SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
46–178 CC l

1998

HEARING ON H.R. 2376, THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ESTABLISHMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

of the

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–54
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director
JOHN RAYFIELD, Legislative Staff
JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Counsel

C O N T E N T S

    Hearing held September 25, 1997

Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Prepared statement of

Statement of Witnesses:
Adler, Jonathan, Director of Environmental Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Prepared statement of
Ahnert, Edward F., President, Exxon Education Foundation
Prepared statement of
Clark, Jamie Rappaport, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Prepared statement of
Eno, Amos, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Prepared statement of
Fullwood, Charles R., North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, prepared statement of
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Glaser, Don, Executive Director, Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission
Prepared statement of
Hoover, Lois Van, Idaho Multiple Land Use Coalition
Prepared statement of
Miller, William C., Jr., President, Malpai Borderlands Group
Prepared statement of
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, prepared statement of
Sallabanks, Rex, Ph.D., Director, Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Meridian, Idaho, prepared statement of
Taylor, Don R., Vice President, Sustainability and Stewardship, Champion International Corporation
Prepared statement of
Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Prepared statement of
Turnstone Ecological Research Associates, Ltd., Moscow, Idaho, prepared statement of
Yozell, Sally, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce
Prepared statement of

Additional material submitted:
Text of H.R. 2376
Disclosure requirements

HEARING ON H.R. 2376, THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ESTABLISHMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
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.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 necessary 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.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [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 partially 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.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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?
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 Federal, 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.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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?
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.]

 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [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.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 Management 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.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 increase 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.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 conservation 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.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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, 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.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    • 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.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 address 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.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.

INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 173 HERE