself. Explicitly prohibit the Foundation from making grants for introducing grizzly bears and gray

wolves. That’s my second recommendation.

Chairman Saxton chaired a hearing in Gillette, Wyoming, last

year on managing predators, and I believe heard first hand the

USDA’s animal damage control is already over burdened with existing predators, and it can ill afford to control new large ones like

grizzly bears and gray wolves.

No. 3, work with Representatives Istook and McIntosh to

strengthen section 5 of H.R. 2376. I commend you for addressing

the issue of lobbying and litigation by grantees. However, this is

a complex issue as money to non-profits is fungible, Mr. Chairman.

I believe this section should be closely scrutinized by those who

have worked on this issue extensively.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

I look forward to working with you on H.R. 2376 as it advances

through the Committee process.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity

to testify today on Chairman Saxton’s bill, H.R. 2376, which reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I also thank you for inviting Lois Van Hoover

of the Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition to testify. I apologize for not giving the

Subcommittee a copy of my statement in advance but I chaired an 8-hour yesterday

on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative that ended at 8 p.m.

Last year I testified at your oversight hearing on the Foundation and cited some

of its controversial grants affecting Idaho. Since that statement is already part of

your official printed record, I will try to cover new ground and make recommendations regarding Chairman Saxton’s bill.

In 1984 Congress originally provided the Foundation with $100,000 annually in

Federal funds, which according to former Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan and others, was intended as one time seed money. Currently, the Foundation receives over

$20 million in Federal funds. H.R. 2376 would authorize $25 million annually for

the next three years.

Let me say at the outset that the Foundation does fund some excellent conservation projects and you will hear about some of them today. Unfortunately, several

of the most divisive resource issues promoted by preservationists in Idaho have been

partially funded by the Foundation.

Idaho’s entire congressional delegation, Governor Phil Batt, and Attorney General

Alan Lance are strongly opposed to introducing grizzly bears in our state. Unfortunately, the Foundation for years has provided grants to researchers and others to

bring back this creature which threatens human life and private property.

Likewise, Idaho’s Congressional delegation, Governor and legislature have repeatedly fought efforts to introduce gray wolves into our state. Unfortunately, the Foundation has provided at least $140,000 in grants to reintroduce this creature in the

Northern Rockies. Clearly, Congress did not conduct proper oversight or these

grants would not have occurred.

Regarding congressional oversight, I tried to get the salaries of Foundation’s employees and was told that information on individual salaries was confidential. I am

astounded that a Member of Congress cannot receive this information from a group

that receives $20 million annually in Federal funds. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you and

your staff may be able to obtain this information before you proceed with a markup on H.R. 2376.
8

However, let us focus on the future of the Foundation today. Jonathan Adler of

the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who will testify later at this hearing, aptly

compares the Foundation with the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA). This

is an excellent analogy. He states that, ‘‘Both entities have funded worthwhile

projects and not-so worthwhile projects; both have funded things that are

unobjectionable, and both have funded things that are extremely controversial. Finally, there are reasons to question the continued Federal funding of both endeavors—a step the House has taken in the case of the NEA.’’

Despite the Foundation’s funding of many worthy projects, they spend millions of

dollars funding some of the most strident environmental groups such as Defenders

of Wildlife, National Audubon Society and the Environmental Defense Fund. These

groups and others regularly engage in lobbying and litigation that is harmful to

Idaho.

Although the Foundation may have restrictions against its grants being used for

lobbying and litigation, money given to non-profit groups is tangible. By giving

grant moneys to one group for a specific effort, that group is able to free up money

for other efforts that may include lobbying and litigation. Mr. Adler lists several examples of this including a landmark case in Idaho, that I discussed last year. It involved $143,500 in Foundation grants to the Pacific Rivers Council which later was

involved in litigation over salmon that threatened to halt logging, grazing, and other

activities on several Idaho national forests in 1995 several weeks after I first came

to Congress.

My recommendations for H.R. 2376 are as follows:

1. Phase out Federal funding over three years as the House did with the NEA. The

Foundation has a tremendous ability to raise private funds as illustrated by grants

of over $1 million from Exxon, Duck Unlimited and Unocal Corp. Moreover, the Subcommittee should examine the status of other federally-chartered foundations like

the National Park Foundation and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation

which I understand now receive little or no Federal funds. How can I ask a millworker in Orofino or St. Maries, Idaho making $9.50 an hour to help provide $20

million for a Foundation which has the ability to finance itself.

2. Explicitly prohibit the Foundation from making grants for introducing grizzly

bears and gray wolves. Chairman Saxton chaired a hearing in Gillette, Wyoming

last year on managing predators and I believe heard first-hand that USDA’s Animal

Damage Control is already overburdened with existing predators and can ill-afford

to control new large ones like grizzly bears and gray wolves.

3. Work with Representatives Istook and McIntosh to strengthen Section 5 of H.R.

2376. I commend you for addressing the issue of lobbying and litigation by grantees.

However, this is a complex issue as money to non-profits is fungible. I believe this

section should be closely scrutinized by those who have worked on this issue extensively.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and look forward

to working with you on H.R. 2376 as it advances through the Committee process.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth, for a very articulate

testimony.

Mr. Peterson, do you have some questions?

Mr. PETERSON. Just one quick one. What level of Federal support, this is to Ms. Clark, what level of Federal support did the

Foundation receive in 1997? Which agencies provided the money,

and how much private money did you raise?

Ms. CLARK. I can only speak to the Fish and Wildlife Service

funding. We have provided $5 million in direct appropriations to

the Foundation.

Mr. PETERSON. You do not know what the Foundation received

in Federal money collectively?

Ms. CLARK. I would say it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of

$16 to $18 million, but we have other witnesses here that can probably ballpark it closer for you.

Mr. PETERSON. Do you have any idea what they raised in private

funds?

Ms. CLARK. Very significant above that. I know on our projects,

their partnership leveraging. Well, first of all let me separate it
9

out. The Foundation itself and the operating part of the Foundation

is entirely on private funds. They take our dollars and our dollars

aren’t necessarily tied to Fish and Wildlife Service projects. Our

dollars are used to promote fish and wildlife conservation initiatives for a whole host of partners. They have leveraged those dollars with additional partnership dollars with other Federal dollars,

multifold. But I don’t have the direct statistics here.

Mr. PETERSON. Just one quick question. It’s obvious from the testimony that you have helped fund the reintroduction of the gray

wolves and the grizzly bears. Do you really think that should go

forward without more input from local areas where people live? I

mean if you lived in an area where they are introducing grizzly, I

mean don’t you think the local folk should have more—it appears

there’s broad opposition, but it appears that the Fish and Wildlife

Service is unconcerned about that. Is that fair?

Ms. CLARK. No, Congressman. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest

that the Fish and Wildlife Service is unconcerned or not paying attention to this issue. In fact, indeed we are. We have released a

draft DEIS or draft environmental impact statement and a draft

rulemaking to reintroduce grizzly bears into the Bitterroot area. In

fact, have engaged in what we consider to be an unprecedented

level of public involvement. We have not made a final decision yet.

We are engaged in a very open public process with a great kind of

broad-based collection of citizens to evaluate the opportunity for reintroduction in support of recovery.

Mr. PETERSON. I live in the east, but in a very wooded area, forested area. I would personally be concerned if grizzly bears were

reintroduced there, for the safety of my family and my friends and

visitors. I just think we’re really on a slippery slope with those

creatures. That’s my own personal view. I wanted to share that

with you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

Ms. Clark, the Foundation has suggested that a self-perpetuating

board, one appointed by the board members themselves would create freedom from political pressure. It is my understanding that

the Justice Department may have some questions about the constitutionality of a federally funded entity with a self-appointed

board. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service requested legal interpretation from the Justice Department on this question?

Ms. CLARK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have. In fact, we have been

involved in extensive discussions with the Justice Department on

this very issue. Certainly while we support and expanded board,

the Justice Department’s opinion, and I’m certainly not a lawyer,

indicate that it would be a violation of the appointments clause. We

are continuing to look for ways to support this effort.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I appreciate the articulate

testimony of all three witnesses. We will move onto panel No. 3 actually at this time, made up of Mr. Amos Eno, executive director

of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Mr. Gary Taylor, legislative director of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Mr. Edward Ahnert, president of Exxon Education

Foundation, Mr. Don Glaser, executive director of the Western

Water Policy Review Advisory Commission.
10

Those of you who have been observing the activities on Capitol

Hill for the last few days undoubtedly know that we are in a situation where we are having a series of votes which interrupt us frequently. Hopefully we will not be interrupted, but because of the

necessity of leaving here for 15 or 20 minutes of a half hour at a

time, if you could keep your testimony to the 5 minute allotted period of time, it would be most appreciated.

Mr. Eno, if you would like to begin.

STATEMENT OF AMOS ENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Mr. ENO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to

consider changes to the authorization of the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation to provide for a reauthorization. I ask that my

full statement be made part of the hearing record. I’ll summarize

my comments to review how the Foundation operates and address

our accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, this year this Nation celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. In 1997, the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation celebrated its greatest accomplishments by any measure imaginable, awarding 460 grants totaling over $60 million in

on-the-ground investments. But perhaps most significantly, we

have become a living, breathing analog for the Marshall Plan for

conservation in the United States. But what made the Marshall

Plan such an unexpected success? According to Lance Morrow, it

was no giveaway program. Countries that wanted financial support

had to come up with feasible plans for economic recovery. The aid

had a fixed time limit and a fixed cost ceiling. It would be administered by an American businessman, not a bureaucrat. There was

plenty of accountability.

The Foundation uses this very same formula. Our grants are not

a giveaway. Our grants require a match of at least one dollar for

every Federal dollar allocated. We’re achieving a match of better

than two-to-one consistently. Our grants have a fixed time limit,

usually a year for performance, cost ceilings and restrictions on

overhead. We manage them like businessmen, not bureaucrats.

Our projects originate at the local level just as in the Marshall

Plan. Additionally, we provide full accountability and cover all, and

this is very important, we cover all our operating costs with privately raised funds, unlike the NEA.

Let’s look at what the Foundation has accomplished. We work

with a wide range of partners, including 84 partners with the forest products industry. This chart graphically illustrates that partnership. The primary focus of these partnerships is to protect fish

and wildlife resources, while allowing timber harvests to continue.

With planning, cooperation and understanding of our resources,

wildlife can be protected and timber development can continue

without litigation and without regulation. You will hear from one

of our forest products company partners in a moment.

The Foundation has been a leading proponent and participant in

multi-faceted efforts to recover Atlantic and Pacific salmon. The Atlantic Salmon Federation and the State Department, as partners

we are able to buy out the Greenland Salmon Fishery for 2 years.

We directed money to identify long-term economic alternatives for
11

fishermen in Greenland. We provided a grant to start SHARE, a

salmon habitat and river enhancement project involving Champion

and Georgia Pacific in implementing habitat improvements for Atlantic salmon in Maine. In collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife

Service, our recent grant of $100,000 lead to funding of a $600,000

pot of money for habitat improvements on the seven Maine rivers

proposed for listing for Atlantic salmon. We believe that the

projects we have put in place are tangible evidence, sufficient tangible evidence to prevent listing of the Atlantic salmon.

Meanwhile, on the west coast, our grants to the Oregon Wildlife

Heritage Foundation are one of the reasons the coho salmon was

not listed in the State of Oregon. For years, we have maintained

that to effectively preserve difficult endangered species, we must go

beyond the confines of government regulations and entice the active participation, and more importantly, the open wallets of corporate America. No program better exemplifies this approach than

our partnership with Exxon and Save the Tiger Fund.

Exxon has committed a minimum of a million dollars for 5 years,

and in fact, in the first 2 years of the program, Exxon, its foreign

affiliates, stockholders, credit card holders, have contributed more

than $3.4 million for tiger conservation, dwarfing the $200,000 a

year appropriated for Interiors program.

Turning to the legislation before the Subcommittee, I again commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for taking the lead in

your sponsorship of H.R. 2376. My prepared statement addresses

several suggestions we have regarding board appointments and expanding our relationship with Federal agencies. Mr. Chairman, we

want to build on our successes. We are currently working with

NOAA to implement its Year of the Ocean program. This is consistent with a resolution you and Congressman Abercrombie have

introduced to assist NOAA in bringing about a better public understanding for the conservation of our ocean resources.

We are helping the Fish and Wildlife Service to leverage the fees

they charge for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies

from Canada, to expand their conservation efforts in Alaska and

Russia. We are also exploring ways the Foundation can work with

the Alaska Sealife Center to conserve the resources of Prince William Sound. Other investments under consideration, coral reef conservation, apoxi zones in the Gulf of Mexico, seafood processing, the

pfisteria outbreak in Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, whether its conservation education,

professional training, fisheries, wildlife, migratory birds or habitat

restoration, the Foundation is ready to broaden our formal partnerships to embrace the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau

of Reclamation in order to expand our ability to leverage Federal

funds and create new partnerships at the local and community

level. Inclusion of BLM in the Bureau of Reclamation will improve

Federal agency cooperation with States and the private sector for

the advancement of fish, wildlife, plant and other resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I’ll gladly answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eno may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.
12

Mr. Taylor?

STATEMENT OF GARY J. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

appear before you today to share with you the association’s perspectives on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I am Gary

Taylor, legislative director of the association. I bring to you today

the firm and solid support of our association for the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation and in general for H.R. 2376, providing for

its reauthorization.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, all 50 State fish and wildlife

agencies are members of our association. The association has a

longstanding interest and involvement in the Foundation and similar endeavors to combine private and industry money to help

stretch Federal and State dollars to accomplish much needed fish

and wildlife conservation work on the ground. We would also encourage you to continue to work with the Foundation to consider

the merits of some of the recommendations that they have offered

for further improvements to H.R. 2376.

As you have heard already, the Foundation is known for forging

effective partnerships between the public and private sectors to

provide on the ground solutions to some fundamental natural resources problems. These cooperative endeavors not only help get

much needed work done, but provide continuing cooperation between groups that may traditionally have even been competitive or

even on opposing sides of various issues.

The Foundation invests in solutions to natural resource problems

by awarding challenge grants to combine resources from Foundation partnerships, thus undergird effective conservation projects. In

the burdened and cash strapped world of State fish and wildlife

agencies, this represents a crucially important avenue for getting

important conservation work done that unlikely would be done

without the assistance of the Foundation.

By our estimate, about a third of the Foundation grants involve

our State fish and wildlife agencies as either a funding partner or

recipient to provide on-the-ground solutions to fish and wildlife conservation issues in the States. The association enthusiastically supports leveraging funds to increase the buying power of decreasing

conservation dollars. Quite simply, it makes good business sense

and it’s good for conservation as well.

As you are well aware, among the many fine examples of the

Foundation’s effectiveness, has been its work with State fish and

wildlife agencies in the North American Waterfowl Management

plan, and then in the Partners in Flight endeavor, both of which

are significant international conservation efforts which the Foundation was instrumental in leveraging funds to power these conservation efforts. I detail other efforts that the Foundation has been involved in in my written statement.

All of this, I believe, clearly points out that the Foundation is not

only effective, but innovative, aggressive in its fundraising efforts,

and simply well worth the money. It is a shining example of Fed-
13

eral, State, private cooperative programs that works and should be

emulated.

There are a couple of ways that we would suggest that the Foundation could improve its effectiveness. First, by continuing to appoint experienced leaders, including a State fish and wildlife agency head to the board. Second, through additional appropriations for

the Foundation. H.R. 2376 can facilitate addressing both of these

solutions.

The association believes that the inclusion of a State director on

the Foundation’s board is imperative. State agencies are at the

forefront of fish and wildlife conservation through solving problems

on the ground, and are usually aware of needs long before the private sector becomes aware of a specific problem. Having an agency

director on the board will thus allow the Foundation to continue to

be at the cutting edge of fish and wildlife resource management

issues. Certainly with the expanded membership of the board of directors from 15 to 22, as contemplated in your bill, the appointment of a State fish and wildlife director should be given strong

consideration by the secretary. We would encourage your support

for that, Mr. Chairman.

Also, to improve effectiveness, we believe the Foundation, if

given more appropriations will continue to multiply Federal dollars

with the private sector dollars to improve the Nation’s fish and

wildlife resource conservation. Increasing the capacity for partnerships is a sound fiscal investment. We enthusiastically support

such increases and have consistently testified favorably before the

Appropriations committees.

We would support the Foundation’s request that H.R. 2376 ex- pand over four years the authorization for appropriations to $40

million to enable them to achieve further conservation successes.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank you for the

opportunity to be here, and would be happy to address any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ahnert?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. AHNERT, PRESIDENT, EXXON

EDUCATION FOUNDATION

Mr. AHNERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here

today to offer testimony on behalf of Exxon Corporation about our

numerous partnerships with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and why we think this is a particularly effective organization.

Exxon has been making grants for environmental conservation

for over a quarter of a century. We have enjoyed a close working

relationship with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation since

1991. Since 1995, the majority of our work with the Foundation

has been through the Save the Tiger Fund, which we jointly established to channel both Exxon and public dollars into an international effort to save tigers in the wild.

As you know, the tiger has symbolized Exxon and its products for

most of this century. The idea for the Save the Tiger Fund arose
14

as our awareness grew of the threats to the survival of tigers in

the wild. At the turn of the century, there were about 100,000 tigers roaming across the Asian continent. Today experts estimate

that there are fewer than 7,500 tigers surviving in the wild. They

have been victims of poaching and habitat loss. Some experts believe that the wild tiger could be extinct within a few decades.

However, in 1995, we consulted with tiger conservation experts

around the world, who indicated that an infusion of funds into

thoughtful, well-designed projects could save the tiger from extinction in the wild. In cooperation with the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, we set up a framework to bring Exxon’s and the

public’s resources to initiatives selected by a council of wildlife conservation and tiger experts. Almost exactly two years ago today,

our company pledged $5 million over 5 years to tiger conservation.

Together with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation we

launched the Save the Tiger Fund. To date, the Fund has raised over $3.5 million, of which more

than $500,000 has been contributed by the public, mostly customers and shareholders of Exxon. None of this money has come

from the government. Forty one projects have been funded, most of

which are based in tiger range countries. You see the map on your

left shows those projects that we funded. These have been reviewed

and approved by the Save the Tiger Fund Council, which represents international conservation organizations, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, zoos, and research facilities. The National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation solicits the project proposals, stewards the

grants, and handles accounting for the Fund.

We are starting to see some signs of success. The population of

Siberian tigers in far eastern Russia appears to have stabilized,

and may be increasing slightly. In Royal Chitwan National Park in

Nepal, habitat is being added and the critical elements for the survival of endangered animal populations have been put in place, including such things as buffer zones between populated and wildlife

areas, and engaged community, and a mechanism for the local population to benefit from ecotourism. Projects in India and far eastern Russia have helped to reduce poaching by providing accommodations, vehicles, and uniforms for field rangers.

Apart from the Save the Tiger Fund, since 1991, we have contributed over $680,000 to 15 national fish and wildlife projects.

Those are shown on the map on your right, the western hemisphere map. These projects include, but I’m not going to give you

a comprehensive list, a study of the effects of habitat depletion in

Central America on North American migratory birds, with Cornell

University’s laboratory of ornithology, a project to monitor forest

use by migratory songbirds, a multi-national study of the humpback whale, a study of shorebirds in Alaska conducted by the Copper River Delta Institute, matching funds for summer jobs for minority college students in Federal and State environmental programs, and a wetlands restoration project in Texas. This is just a

sample of the projects that we have worked with the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation.

We selected the Foundation as a partner for the Save the Tiger

Fund because of this long term relationship in certain specific

qualities which I would like to enumerate in closing. First, the
15

Foundation has built an impressive network of conservation experts and organizations. By so doing, it brings a broad international spectrum of knowledge and resources to environmental

projects that most other groups can’t offer. This has been an important asset for the Save the Tiger Fund program.

Secondly, the Foundation provides a forum where business, government, and non-profit organizations can work together harmoniously on conservation projects. By acknowledging that human activity and preservation of the environment have to coexist, it operates in an area of shared values and on strong middle ground. It

is an approach that we are comfortable with and one that allows

the application of funds from a wide variety of sources.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me. I’ll be happy to answer

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahnert may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Glaser?

STATEMENT OF DON GLASER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WESTERN WATER POLICY REVIEW ADVISORY COMMISSION

Mr. GLASER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I have submitted my full comments for the record and would like to make just a few brief comments, oral comments today. I will be speaking from my background of having worked over 20 years within the Department of

Interior, serving as the deputy commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation, and also as a State director for the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado.

Last year I left the Federal Government as a career employee

and began a one-year effort as the executive director to a Presidential commission looking at western water issues and the role of

Federal agencies in western water. Throughout my 25 year career

in western natural resources, I have observed what many have observed. Resource issues are best resolved at the local level led by

local consensus groups. There are literally thousands of examples

of locally driven collaborative efforts that are working to heal local

relationships in the natural resources they care about. These

groups need access to small amounts of money to participate in

these efforts. The Foundation is one source of money to local efforts

to help them address their issues in their local communities. Partners in these efforts who benefit from the Foundation funding are

diverse and often involve Federal and State and local governments,

commodity interests, and local environmental groups. These efforts

result in direct improvements on the ground. But more than that,

they lead to improved relationships between these groups at the

local level.

As important as the grant money is to these local efforts, the

Foundation brings credibility to their process. The confidence that

money will be spent well, on the ground, resulting in improvements

to natural resources. It is also important that the Foundation will

support, not control their efforts. For this reason, the Foundation

has been asked to participate in many activities across the West.
16

The California Bay Delta Accords, CALFED process, is one of

these.

The Foundation has been asked to help administer a portion of

the contracts and grants activities, particularly smaller contracts

and grants for three different contributing parties to the CALFED

process. They are the California Urban Water agencies, the State

of California, and the Federal Government through the Bureau of

Reclamation. I have been retained by the Foundation to assist in

negotiation and administration of these contracts.

In my meetings with the respective parties across California,

they sought the Foundation’s involvement because it adds value

rather than money to their process. Their biggest concern in California is that the money that they bring to the table will be spent

on the ground and not be eaten up through administrative costs

and inefficiencies. The Foundation has a proven record for getting

on-the-ground results with minimal administrative costs. In the

case of CALFED, this will be between 3 and 5 percent.

In meeting with a broad range of California interests, they are

genuinely pleased with the Foundation’s willingness to lend a hand

to their effort. Anything that the Congress can do to make the

Foundation more effective during reauthorization will be greatly

appreciated by many diverse interests across the West.

To that end, action to make the Fish and Wildlife Foundation a

foundation for the Bureau of Land Management and for the Bureau of Reclamation and to authorize a larger partially self-perpetuating board will significantly add to their effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral comments today. I would

answer any questions of the Committee. I thank you very much for

this opportunity to speak to you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaser may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Glaser.

I have just one question. Mr. Eno, in the bill we have proposed

to repeal the authority of the Foundation to condemn land and authority that only government entities currently hold. In your testimony, you state that the Foundation has never used its authority,

but you still wish to retain it. Can you explain why?

Mr. ENO. Mr. Chairman, largely because we had indications from

a number of prospective donors that this is a vitally important provision, particularly for the deeding of conservation easements on

critical riparian lands in the West and other important wildlife

areas.

A lot of conservation donors want to be sure that if they give an

easement, those lands are protected from subsequent actions at the

State or local level.

I was in Jackson, Wyoming, at the National Elk Refuge in July,

and met with three different landowners who were contemplating

deeding easements on their ranches for conservation purposes, but

only would do so if there was the possibility of preventing State

and local government condemnation later.

Mr. SAXTON. I don’t understand. Could you try that again?

Mr. ENO. One area, well one example where—our statement actually is inaccurate. We have used that in one instance on the Beaver Kill River in New York. The Beaver Kill is the premier trout
17

stream in eastern North America. Lawrence Rockefeller was working on a development, limited housing development and wanted to

protect the entire riparian area of the river, much of which he had

purchased. He gave us an easement specifically so that no subsequent actions by the State of New York could be taken that would

adversely impact those lands.

Mr. SAXTON. So you are saying, I think you are saying that people who become involved in the program are more likely to come

involved in the program even though if you hold the right to condemn land, even though you seldom, almost never use it.

Mr. ENO. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of conservation buyers. We are dealing with a very recent phenomena in terms of the

sophistication, broad application of conservation easements. I mean

they didn’t really exist as implements just as recently as 10 years

ago. A lot of people are now interested in acquiring lands privately,

deeding their interests, as they do their estates, to make sure that

those interests are held in conservation purposes. One of their

greatest fears is that local governments at the State and local level

might subsequently come in, want to put in a road or want to push

development of those lands. So if the easement is protected through

us, it would prevent subsequent development.

Mr. MILLER. If I might, Mr. Chairman. You in fact shield that

land against condemnation?

Mr. ENO. That’s correct. We do not have any kind of——

Mr. MILLER. Until such time as it is put in permanent conservation programs?

Mr. ENO. That is correct.

Mr. MILLER. So an owner can grant to you an interest. That interest is shielded against State action and what have you until

such time as a permanent conservation arrangement is worked out.

Mr. ENO. Exactly. Basically the provision gives us the premature

protection of a national wildlife refuge for an easement. It has that

level of Federal protection.

Mr. MILLER. It’s not you. You are not exercising condemnation

rights, you are shielding people against.

Mr. ENO. This is total voluntary action by private landowners

who want the protection of the Federal Government from subsequent actions at a local or State level that would undermine their

investment.

The second point, Mr. Chairman, is we don’t hold those easements. We have almost in every instance rolled it over to a State

or a conservation group.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Miller, do you have any questions?

Mr. MILLER. Just two quick questions. First on the question of

the Tiger Fund. I didn’t quite understand. The Foundation participates in this, but according to your testimony, Mr. Ahnert, they are

not using the taxpayer portions of their funding to participate?

Mr. AHNERT. That is correct, Congressman. The Save the Tiger

Fund money is all donated either by Exxon Corporation, other corporations, or the public.

Mr. MILLER. But the Foundation is a repository for that. I mean

people can make the contribution through the Foundation to that,

but you are not using the contributions of the Federal Government

for that purpose?
18

Mr. AHNERT. I think that Mr. Eno can speak for the Foundation.

Mr. ENO. Let me respond. We made several initial investments

in the Siberian tiger program with Federal dollars. It was those investments I think that were part of the attraction of Exxon becoming a partner with us. Subsequently, we’re managing the portfolio

of projects and the bulk of the money is contributed money by

Exxon and private individuals. In the last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service, for reasons of efficiency, has indicated they want to

run their $200,000 through us as a combined pot.

Mr. MILLER. OK. That’s helpful. One last, let me just—Mr.

Glaser, unfortunately we have a vote on, but one, let me thank you

for your work on the commission. Second, if you could just explain

again why the stakeholders want the Foundation and you involved

here, because I think it’s kind of an important communications device that we lose sometimes in the discussion of the Foundation.

Mr. GLASER. Thank you, Congressman Miller. Yes, I’ll try to do that. This year there is going to be approximately $180 million

spent on restoration efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

area. The biggest concern that people have in that area is that this

money be spent effectively. Their biggest fear is that it will not,

and at the end of the year, they will not have real restoration efforts on the ground.

There is a limit in proposition 204 on the amount of administrative fee that can go toward administering these moneys. Federal,

State governments are always not the most efficient. They are particularly not efficient at managing small grants.

Mr. MILLER. You don’t have to rub it in here.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GLASER. I stand in stead for the government. I served for 25

years in that capacity. But they are not effective administering

small grants and small contracts. They are just not. Folks have

looked to the Foundation to come in and take these small grants,

small contract responsibilities on because the Foundation is very

efficient at doing that. They have a very high track record of results on the ground. So they are willing to pay the Foundation a

management fee, a nominal management fee, to administer not the

Foundation’s money, but voluntary money that’s being brought to

the table by the California Urban Water agencies, $30 million, a

portion of that, the proposition 204 money, which is the people’s

money of California, and Federal money coming through the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget for the CALFED initiative. They are

willing to pay the Foundation to administer those activities because they have confidence they will get results on the ground, and

they will do it as efficiently as anybody out there.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you again for your involvement.

Mr. Chairman, let me just—I wasn’t here for opening statements,

but I just want to say that I really strongly support the work that

the Foundation has done. I think this is really one of our success

stories in the Congress in creating the Foundation. Those who have

been involved in it know its track record of attracting people who

otherwise might not come to the table to discuss various conservation programs, who aren’t necessarily interested in doing business

with the government or have been burned by doing that or whatever those circumstances are, but the Foundation has allowed a
19

whole series of conversations and actions to take place around conservation that I’m not sure otherwise would have happened or

would have happened on a timely basis. I hope that we will be able

to pass the legislation and do no harm to the Foundation. Thank

you. Thank you very much for your time and your being here

today.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. As you can see, we have a

vote in progress. Let me ask unanimous consent that we submit

questions in writing and if you would be so kind as to respond to

those in as prompt order as you can. Thank you very much for

being here.

When we return, we’ll proceed to our fourth panel, which is made

up of Mr. Donald Taylor, vice president of sustainability and stewardship of Champion International Corporation, Mr. William Miller, president of Malpai Borderlands Group, Mr. Jonathan Adler,

director of environmental studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute,

and Ms. Lois Van Hoover, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition. If

you folks would take your places during the break.

Let me also ask unanimous consent at this point that all Members be permitted to include their statements for the record.

[Recess.]

Mr. SAXTON. Well, the good news is that we have completed the

vote on another motion to adjourn. We defeated the motion. We

make this decision a number of times each day these days, so we

apologize. We are expecting another vote in about 20 minutes, so

if we can proceed.

Mr. Taylor, you may begin at your leisure.

STATEMENT OF DON R. TAYLOR, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND STEWARDSHIP, CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

we appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony concerning reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, H.R.

2376. My name is Don Taylor. I am vice president of sustainability

and stewardship for Champion International. Champion is one of

the Nation’s largest manufacturers of pulp and paper and forest

products, owning more than 5.3 million acres of forest land in 17

States.

My current responsibilities include management of forest related

environmental issues. Most recently, well I say over the last 30

years, I have spent my career in forest management operations

throughout the company. Champion has had a long and productive

relationship with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation that

has allowed our company to participate in many beneficial environmental projects. I would just like to share a few of those with you

today.

Champion joined the Foundation and Tennessee Technical University to conduct a study in the mountains of eastern Tennessee

to evaluate the feasibility, relative cost, and effectiveness of different aquatic survey methods. We feel it is important to know the

status of all biological resources that occur on our property. This

study not only added to the available science and information base,

but it also helped to develop cost effective methods that landowners
20

can apply in their own management efforts. It’s just one example

of the Foundation working with private landowners, providing

practical conservation practices.

Another such tool can be found in a program created in Alabama.

Champion and the Foundation sought to provide a common sense

user-friendly information directly to those who need it most, those

being private logging contractors and foresters working with private landowners. To achieve this goal, a resource guide was created

along with the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, small enough to fit

in your shirt pocket. The guide identifies listed species in the State

and provides necessary forest management considerations. It is

successful because it is free, No. 1. Then the technical and legal

jargon that often served to frighten and confuse private landowners

is not there. It’s simple. It has pictures, and people can easily identify endangered species.

Just last week, we released a similar guide for Tennessee. Again,

with the Foundation’s help, like this field guide the goal is simple,

to put usable information in the hands of those people who are

most likely to encounter listed species on a daily basis. We plan to

produce a similar guide for each of the 17 States in which we operate. Taking this approach, we are seeking to involve all concerned

citizens in the protection of species.

Our success with the Foundation has encouraged a number of

other agencies and conservation organizations to join us in that effort to produce those guides. We have a low-tech approach to endangered species identification and protection that is building

bridges rather than regulatory barriers.

This cooperation is best illustrated by Champion’s coordination of

an industry-wide effort to foster private landowner cooperation for

the migratory songbirds, first advocated by the Foundation through

the Partners in Flight program. The effort has led to 13 forest

products companies, representing approximately 35 million acres of

private forest lands to join the Foundation in bird conservation.

Lastly, I want to share with the Committee what Champion believes is one of the most promising models for conservation anywhere in the Nation, already mentioned by Amos. The project

SHARE in Maine. Project SHARE, which stands for Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement was started 3 years ago as an alternative to the normal gridlock that often results from the proposed

listing a new species under the Endangered Species Act.

In this case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National

Marine Fisheries Service were considering a petition to list Atlantic

Salmon as threatened or endangered throughout all or a portion of

its range. While some of the advocates for the listing saw a new

tool to stop otherwise legitimate land management, private landowners and sportsmen saw the threats of increased management

cost, declines in property values, and regulatory burdens.

Project SHARE was formed by Champion and two other forest

products companies with extensive holdings in the prime salmon

habitat down in Downeast Maine. Let me be clear on this. Our goal

was not to form a coalition to oppose the listing, but rather to create a coalition to address voluntary habitat restoration and management. Our belief was simple enough. By supporting the State

and Federal agencies whose jurisdiction is the protection of species,
21

we could share ideas and alternatives to the normal regulatory procedures and approaches that follow species listing. This synergy

would give the responsible agencies more options in developing

flexible constructive beneficial plans. So that is the project SHARE.

There’s many other examples that are in the testimony. What I

would like to close with is just one theme. Please continue the support of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We would ask one other

thing, is that in your bill it addresses various administrative improvements. We would like to comment on one aspect of the measurer in closing. It seems if you would eliminate as much as possible

the political tie that the Foundation board has with each administration, then continuity, neutrality and assurance of tenure for the

board members would be provided that may assist with overall administration of the Foundation.

We just think that we think the Foundation does a lot of good.

We are very pleased to support that reauthorization.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I apologize. We’re going to

go vote again. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Miller, you may proceed. Sorry about that

again.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MILLER, JR., PRESIDENT, MALPAI

BORDERLANDS GROUP

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It gives me great honor

and privilege to be sitting here before you as a Committee to speak

on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The facts

that I know about the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, whose address

is 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, DC.

The Malpai Borderlands Group, a private non-profit organization

of ranchers and conservationists received a challenge grant from

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation of $76,000 which our

group was required to match with additional private funding to

raise in the amount of $304,000. It became quickly apparent to our

board that we had a tremendous amount of work ahead of us to

meet the challenge. However, we knew our program for conservation and economic stability in more than 800,000 acres in Arizona

and New Mexico would require substantial new funding. The early

support of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation gave our

small new organization the confidence and the financial push that

were critical to our new environment.

Our mission statement tells our story so well. Our goal is to restore and maintain the natural processes that create and protect

a healthy unfragmented landscape to support a diverse flourishing

community of human, plant, and animal life in our Borderland region. Together, we will accomplish this by working to encourage

profitable ranching and other traditional livelihoods which will sustain the open space nature of our lands for generations to come.

The amazing part of this process was the fact that the National

Fish and Wildlife would look at a bunch of cowboys, listen to what

they had to say, and believe that we could proceed into the next

century with our ambitious goals. The judgment of the National
22

Fish and Wildlife Foundation paid off as we found working with a

wonderful group of people was an easy process and we actually

were able to raise the matching funds. They have guided us

through our continued problems and challenges, and have been a

main catalyst in starting our work on the land.

The Malpai Group has successfully completed two prescribed

burns across multiple ownership. The first was a major undertaking, as it was partially in a wilderness study area on Bureau

of Land Management land. It also affected four private landowners,

the U.S. Forest Service, two State land departments. The prescription for this burn was completed in less than a year. The second

burn was done on 12,500 acres, which affected three private landowners, Arizona State Land Department, and the U.S. Forest Service. It took us three years to overcome the necessary regulations to

do this burn. It was very successful and with the process behind

us, we are working toward a programmatic plan to do both prescribed burning and work with natural ignited fires. The Malpai

Group paid for the State and private land costs of burning this fire.

With the sighting of the Mexican Jaguar in our Borderlands region, the work to protect this now listed species has opened a new

level of involvement with ranchers in the region. The Malpai Group

has established a depredation fund to pay for livestock which may

be lost to the Jaguar. A working relationship with scientists in

Mexico is evolving. The project is now involving us in conservation

work in two countries. This is a new venture and we are hoping

to influence additional conservation work in Mexico.

What we have found is that it is amazing what can happen when

a group of land managers sits down with agency people and a few

environmentalists join in and talk about allowing natural fire to

burn in a large unfragmented landscape. With funding, hard work,

and open minds, we are working to have a proud place for the future generations in the Borderland region in southeast Arizona,

southwest New Mexico, and Mexico. With many projects completed,

it is apparent that an alternative to litigation and the ability to

spend money on the ground is the best process in conserving our

natural resources for the future.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is to be congratulated

for joining in as partners with private landowners like us. There

are many other conservation opportunities across the West and beyond which can become realities once private landowners have confidence to take up the work with their own hand. We have found

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to be good people to

work with in our region, and feel that others will find them to be

the same in their area of the country.

I thank you again. My hat is off to you folks on the Committee

and the people with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I

didn’t introduce myself. I am William C., Bill Miller, Jr., president

of the Malpai Borderlands Group, a fourth generation rancher in

Rodeo, New Mexico. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Miller, thank you very much. We appreciate

your being here.

Mr. Adler?
23

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN ADLER, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

Mr. ADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jonathan

Adler. I am director of environmental studies at the Competitive

Enterprise Institute here in Washington, DC. I appreciate the opportunity to come before this Committee today and deliver testimony on this issue.

I would like to summarize my written statement, which I guess

is somewhat lengthy, and I would hope that the written statement

be included in the record. Certainly I’ll be open to questions on any

part of my testimony after my——

Mr. SAXTON. All statements will be included in the record. Thank

you very much.

Mr. ADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, when the

Foundation was created in 1984, it received only $100,000 per year,

a mere pittance of what it now receives at taxpayer expense. Today

the Foundation is a substantial recipient of taxpayer funds, from

both State and Federal Governments. In the previous fiscal year,

the Foundation received over $21 million from Federal Government

agencies, and at least $1 more from States. As you know, H.R.

2376 would authorize $25 million per year for the next three fiscal

years. The Foundation has asked for an even larger authorization.

The issue for this Committee is not whether the Foundation supports worthwhile projects. It’s not whether it was wise for the Federal Government to create the Foundation. It’s not even whether or

not the Foundation should exist or not. The issue is whether the

Foundation should continue to receive an annual appropriation of

taxpayer dollars, whether this Congress should continue to appropriate millions of dollars every year to a specific private charity

that among other things engages in politically oriented and controversial grantmaking. If so, what conditions should be placed

upon the Foundation’s acceptance of Federal funds.

There is no doubt the Foundation has supported and will continue to support many worthwhile conservation projects. We have

heard about some of them today. My organization through a project

called the Center for Private Conservation has even documented

the work of private organizations like the American Chestnut

Foundation and Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage that are engaged in

admirable conservation activities and have received support from

the Foundation. That the Foundation often does good things does

not however mean that it is entitled to receive annual appropriations of millions in taxpayer dollars, nor does it mean that the

Foundation should not be the subject of strict Congressional oversight so long as it does receive such funds.

In some respects, the Foundation could be seen as the environmental equivalent of the National Endowment for the Arts. I think

this is an appropriate analogy. Both were created to address the

private sector’s perceived failure to adequately fund something of

national concern, art in the case of NEA, conservation in the case

of the Foundation. The motivating theory in both cases is that the

Federal Government are providing seed money to facilitate the proliferation of desired activities. Both entities have funded worthwhile projects and not so worthwhile projects. Both have funded
24

things that are unobjectionable and both have funded things that

are extremely controversial.

I believe that there are reasons to question the continued Federal

funding of both endeavors, a step that the House is taking in the

case of the NEA and should with the Foundation as well. I would

like to point out that the Marshall Plan did not get Federal funding

forever.

While the Foundation does support valuable efforts, there are

several reasons why this Committee should consider phasing out

the Foundation’s funding authorization. Among the most significant is evidence of the Foundation’s political activity and its support of ideological activist groups, an issue that this Committee has

heard plenty about before.

Just earlier this week, I spoke with a landowner in Riverside

County, California, who has a very different view of the NCCP that

the Foundation in one of its recent reports takes credit for helping

develop. This landowner and many of his neighbors feel that the

NCCP is not a landowner friendly approach to conservation. Yet

that is an issue that is very politically controversial in southern

California. A taxpayer-funded entity should not be in the position

of promoting that or any other controversial approach to an important public policy issue.

I also think it’s important for this Committee to recognize that

private conservation efforts and corporate philanthropic grants are

not in need of direct financial support or indirect financial support

from the Federal Government. Cutting off Federal appropriations

for the Foundation would not force the Foundation to close its

doors. It may force it to reorient some priorities and to focus its

money on the most valuable grants, but the Foundation would continue to play a valuable role in promoting conservation, even if it

did not receive taxpayer funds.

My recommendation would be for Congress to follow the lead

that was taken with the NEA by the House and begin to phaseout

Federal funding for the Foundation over the next several years.

This would provide the Foundation with the opportunity to prepare

itself for life without Federal appropriations and relieve taxpayers

of another small but significant claim on their hard-earned resources. In this day and age, there is simply no reason why the

Foundation and similar organizations must be funded at taxpayer

expense.

While we move to phaseout Federal appropriations for the Foundation, this Committee should take additional steps beyond those

contained in H.R. 2376 to ensure that the Foundation does not support controversial programs or organizations engaged in political

advocacy. The provisions in H.R. 2376 are welcomed, particularly

the explicit limits on the Foundation’s activities contained in section five, but I believe they do not go far enough. I would suggest

the Foundation not be allowed to give money to any organization

that does not agree to similar restrictions on its own advocacy efforts, restrictions similar to those that will be applied to the Foundation under section 5. Such restrictions should not be hindrance

to valuable conservation efforts, but they will prevent the use of

Federal money, directly or indirectly to promote political advocacy.
25

The Foundation has a role to play in America to continue in conservation efforts. I applaud those projects that they have supported

that are providing valuable support to conservation efforts. I simply believe that it should pursue this role without the support of

Federal taxpayers. The sooner the Foundation joins the ranks of

truly private conservation organizations, the more valuable its contribution to finding real and lasting solutions to conservation problems will be. Thank you for your time. I will answer any questions

you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adler may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Adler, thank you very much. We’ll move quickly

to Ms. Van Hoover.

STATEMENT OF LOIS VAN HOOVER, IDAHO MULTIPLE LAND

USE COALITION

Ms. VAN HOOVER. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Lois

Van Hoover. I represent the Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition.

Additionally, I serve on the board of directors of the Idaho Council

on Industry and the Environment, the Independent Miners, the Alliance of Independent Miners, and am a co-founder of a new organization called the Idaho Natural Resource Advocacy Center.

I am honored to be here today to testify on such an important

subject as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We all understand the benefit of consensus in protecting the environment.

While I understand the logic for establishing the Foundation originally, at the amount of appropriations today, I question if Congress

is practicing fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer when they

fund a private non-profit foundation with tax dollars, a foundation

run by a board of directors appointed by the Secretary of Interior.

Even though the Foundation has done some good projects, it has

used tax dollars and it is not responsive to the American taxpayer.

It is not bound by either the Freedom of Information Act or NEPA.

According to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the basic

criteria for receiving a grant are one, the proposed project must

promote fish and wildlife conservation. Two, the proposed project

must build consensus and act as a model for dealing with difficult

conservation issues. The project must leverage available Federal

funds. Finally, the project must meet the technical standards of

peer review.

However, the historic performance of the Foundation leads to

some criticism, especially in the State of Idaho. Funding a Federal

agency to do special projects rather makes a mockery of the authorization and appropriation process. As an individual, I would be

hard pressed to justify over $200,000 in bonuses to 10 Federal employees, including Jack Ward Thomas, who was chief of the Forest

Service at the time. Two State employees, five U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, four Forest Service employees and one other

person received $15,000 to $20,000 each as a bonus simply for

doing their jobs. This is as much money as some people in my

hometown make in one year. These do not fit into the criteria mentioned above or the critical on-the-ground projects.

Groups like the Pacific River Council, which received many

grants from the Foundation have certainly caused my home State
26

of Idaho undue grief with third party lawsuits. The Foundation has

given grants for projects related to grizzly bear recovery, even

though the Idaho Governor, the State legislature, and the entire

Idaho Congressional delegation are opposed to the reintroduction of

grizzly bears in Idaho.

I know the Foundation says that they have curtailed grants to

groups that lobby and litigate. But Mr. Chairman, please remember that the grants only free up other moneys of these organizations so that they can lobby and litigate.

We are a little confused as to how the groups are chosen that get

the grants, especially when an organization with the credentials of

the Idaho Council on Industry and the Environment has tried repeatedly to contact the Foundation. They haven’t even bothered to

respond.

Not so long ago, I was in the office of the director of the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game with a group for a meeting. Mr.

Connelly, the director, was complaining about the Foundation. It

seems the Idaho Fish and Game Department was building a nature

center. The U.S. Forest Service, Payette National Forest wanted to

give the Department $39,000, but there was no legal way to do

that. The Forest Service found a way to give the moneys to U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, who in turn channeled the money to the

Foundation. The Foundation then cut the check to the Idaho Fish

and Game Department. The reason Mr. Connelly was angry was

the $6,000 handling fee the Foundation had charged. My only response to Mr. Connelly, because I was shocked at what he said, is

that legal or are you washing money.

Even with the Foundation’s achievements, there is still an air of

impropriety around the Foundation, especially in Idaho. In a time

of short budget, a large national deficit, perhaps Congress could

practice its fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer by

dissolving the Foundation. They could even return some funds to

the taxpayer, or at least use the money for legitimate functions of

the Forest Service which in my State complains that it does not

have enough personnel to operate the campgrounds or fix the forest

roads in my county. The Foundation could then continue its work

at the private level. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Van Hoover may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Van Hoover, thank you very much. This has

been an opportunity this morning for us to exchange views. I know

there are many different opinions and viewpoints on the reauthorization of this commission, foundation I should say. In any event,

I wish there were more time to explore these issues with you today.

However, you should know that we will be talking extensively over

the next month or so relative to this issue. Before the bill which

I introduce is marked up, there will undoubtedly be a number of

changes to it.

So thank you all for being here today. We appreciate your forbearance with our schedule. We look forward to talking with you

in the future. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned,

subject to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
27

STATEMENT OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on

H.R. 2376, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Improvement Act. The Foundation is a great friend and asset to the Service and is an engine that powers many

of our most important and successful partnerships. I am very pleased that my first

appearance before the Subcommittee as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service is

in support of the Foundation.

We strongly support enactment of H.R. 2376, but do have some suggestions for

improvements.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has pioneered the concept of publicprivate conservation partnerships. This approach is now generally recognized as the

most productive and cost-effective approach to sustaining and enhancing our fish

and wildlife resources. The Foundation has assembled impressive expertise in this

area. This expertise, coupled with the flexibility available to the Foundation as an

entity outside of normal bureaucratic requirements, gives it the tools to foster these

partnerships in a wide variety of circumstances.

The Foundation’s contributions to the Fish and Wildlife Service have been many,

and I will not attempt to detail all of them, as you will hear these directly from

following witnesses. Rather, I will focus on two areas where they have been trailblazers in assisting the Fish and Wildlife Service on major priorities: assistance for

national wildlife refuges, and conservation efforts for endangered species.

The Subcommittee has been actively seeking to address the backlog in refuge

operational and maintenance needs, and I want to state for the record how much

we appreciate your efforts. One approach you have taken is to encourage volunteer

assistance for refuges. The Subcommittee has held a hearing on refuge volunteers,

and has reported Chairman Saxton’s bill, H.R. 1856, which will streamline the process for refuge managers to accept donations, and formally recognize the role of refuge ‘‘Friends’’ or partners groups. I want you to know that the foundation has also

been active in this approach, as they provided a grant to the national Wildlife Refuge Association for development of the program for creating and expanding these

groups. The refuge ‘‘Friends’’ are providing invaluable sources of additional refuge

support and local financial and in-kind support for refuge facilities and projects.

In addition, Chairman Saxton and other members of the Subcommittee have actively and successfully worked for increased appropriations for refuge operations

and maintenance. The Foundation has joined in as well by initiating a grant program to help alleviate unmet operational and maintenance needs at individual refuges, beginning this year.

The Foundation has also been very successful in helping to unsnarl complex endangered species issues, in the process building bridges between the government

and the private sector. For example, in Wisconsin the Foundation has helped bring

the forest products industry together with the Service and other Federal and State

agencies to begin development of a state-wide Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for

the endangered Karner Blue butterfly, whose habitat coincides with areas used by

the timber industry. The Foundation was able to raise $75,000 of industry money,

and, combined with $30,000 of their own funds, pay for several projects essential

to the development of the HCP. This HCP and the process by which it was developed should serve as a model for future Federal-State-private sector cooperation in

addressing endangered species issues.

The limiting factor in these and all of the other valuable projects the Foundation

has underway is one familiar to us all—lack of money. We believe there are two

approaches necessary to increase the resources available to the Foundation.

First, while we recognize that this issue cannot be fully addressed by appropriated

funds, we recommend that the authorization ceiling be retained at $25 million annually, as provided in H.R. 2376.

The Foundation has an impressive record in leveraging Federal funds with private money. Since their inception, they have raised over $172 million in private

money. While the statute requires a one-to-one match, they have always sought a

2 to 1 ratio, and for several initiatives, they have exceeded 2-1. Based on this record,

we believe that continuation of the current authorization levels is fully justified.

Secondly, we support the concept contained in H.R. 2376 of expanding the Foundation’s Board of Directors. One of the expectations for the Board members for such

a group is that they would contribute to fundraising efforts for the organization.

This is especially significant for the Foundation since all of its annual operating expenses must come from donated funds. An expanded Board should provide an additional fundraising capacity for the Foundation, and we strongly support this. H.R.

2376 addresses this need by expanding the Board from 15 to 22 members. While
28

the Administration can certainly support that proposal, discussions are ongoing

among a variety of parties as to the best way to constitute such an expanded Board.

Finally, one of the greatest strengths of the Foundation has been its ability pull

diverse partners together in support of fish and wildlife conservation projects. This

includes many Federal agencies, as well as corporate and non-profit entities. It is

vital to the continued success of this organization that it has the statutory authority

and direction to work with a variety of Federal agencies. To this end, we suggest

an amendment to the purposes section of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act. A copy of the amendment is attached to my statement.

Again, we strongly support reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation, and urge your consideration of our suggested changes to H.R. 2376.

This concludes my formal statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2376

Redesignate the existing sections 2 through 6 of the bill as sections 3 through 7,

respectively, and insert the following:

Sec. 2. PURPOSES OF THE FOUNDATION

Section 2(b)(1) (16 U.S.C. 3701(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(1) to encourage, accept and administer private gifts of property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the activities of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation,

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department

of Commerce, to further the conservation and management of fish, wildlife and

plant resources.’’

STATEMENT OF SALLY YOZELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND

ATMOSPHERE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. I am pleased to be here today

to highlight NOAA’s evolving relationship with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and offer NOAA’s views on bill H.R. 2376 to reauthorize the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Foundation’’) is a nonprofit organization established by Congress in 1984 to support sustainable solutions for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and

their respective habitats. The Foundation pursues its mission by forging financial

and operational partnerships between Federal agencies and the private sector, and

awarding challenge grants using federally appropriated funds to match private-sector donations.

The Foundation has been very successful and produced demonstrable conservation

results through these private-public partnerships. Since its founding, the Foundation has used approximately $94 million in Federal funds to leverage a total of $268

million and over 2200 grants for conservation projects. Many of these projects take

place at regional and local scales where communities, businesses, civic and trade associations, non-governmental organizations, government agencies and others have

come together to complete a common goal—such as restoring damaged stream corridors to improve habitat for Pacific salmon rebuilding local economies in areas hit

hard by the continuing New England fisheries crisis, or producing educational materials informing visitors to Hawaiian coral reefs how to be proper stewards of these

‘‘Rainforests Of The Sea.’’

NOAA believes the Foundation is a unique and powerful tool. NOAA strongly supports the Foundation’s reauthorization. I would like to summarize NOAA’s growing

relationship with the Foundation and recommend some minor changes to the bill

as drafted.

NOAA has worked with the Foundation on a limited basis since 1992. NOAA was

added to the Foundation’s statement of purpose during the Foundation’s 1995 reauthorization. Much has been learned through this experience. We have learned that

some projects do not attract donor interest; others have been very successful. These

areas will provide many opportunities for future collaborations between NOAA and

the Foundation.

NOAA is very interested in future work with the Foundation for several reasons.

First, the Foundation has been working on issues of importance to NOAA for many

years through several of the Foundation’s major initiative areas including the Fisheries Conservation and Management Initiative, and the Wildlife and Habitat Man-
29

agement Initiative. Second, the demand for the Foundation continues to increase,

especially for topics that relate to NOAA’s interests such as marine fisheries, coral

reefs, coastal habitat restoration and other parts of NOAA’s environmental stewardship mission. These factors indicate that the Foundation has the demonstrated

knowledge and ability to form successful private-public partnerships in these areas,

and that the private sector and other organizations recognize and support the Foundation’s ability to leverage Federal dollars with private matching funds for conservation achievements. The Foundation is the unique mechanism through which NOAA

as a Federal agency can participate with the private sector to accomplish goals beyond what is possible with NOAA’s resources and capabilities if acting alone. In fiscal year 1996 NOAA allocated $2.1 million in base appropriations to begin

working closely with the Foundation to develop public-private partnerships in 22

different project areas. I am very pleased to report that in the past year the Foundation has found partners and over $1.5 million in private matching funds for approximately half of these projects. The projects with matching funds are restoring habitat

for Pacific and Atlantic salmon, training graduate students to help control nonindigenous species introductions, assessing options for managing harmful algal

blooms, improving local-level monitoring and management of coral reefs, and testing

the use of sophisticated U.S. Navy underwater acoustic listening systems to conduct

civilian research and monitor marine mammal movements. Based on our experience

with the Foundation so far, we believe these are some of the general areas that we

should focus on with the Foundation in the future. Rather than review all of

NOAA’s existing projects with the Foundation, I will present a few examples to illustrate some of the strengths, opportunities, and limitations that we’ve found in

working with the Foundation on conservation and management issues.

Coastal habitat restoration is one of the areas where significant opportunities for

increased private-public partnerships through the Foundation are expected. There

are many successful, ongoing projects in this area. For example, the Mid-Coast

Salmon Restoration Project will support 90 stream enhancement projects along the

mid-coast of Oregon to improve habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat

trout—all of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act. The projects will

take place on state, private agricultural, and timber lands using materials and

equipment volunteered by landowners together with personnel and other resources

from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Timber companies, foundations,

community groups and the state have provided $200,000 in nonFederal funds to leverage $100,000 in Federal resources.

Similarly, an initiative is underway to restore salmon habitat in California using $1 million in Federal funds from NOAA and the Bureau of Reclamation. So far this

program has attracted almost $2 million in nonFederal matching dollars for 17

projects involving many different partners including private land owners, lumber

companies, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Associations and other business groups, environmental organizations, and agencies at county and state levels.

On the east coast, $50,000 in Federal funds have helped attract and leverage

$116,000 in nonFederal matching funds for the Maine Atlantic Salmon Recovery Initiative. The first phase of this long-term project will help restore native Atlantic

salmon populations in several Maine rivers. Partners in this project include the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the State of Maine, and a consortium of timber companies

and conservation organizations. The Atlantic salmon is currently being considered

for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

The Foundation has also been successful in supporting coral reef conservation

projects. This is another area where significant future opportunities exist for additional private-public partnerships. In the past year, the Foundation matched

$300,000 in funds from NOAA with $200,000 in private funds for 19 projects addressing coral conservation issues. Currently, 15 projects are underway to strengthen local-level monitoring, education, management and other elements of the U.S.

Coral Reef Initiative in the American Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Northern Marianas,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Other coral-related projects indude the first comprehensive assessment of coral

reef resources in the U.S. western Pacific region, restoration of deep-water coral

reefs off the coast of Florida that are nursery grounds for important commercial fish

species, and support for the successful 1997 national public awareness campaign for

the 1997 International Year of the Coral Reef. These efforts were made possible

through many partners, including members of the dive industry, the American Zoo

and Aquarium Association, several major foundations, communities, businesses, and

other organizations.

The success of these projects has helped us begin to identify the areas of interest

and types of projects best suited for the NOAA and the Foundation to pursue in the

future. Coral reefs, fisheries, habitat restoration, and education programs to in-
30

crease understanding of the value of our coasts and ocean resources are areas important to NOAA and fertile topics for these kinds of private-public partnerships.

We hope to pursue these general themes with the Foundation in fiscal year 1998.

We have already begun discussions on possible private-public partnerships to support a national public awareness campaign on oceans as part of the 1998 International Year of the Ocean. This might begin to address some of the Chairman’s

interests and concerns for the Year of the Ocean effort, and help to implement some

of the policies in H.C.R. 131 recognizing the importance of the world’s oceans.

Regarding specific provisions in H.R. 2233, the Coral Reef Conservation Act of

1997, NOAA suggests using the Foundation as an alternative to the ‘‘Coral Reef

Conservation Fund’’ proposed in H.R. 2233 as a more easily administered mechanism to receive appropriations and/or private donations for use by the Secretary of

Commerce for coral conservation projects. NOAA strongly supports the general intent of H.R. 2233 to assist in the conservation of coral reefs but believes that Congress has already created a vehicle—the Foundation—to accept private donations

and Federal appropriations, and create public-private partnerships of the type described in the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1997. Given NOAA’s growing and successful relationship with the Foundation, we encourage the Committee to seriously

consider using the Foundation in this role instead of proceeding with H.R. 2233, as

ordered reported.

One of the limitations we’ve found in working with the Foundation is that unlike

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that receives the bulk of its funds for work with

the Foundation through direct appropriations, NOAA identifies funds from program

base funds for specific projects with the Foundation. Consequently, funding is on an

ad hoc basis. It is difficult for the Foundation to plan for and provide the staff and

resources necessary to fully pursue projects with NOAA. While we have made funds

available on a limited basis through cooperative agreements, it is unclear from year

to year what NOAA will be able to make available for the Foundation for these important public-private partnerships.

Finally, NOAA supports the amendments in H.R. 2376 including increasing the

size of the Foundation’s board and expanding the board’s composition to include four

members that are knowledgeable and experienced in ocean and coastal resources

conservation. We do have an additional suggestion, however. Because NOAA’s involvement with the Foundation involves several of the Commerce Department’s Line

and Program Offices such as the National Ocean Service, the Coastal Ocean Program, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research—and not just the National

Marine Fisheries Service—we recommend that the Under Secretary for Oceans and

Atmosphere be the ex officio member on the Foundation’s board, and not the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries as listed in the current bill.

In conclusion, the Foundation is a unique mechanism and important tool for

NOAA to help build public-private partnerships and leverage limited Federal dollars. We believe we are well on our way to identifying with the Foundation areas

of significant opportunity where real results may be achieved through creative partnerships with the private. These are opportunities we can not afford to miss. Thank

you for the opportunity to provide input on H.R 2376. I would be happy to take any

questions.

Examples of Current Projects with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS:

1. Mid-coast salmon habitat restoration project

Support habitat restoration in 90 salmon streams in Oregon through partnership

between Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, Oregon Dept Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Dept Forestry, and various timber companies. Will benefit coho salmon,

steelhead and cutthroat trout. Projects on private and public lands. Landowners providing personnel, materials, and equipment. Matching funds from numerous timber

companies and foundations.

2. Grassroots California salmon initiative (17 projects to date)

17 projects approved to date to restore salmon habitat in California. Another request for proposals will be conducted. Currently matching 1:1 Federal to nonFederal

dollars. Some projects will conduct actual stream habitat restoration; others information collection or education and outreach. Many different partners providing

matching funds including private land owners, lumber companies, fisherman associations, other business groups, environmental organizations and agencies at state

and local level.
31

Match: Many nonFederal partners (listed below); additional Federal funds from

DOInterior/Bureau of Reclamation.

NONFEDERAL MATCH/PARTNERS INCLUDE:

Five private landowners on Cummings Creek

Pacific Lumber Company

Louisiana Pacific Lumber

Georgia Pacific

Eel River Sawmills

Sempervirens Fund

California Trout

Trout Unlimited

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen Associations

Dean Witter Foundation

Inverness Foundation

Patagonia Incorporated

DW Alley and Associates

Balance Hydrologic

Golden Gate National Park Association

California Department Fish and Game

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

California Commission Salmon Stamp

Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District

Mateo County Resource Conservation District

Sonoma County Water Agency

Public Works Department

Cantara Trust Council

3. Recovery of Atlantic salmon in downeast Maine

First phase of long-term project to restore native Atlantic salmon populations in

7 Maine Rivers. Project will support construction of fish weir to collect biological

data and protect native stocks, public awareness campaign, literature search for information, and habitat restoration.

Match/Partners: Variety of timber companies, communities and foundations.

4. Strengthening local level coral reef initiative activities

Support 15 projects to increase local-level education, monitoring and management

efforts concerning coral reefs. Projects in U.S. areas with coral reefs including American Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Match/Partners: Different partners/match for each project from local organizations

and foundations. DOInterior also provided portion of match.

Project locations and subjects:

1. American Samoa: Educational video on conserving American Samoa’s coral

reefs

1. N. Mariana: Education and outreach in support of local coral reef stewardship

initiatives

2. Guam: Coral recruitment/reproduction study

3. Guam: Coral reseeding experiments

4. Guam: Distribution of coral reef education/conservation video

5. Puerto Rico: Technical workshop on coral reef monitoring

6. Virgin Islands: Coral Reef Education video

7. Hawaii: Establish coral reef network on Internet for education and research

8. Hawaii: Education and outreach on Maui’s coral reefs

9. Hawaii: Coral awareness video

10. Hawaii: Poster and signs for reef protection

11. Hawaii: Teacher training in low-impact coastal field trips and CD-ROM materials

12. Hawaii: Inventory catalog of Hawaii’s coral reefs

13. Hawaii: Establish a model for community involvement in coral monitoring

14. Hawaii: A guide to Hawaii’s coral reefs to promote responsible stewardship

5. Regional workshop on CITES implementation on corals

The U.S. is the world’s largest importer of coral products. 80 to 90 percent of coral

products come from Indonesia and other parts of the western Pacific. Most corals

are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES) and require specific export permits certifying sustainable harvests for import to the U.S. This project will provide information and training in coral identification, CITES regulations, and sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems

to officials from trade and natural resource agencies in Indonesia. Information will

be provided through a workshop to develop abilities of local managers, export agents
32

and other officials to identify coral species and determine if legal collection and export criteria are met prior to issuing collection and export permits.

Matching Funds/Partners: The Nature Conservancy

6. Assessment of coral reef resources in the U. S. western pacific

Support coral experts in first major assessment of coral resources in U.S. western

Pacific (Hawaii, American Samoa, Northern Marianas etc.). Study will assess state

of coral reef resources, use of coral resources, threats to coral resources, and success

of current management efforts. Report will be very useful to government and nongovernmental resource managers.

Match: Fast timeline required action before match could be found.

7. Conservation and sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems

Three projects have been identified. First project will allow partners to provide

education and information on coral reef stewardship to visitors to Caribbean coralreef reserve in Dominican Republic. Second project will support education and training in sustainable coral reef management to reef-dependent communities Palau.

Third project will support restoration and monitoring of deep-water coral reef off

northern coast of Florida. Reef is nursery ground for important commercial and recreational fisheries species and has been devastated by fishing gear. NOAA/Florida

State University scientists conducting work.

Match: The Nature Conservancy provided match for first two projects; Packard

Foundation providing match for third project.

8. Cooperative efforts to implement Nat. Habitat Plan

Support workshops and literature searches to provide additional information (e.g.,

gear impacts on fisheries habitat) for use in National Habitat Plan.

Match: World Wildlife Fund.

9. Reducing impacts of nonindigenous species on marine ecosystems

Prevention and early detection of introductions are the most effective measures

to control the spread of nonindigenous species. If introduced species are allowed to

become established, they can have significant negative impacts on natural resources

and coastal economies. An essential part of preventing and detecting introduced species is identifying them. Scientists and others need training in species identification

to be effective in control programs. This project will provide fellowships for graduate

students working on the identification, prevention and control of nonindigenous species in coastal and marine ecosystems.

Match: Academic institutions provide match.

10. Valuation of highly migratory species recreational fisheries: Bluefin Tuna

Provide information on recreational value of highly migratory species especially

Bluefin tuna in mid-Atlantic region.

Match/partners: American Sportfishing Association.

11. White seabass enhancement hatchery: San Diego, CA

Support construction of additional facilities at existing hatchery in San Diego,

California. Will benefit populations of native white seabass, an important recreational fishery off California.

Match/Partners: Hubbs-Sea World and others

12. National Ocean Observatory

Test the utility of using sophisticated U. S. Navy acoustic equipment in the Atlantic for marine mammal and other research.

Match/partners: U.S. Navy contributing resources in addition to other partners.

13. Regional Shark Conservation Plans

Will conduct 2 workshops to develop shark conservation information and plans for

U.S. Atlantic and Pacific regions. Information and plans useful to Fishery Management Councils, states and other managers. Participants mostly scientists and managers from academia, resource management agencies.

Match/partners: WWF.

STATEMENT OF GARY J. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee

to share with you the Association’s perspectives on the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation. I am Gary J. Taylor, Legislative Director of the Association, and I bring

to you today the support of the Association for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and, in general, for H.R. 2376 providing for its reauthorization. The Association has a long-standing interest and involvement in the Foundation and similar endeavors to combine private and industry money to help stretch Federal and state
33

dollars to accomplish much needed fish and wildlife conservation work. We encourage you to continue to work with NFWF to strongly consider the merits of some of

the recommendations they have offered for further improvements to H.R. 2376.

The International Association was founded in 1902 and is a quasi-governmental

organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of

North America’s fish and wildlife resources. The Association’s governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal Governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. All fifty states are members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and

strengthening Federal, state and private cooperation in protecting and managing

fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.

It is for these reasons that the International Association is appearing before you

today to discuss the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation is

known for forging effective partnerships between the public and private sectors to

provide some on the ground solutions to fundamental natural resource problems.

These cooperative endeavors not only help get much needed work done but provide

continuing cooperation between groups that may be traditional competitors or even

opponents. The Association has followed the work of the Foundation over the years

and is aware of the benefits for the nation’s fish and wildlife resources that the

Foundation has provided. One of our Directors, Willie Molini, Director of Wildlife

in Nevada, served for several years on the Foundation’s board.

The Foundation invests in solutions to natural resource problems by awarding

challenge grants. The combined resources from Foundation partnerships undergird

effective conservation protects. Simply put, the Foundation probably exemplifies the

partnership concept than the many other ‘‘partnerships’’ which have become so fashionable today. Let me just give you a few numbers which should speak to this effectiveness; since 1986 the Foundation has leveraged Federal dollars with private and

state dollars to result in grants that have totaled $268 million for fish and wildlife

conservation projects. In the burdened and cash-strapped world of state fish and

wildlife agendas, this represents a crucially important avenue for getting important

conservation work done that would unlikely be done without the assistance of the

Foundation. The Association enthusiastically supports leveraging funds to increase

the buying power of decreasing conservation dollars. Quite simply, it makes good

business sense, and is good for conservation as well.

Among the fine examples of the Foundation’s effectiveness has been its work with

state fish and wildlife agencies in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

From the outset of this landmark plan between the United States and Canada, the

Foundation and its Board has made the Plan and wetlands conservation a priority.

It was the Foundation which initiated efforts to raise and transfer funds for wetland

preservation in Canada known as the ‘‘step’’ program. Between 1988 and 1992 more

than $40 million was generated with Foundation assistance, to acquire, improve and

enhance 500,000 acres of wetlands wildlife habitat in Canada. Because of these efforts the Foundation was instrumental in launching the NAWMP, arguably one of

the continent’s most successful conservation initiatives. The Foundation was farsighted in using some of the first Congressional appropriations to ‘‘jump start’’ the

North American at a time when skeptics were sure that state and Federal wildlife

managers were not committed to providing funds for the continent-wide management of waterfowl. Through its continued leadership, the Foundation, along with

state fish and wildlife agencies and several other conservation partners such as

Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy, has supported prompts in 34 states,

ranging from acquisitions and habitat restoration to public education and outreach

projects.

The Foundation has also provided important cooperative leadership for the ‘‘Partners in Flight’’ conservation program for neotropical migratory songbirds by helping

bring together Federal and state government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to coordinate and expand efforts for protection and management of songbirds and raptors. Through ‘‘Partners in Flight’’ an unparalleled nationwide conservation program has been successfully launched; all 50 state fish and wildlife

agencies are involved. Their matching grants program has allowed some of these

states the opportunity to augment or develop conservation actions to halt the decline

of over 250 species.

The Foundation has also played a significant role in the Partnerships for Wildlife

Act assisting state agencies with obtaining matching grants for conservation

projects related to fish and wildlife not hunted or fished or on the endangered species list. There are over 1,800 species these grants will aid, many of which have

been neglected for years due to limited state and Federal funds.

These are only a few examples of the Foundation’s conservation efforts. The Foundation is also active in fisheries, leadership training, and wildlife and habitat con-
34

servation throughout the U.S. All of this, I believe, clearly points out that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is not only effective, but innovative, aggressive

and well worth the money. Simply put, it is a shining example of a Federal-stateprivate cooperative program that works.

I’d like to now suggest a couple of ways to improve effectiveness of the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We believe there are basically two ways to improve

the Foundation’s efficacy: first by continuing to appoint experienced leaders

induding a state fish and wildlife agency head to the Board, and second through

additional appropriations for the Foundation. H.R. 2376 can facilitate addressing

both of these solutions.

At the Foundation’s outset, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. William Molini, the state

fish and wildlife agency director from the State of Nevada, was a member of the

Board. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies believes that the

inclusion of a state director on the Foundation’s Board is imperative. State agencies

are at the forefront of fish and wildlife conservation and are usually aware of needs

long before the private sector becomes aware of a specific problem. Having an agency director on the Board will allow the Foundation to continue to be at the cutting

edge of fish and wildlife resources management issues. Due to the Foundation’s

many projects with state fish and wildlife agencies, and the states management authority for many of these resources, we believe that the Subcommittee should consider advising the Secretary of Interior that the appointment of a state director to

the Board is important and justified. Certainly with the expanded membership of

the Board of Directors from 15 to 22 as contemplated in H.R. 2376, the appointment

of a State Fish and Wildlife Director should be given strong consideration by the

Secretary.

To improve effectiveness we also believe that the Foundation, if given more Congressional appropriations, will continue to multiply Federal dollars with the private

sector dollars to improve the nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Increasing the capacity for partnerships is a sound fiscal investment. The International Association

enthusiastically supports such an increase and has consistently testified for such

funding before the appropriations committee. We support NFWFs request that H.R.

2376 expand over four years the authorization for appropriations to $40 million to

enable them to achieve further conservation successes.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Foundation represents an example of a partnership that works. For a relatively modest investment, the nation’s fish and wildlife

resources are being conserved and their management enhanced. From the standpoint of the state fish and wildlife agencies this is a shining example of good government. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee

may have.

STATEMENT OF E.F. AHNERT, PRESIDENT, EXXON EDUCATION FOUNDATION,

MANAGER, CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS, EXXON CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is an honor to be here today to speak to you on behalf of Exxon Corporation

regarding our activities with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).

My name is Ed Ahnert. I am president of the Exxon Education Foundation and

manager of the company’s corporate contributions program. I’d like to tell you about

our relationship with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the reasons

why we think it is a particularly effective organization.

Exxon has been making environmental conservation grants for over a quarter of

a century. We have enjoyed a close working relationship with the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation since l99l. Since 1995, the majority of our work with the Foundation has been through the Save The Tiger Fund, which we jointly established to

serve as a vehicle to channel both Exxon and public dollars into an international

effort to help save tigers in the wild.

The tiger has symbolized Exxon and its products for most of this century. The

idea for the Save The Tiger Fund arose as our awareness grew of the threats to

the survival of tigers in the wild. At the turn of the century, about 100,000 tigers

roamed the Asian continent, especially in Russia, India and Southeast Asia. Today,

it is estimated that fewer than 7,500 tigers survive in the wild, victims of poaching

and habitat loss. Three of eight species in existence in 1900 are now extinct. All five

remaining subspecies are endangered or critically endangered. Some observers believe the tiger will be extinct within a few decades.

In 1995, we consulted with tiger conservation experts, who indicated that an infusion of funds into thoughtful, well-designed projects could help save the tiger from

extinction in the wild. In cooperation with the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
35

tion, we set up a framework to bring Exxon’s and the public’s resources to initiatives

selected by a council of wildlife conservation and tiger experts. Almost exactly two

years ago, Exxon pledged $5 million over five years to tiger conservation and, together with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, launched the Save The

Tiger Fund.

The Fund has raised over $3.5 million since its inception, of which more than

$500,000 has been contributed by the public. Forty-one projects have been funded,

most of which are based in tiger range countries. These projects have been reviewed

and approved by the Save The Tiger Fund Council, which represents international

conservation organizations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, zoos and research facilities. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation solicits project proposals, stewards the grants, and handles accounting for the Fund.

We are starting to see some signs of success. The population of Siberian tigers

in Far Eastern Russia appears to have stabilized and may be increasing slightly.

In Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal, habitat is being added and the critical

factors for the survival of endangered animal populations have been identified, such

as buffer zones between populated and wildlife areas, an engaged community and

a mechanism for the local population to benefit from ecotourism. Projects in India

and Far Eastern Russia have helped to thwart poachers by providing accommodations, vehicles and/or uniforms for field rangers.

Apart from the Save The Tiger Fund, since 1991 we have contributed over

$680,000 to fifteen National Fish and Wildlife Foundation projects.

From 1991 to 1993, Exxon contributed a total of $125,000 to a study of the effects

of habitat depletion in Central America on North American migratory birds. From

1992 to 1994, we gave $30,000 in grants to the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology to match Foundation funds for a project to monitor forest fragment use

by tanagers, a migratory songbird. In 1993, we contributed $25,000 to the Foundation for a multinational study of the humpback whale. Also in 1993, we gave

$15,000 to the Copper River Delta Institute in Alaska for a study of shorebirds. We

also provided matching funds for a project to provide summer jobs for minority college students in Federal and state environmental programs and contributed to a

wetlands restoration project in Texas.

In the years 1992 through 1994, we contributed a total of $225,000 in matching

funds for a field study of Siberian tigers conducted by the Hornocker Wildlife Institute.

This is just a sample of the projects on which we have worked with the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Most of our contributions have been handled as

matching grants for Federal funds and often were also matched by other organizations, so that government dollars typically were leveraged 100 percent and sometimes two to one.

We selected the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as a partner in the Save

The Tiger Fund because of this long-term relationship and certain specific qualities,

which I’d like to enumerate for you:

•The Foundation has built an impressive network of conservation experts and

organizations. By so doing, it brings a broad international spectrum of knowledge and resources to environmental projects that most other groups can’t offer.

This has been an important asset for the Save The Tiger Fund program.

•The Foundation provides a forum where business, government and non-profit

organizations can work together harmoniously on conservation projects. By acknowledging that human activity and preservation of the environment have to

co-exist, it operates in an area of shared values and on strong middle ground.

It is an approach we are comfortable with, and one that allows the application

of funds from a wide variety of sources.

• NFWF has a talented and experienced staff whose judgment and project management skills we have come to respect.

• Relative to other non-profit organizations of comparable size, the Foundation’s

overhead costs for activities such as administration and fundraising are low.

In sum, we believe the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation fills a unique and

important role in environmental conservation. We have worked with the Foundation

on many projects, and believe the collaboration has helped channel our resources

to projects where they will do the most good. We appreciate the opportunity to describe our experience and to express our support for this worthwhile organization.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this opportunity

to offer testimony concerning the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation and H.R. 2376, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 1997.
36

STATEMENT OF DON TAYLOR, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND STEWARDSHIP, CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

My name is Don Taylor and I am Vice President of Sustainability and Stewardship for Champion International Corporation. Champion is one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of pulp, paper, and forest products—owning more than 5.3 million acres of forest land in 17 states.

My current responsibilities include management of forestry-related environmental

issues and most recently I managed all of Champion’s U.S. timberlands. The business of forest management is complex at best. To be successful, we and others must

invest in new research to determine the best ways to manage our forests to ensure

protection for all outputs and life forms of the forest.

Champion has had a long and productive relationship with the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation that has allowed our company to participate in many beneficial

environmental projects. I would like to share a few of these success stories with you

today.

Champion joined with the Foundation and Tennessee Tech University, to conduct

a study in the mountains of eastern Tennessee to evaluate the feasibility, relative

costs, and effectiveness of different aquatic survey methods. We feel it is important

to know the status of all biological resources that occur on our property. This study

not only added to the available science and information base, but it also helped develop cost-effective methods that landowners can apply in their own management

efforts.

The Foundation is one of the few organizations that works to involve landowners.

With its support, we have been able to elevate the status of private landowners in

the conservation arena. With simple tools based upon sound science, we can empower private landowners to do their part in the overall effort to protect the nation’s

aquatic resources.

One such tool can be found in a program created in Alabama. Champion and the

Foundation sought to provide common-sense, user-friendly information directly to

those who need it most—private logging contractors, and foresters working with private landowners. To achieve this goal, a resource guide was created. Small enough

to fit in your shirt-pocket, the guide identifies listed species in the state and provides necessary forest management considerations. It is successful because it is free

of the technical and legal jargon that all to often serves to frighten and confuse.

Just last week we released a similar guide for Tennessee, again with the Foundation’s help. Like this field guide, the goal is simple—to put usable information in

the hands of those people who are most likely to encounter listed species on a daily

basis. We plan to produce similar guides for each of the 17 states in which we operate. By taking this approach, we are seeking to involve all concerned citizens in the

protection of species.

Our success with the Foundation has encouraged a number of other agencies and

conservation organizations to join us in these efforts. The Foundation has helped us

with this low-tech approach to endangered species identification and protection that

is building bridges rather than barriers.

This cooperation is best illustrated in Champion’s coordination of an industrywide effort to foster private landowner cooperation for migratory song birds. First

advocated by the Foundation through its Partners In Flight program, the effort has

led 13 forest products companies, representing approximately 35 million acres of private forests, to join with the Foundation for bird conservation. This agreement is

just one more example of the conservation commitments that the private sector can

and will make. Such agreements are possible because of the vision and reputation

of the Foundation.

Lastly, I want to share with the Committee what Champion believes is one of the

most promising models for conservation anywhere in the Nation—Project SHARE in

Maine. Project SHARE, which stands for Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement,

was started 3 years ago as an alternative means to the normal gridlock that often

results with the proposed listing for a new species under the Endangered Species

Act.

In this case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

Service were considering a petition to list the Atlantic salmon as threatened or endangered throughout all or a portion of its range. While some of the advocates for

listing saw a new tool to stop otherwise legitimate land management, private landowners and sportsmen saw the threats of increased management costs, declines in

property values, and regulatory burdens.

Project SHARE was formed by Champion and two other forest products companies

with extensive holdings in the prime salmon habitat of Downeast Maine. Our goal

was not to form a coalition to oppose listing, but rather to create a coalition to ad-
37

dress voluntary habitat restoration and management. Our belief was simple enough:

by supporting the state and Federal agencies whose jurisdiction is the protection of

the species, we could share ideas and alternatives to the normal regulatory approaches that follow species listing. This synergy would give the responsible agencies more options in developing flexible, constructive and beneficial plans.

Today, Project SHARE boasts a long list of cooperators, including state and Federal agencies, universities, sportsmen’s groups, local businesses, blueberry growers,

and the aquaculture industry. To date, the bulk of the funds necessary to meet the

organization’s goals in research, management, and education have come from private landowners. However, active involvement and encouragement by the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation (i.e. keeping key interests at the table and significant

challenge grants) have made SHARE a success beyond our wildest dreams.

From these examples, I hope that Members of the Committee will see that Champion has found its partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to

be very positive. The Foundation is an organization that has a proven track record

of fostering interagency cooperation and coordination. It involves the private sector

and local communities to solve conservation problems from the ground up. It works

toward finding solutions, not filing lawsuits.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation, you have asked that testimony address

H.R. 2376, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 1997. This bill that you and Congressman Abercrombie have introduced,

proposes to amend the underlying statute that created the Foundation in 1984 in

a number of ways. While I will try to address several of those changes, I feel that

I should leave the details of the language to those of you who are trained in that

profession. Of overall importance to us though is that: (1) the authority of the Foundation is continued, as is proposed in the legislation through fiscal year 2001; (2)

the purpose of the Foundation to administer activities that will further the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the Unites States

is unchanged; and (3) the Foundation continues to be able to accept contributions

that are matched with Federal dollars for real, on-the-ground conservation projects.

While your bill, Mr. Chairman, addresses various administrative improvements

for the Foundation, I would like to comment on one aspect of that measure. It seems

if you could eliminate, as much as possible, the political tie that the Foundation’s

board has with each administration, then continuity, neutrality, and the assurance

of tenure for a board member would be provided that may assist with the overall

administration of the Foundation.

In closing, I would like to highlight one final benefit concerning the Foundation.

That is its ability to leverage Federal funds with contributions from non-Federal

partners to maximize the greatest return for the money invested. This is an example that no other conservation organization can claim. The Foundation has earned

the respect of many of us in the forest products industry as a can-do organization.

We are pleased to support its reauthorization.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. MILLER JR., PRESIDENT, MALPAI BORDERLANDS GROUP

It gives me great pleasure to submit to you the facts I know about the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation whose address is 1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite

900, Washington, DC 20036

The Malpai Borderlands Group, a private nonprofit organization of ranchers and

conservationists, received a challenge grant from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation of $76,000, which our Group was required to match with additional private

fundraising in the amount of $304,000.

It became quickly apparent to our board that we had a tremendous amount of

work ahead of us to meet the challenge. However, we knew our program for conservation and economic stability in more than 800,000 acres in Arizona and New

Mexico would require substantial new funding. The early support of National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation gave our small new organization the confidence and financial push that were crucial to our new organization.

Our Mission statement tells our story so well.

‘‘Our goal is to restore and maintain the processes that create and protect a

healthy, unfargmented landscape to support a diverse, flourishing community of

human, plant and animal life in our Borderlands Region.

Together, we will accomplish this by working to encourage profitable ranching and

other traditional livelihoods which will sustain the open space nature of our land for

generations to come.’’

The amazing part of this process was the fact people at the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, would look at a bunch of cowboys, listen to what they had to
38

say, and believe we could proceed into the next century with our ambitious goal.

The judgment of National Fish and Wildlife Foundation paid off, as we found working with a wonderful group of people was an easy process and we actually were able

to raise the matching funds. They have guided us through our continuing problems

and challenges, and have been the main catalyst to starting our work on the land.

The Malpai Group has completed the first challenge grant with National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation and now is in the second round, having just been approved for

a new challenge grant. In the rest of the testimony, I would like to describe several

of the projects made possible through the Fish and Wildlife Foundation support.

These include: reseeding eroded lands with native grasses; protecting endangered

species; and reintroducing fire back into our Borderlands Region after 80 years of

suppression by the Federal agencies. All of these projects come with a price of

money, time, manpower, and space.

A basic program of ours is sponsoring scientific studies to help us understand the

reason for invasion of woody species in our grassland and for the general changes

in our grazing lands. National Fish and Wildlife funding is helping sponsor teams

of scientists from the University of Arizona, University of New Mexico and many

others to set up long term research and monitoring projects to help guide our land

management work.

The creation of grassbanking is a project of ours which has received widespread

national attention. Several ranches in the area have been under severe drought. The

Malpai Borderlands Group was able to purchase grazing rights on a large ranch in

our area, and trade this forage to four ranchers in our area for conservation easements over their private land which Malpai holds to prevent subdivision. These

ranchers then moved their herds onto the grassbank which allowed them to rest

their own land and do other conservation work on their ranches for a period of up

to five years. This process has protected nearly sixty thousand acres of open space

ranch land of which twenty thousand acres are private fee lands. Three ranchers

are now completing the grazing contracts and will be moving their cattle home.

An example of an endangered species project helped by the National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation grants involved the endangered Chiricahua Leopard frog. To

save its habitat on his private land, a neighboring rancher hauled water for several

years to drying ponds crucial for the frog’s survival. The Malpai Borderlands Group

helped this rancher to find funding to drill two wells and install pipelines which

jointly help the frog, other wildlife and the livestock on this desert ranch.

In a third project, the Malpai Group worked with the Arizona State Land Department and the Arizona Department of Game and Fish to root plow and eradicate

woody invasive plants, and replace them with native grass seeded on three hundred

acres. The Malpai Group has successfully completed two prescribed burns across multiple ownership lands, The first was a major undertaking as it was partially in a

Wilderness Study Area, on Bureau of Land Management land, it also affected four

private land owners, the U.S. Forest Service, two state land departments. The prescription for this burn was completed in less than a year. The second fire was done

on twelve thousand five hundred acres, which affected three private landowners, Arizona State Land and the U.S. Forest Service. It took us three years to overcome

the necessary regulations to do this burn. It was very successful and with the process behind us we are working toward a programmatic plan to do both prescribed

burning and work with natural ignited fires. The Malpai Group paid for the state

and private land cost for buying this fire.

With the sighting of a Mexican Jaguar in our Borderlands, the work to protect

is now listed species has opened a new level of involvement with the ranchers in

the region. The Malpai Group has established a depredation fund to pay for livestock which may be lost to the Jaguar. A working relationship with scientists in

Mexico is evolving. The project is now involving us in conservation work in two

countries. This is a new venture and we are hoping to influence additional conservation work in Mexico.

What we have found it that it is amazing what can happen when a group of land

mangers sits down with the agency people, ask a few environmentalists to join in,

and talk about allowing natural fire to burn in a large unfragmented landscape.

With funding, hard work and an open mind we are working to have a proud place

for future generations in the Borderlands region in Southeast Arizona, Southwest

New Mexico and Mexico. With many projects completed, it is apparent that an alternative to litigation with the ability to spend the money on the ground, is the best

process to conserve our natural resources for the future.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is to be congratulated for joining in

as partners with private landowners like us. There are many other conservation opportunities across the West and beyond which can become realities once private
39

landowners have the confidence to take up this work with their own hands. We have

found The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to be good people to work with

in our region, and feel that others will find them to be the same in their area of

the country.

STATEMENT OF TURNSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, LTD., MOSCOW,

IDAHO

Dear Congressman Saxton:

On behalf of all the partners and staff members associated with Turnstone Ecological Research Associates, Ltd., I am writing in support of the reauthorization of

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We credit the National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation for helping us forge strong partnerships with the forest products industry and Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service throughout the Pacific and Inland Northwest. Through this association, we

have erased the ownership boundaries that have long served as barriers to conservation efforts. We feel confident that we are moving toward the day when we can

avoid declines in bird populations long before they become a serious threat to avian

survival.

As a new company in north Idaho (established in 1994), challenge grants from the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have allowed our organization to gain a foothold in the region and expand the scope of our efforts. We now employ three full

time staff and 15 seasonal biologists in north Idaho and cover over 5 million acres

of the north Idaho region. We are also able to support the training and field efforts

of 3 graduate students at the University of Idaho.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has assisted us in establishing and

maintaining peer support, and they have encouraged us to pursue joint research activities. As a result, Turnstone has recently joined forces with the Sustainable Systems Institute, Potlatch Corporation, Boise Cascade, and Plum Creek Timber in an

unparalleled study of the nesting success of songbirds in early successional forests.

We strongly support the efforts of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We

urge you to stand with us in support of reauthorization for this valuable foundation.

They have helped us to grow, to become a part of the north Idaho rural economy,

and to stand as leaders in the conservation field.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Patricia J. Heglund, Ph.D.

President and Senior Ecologist

STATEMENT OF REX SALLABANKS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEMS

INSTITUTE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO

Dear Congressman:

I am writing on behalf of the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI), a non-profit

research organization in the Pacific Northwest, to express our sincere and enthusiastic support for the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

(NFWF). SEI has received research grants from NFWF for the past three consecutive years that have allowed us to conduct important research on the effects of forest

management on bird populations in Idaho.

Given that sustainable wood fiber production and timber harvest are essential to

the prosperity of the people, rural communities, and regional economy here in Idaho,

our research has many important implications and potential benefits for the people

of this state. In addition, as a result of our work, we are better equipped to offer

management recommendations that might revert declines in bird species and populations before they become threatened or endangered. Such proactive management

has the potential to save millions of dollars, entire economies, and the wildlife itself.

None of this would be possible without the support of NFWF.

Partnerships such as those between SEI and NFWF are invaluable if we wish to

continue to research, manage, and conserve the integrity and function of forest ecosystems (and the bird populations that they contain) in the western U.S. Once

again, therefore, we wish to reiterate our support of the reauthorization of NFWF

on September 25. Your consideration of this letter and acknowledgment of our support is most appreciated.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212