[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