    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        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

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     46-178 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         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       NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
        Carolina                         SAM FARR, California
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
                        Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
                        John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
                        Jean Flemma, Democratic Counsel

                                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

        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 Fisheries
                Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee 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 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 state-wide 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.
        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 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-

    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-

    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 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 mark-
    up 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 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 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.
        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 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.
        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-

    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
    expand 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 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 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. 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 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?
        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 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 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, 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 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?

    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 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.
        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
    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.]
     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 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 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 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-

    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-

    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.
        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
    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 non-governmental 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 coral-reef 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 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-

    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-
    state-private 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-

    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.
                                    ------

          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 industry-wide 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-

    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 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 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.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.112

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.113

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.114

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.115

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.116

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.117

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.118

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.119

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.120

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.121

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.122

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.123

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.124

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.125

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.126

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.127

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.128

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.129

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.130

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.131

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.132

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.133

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.134

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.135

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.136

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.137

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.138

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.139

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.140

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.141

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.142

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.143

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.144

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.145

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.146

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.147

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.148

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.149

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.150

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.151

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.152

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.153

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.154

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.155

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.156

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.157

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.158

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.159

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.160

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.161

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.162

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.163

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.164

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.165

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.166

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.167

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.168

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.169

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.170

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.171

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.172

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6178.173