Wildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resou.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th online

. (page 1 of 11)
Online LibraryWildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th → online text (page 1 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


\^



A Y4.R 31/3:104-68

NATIONAL nSH AND WILDUFE FOUNDATION



OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE FOUNDATION AND PROJECTS THAT THEY
ARE FUNDING



MAY 16, 199e— WASHINGTON, DC



Serial No. 104-68



Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

0.







U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ^**«*»J;;;^''iS

25-646cc^ WASHINGTON : 1996



^DtJ



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-052878-X



\^



A



Y4.R 31/3:104-68

NATIONAL nSH AND WILDUFE FOUNDATION



OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
ON

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE FOUNDATION AND PROJECTS THAT THEY
ARE FUNDING



MAY 16, 1996-WASHINGTON, DC



Serial No. 104-68



Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources







0,



i::-



04



J996



25-646cc« WASHINGTON : 1996



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ^"^^^n^n^^/ZS Og/)/ /



For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-052878-X



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 ALLARD, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
WES COOLEY, Oregon
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH. Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, CaUfornia
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CaroUna
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington
JACK METCALF, Washington
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada



GEORGE MILLER, CaUfornia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PAT WILLLVMS, Montana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto

Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island



Daniel Val Kish, Chief of Staff

David Dye, Chief Counsel

Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk /Administrator

John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director



Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans



JIM SAXTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
WAYNE T. GILCHEST, Maryland
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
LINDA SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CaroUna
JACK METCALF, Washington
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine



New Jersey, Chairman

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
GEORGE MILLER, CaUfornia
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island



Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel



(II)



CONTENTS



Page

Hearing held May 16, 1996 1

Statement of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho 2

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chair-
man, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 1

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman,

Committee on Resources 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Ashe, Daniel M., Assistant Director of External Affairs, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 6

Prepared statement 34

Bonner, Fred, Garner, NC 30

Prepared statement 86

Eno, Amos, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation .... 8

Prepared statement 40

Exxon Corporation (prepared statement) 94

Cast, Stephen E., Onshore Regional Exploration Manager, Phillips Petro-
leum Company 26

Prepared statement 74

Jarck, Walter, Director of Forestry, Forest Resources, Georgia-Pacific

Corporation 19

Prepared statement 51

Little, Jim, National Cattlemen's Beef Association 28

MacCoU, Eugene Kim, Jr., Vice President, Oregon Wildlife Heritage

Foundation 23

Prepared statement 62

Owen, Carlton, Director, Timberlands Program, Champion Paper Inter-
national 21

Prepared statement 55

Peterson, R. Max, Executive Vice President, International Association

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 10

Prepared statement 48

Additional material supplied:

Christie, John: Article, "Restoration Projects Explore Ways To Improve

Salmon Habitat" 67

Phillips Petroleum Company: Fact sheets 79

Thorn, Barry A., and Kelly M.S. Moore: Article, "North Coast Habitat

Project" 68



(HI)



NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION



THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1996

House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fish-
eries, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Re-
sources,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (Chair-
man of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee will come to order. I want to
thank everybody for being here this morning. We are operating
under some time constraints as we have a Full Committee markup
at eleven o'clock, and so we will certainly try to close by then.

The subject of today's hearing is the effectiveness of the Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. It was established in 1984 as a nonprofit cor-
poration. By way of background, the Foundation's purposes are as
follows: one, to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of
property for the benefit of, or in connection with, the activities of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

And, two, to undertake to conduct such activities that will fur-
ther the conservation and management of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources of the United States and its territories and posses-
sions for future and present generations.

Since the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established,
the Foundation has funded more than 1,200 conservation projects
throughout the United States and, interestingly enough, in 17
other countries. By using a partnership and challenge grant ap-
proach, conservation projects worth more than $168 million have
been funded with $47.4 million in Federal appropriations. This
type of leveraging has helped keep the taxpayers' costs down while
keeping the taxpayers' benefits high.

There has been some criticism of the Foundation over this past
Congress, and I am hoping that this hearing will clear the air. And
I am looking forward to hearing from all of our witnesses about
their experiences with the Foundation.

The minority members I am told are tied up in a Whip meeting,
and so we are going to proceed with their concurrence in their ab-
sence. I would ask unanimous consent at this point that all the
Subcommittee members, whether present or not, be permitted to

(1)



include their opening statements in the record. Hearing no objec-
tion, we will proceed along those lines.
[Statement of Mr. Young follows:!

Statement of Hon. Don Young, a U.S. Representation from Alaska, and
Chairman, Committee on Resources

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you for holding this oversight hearing on
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

While the authorization for the Foundation does not expire until September 30,
1998, it is appropriate that we review the effectiveness of the Foundation, the suc-
cess or failure oi its matching grants program, and whether our taxpayers' money
is being soundly invested.

Since the Foundation was established in 1984, its level of Congressional author-
ization has dramatically increased from $1 million over the first ten years to $25
million per year.

Together with private money, the Foundation has funded more than 1200 con-
servation projects throughout the United States and 17 other countries. The recipi-
ents of these conservation grants have received some $168.2 million, of which $47.4
million was a direct result of Federal appropriations. This is a ratio of $2.37 of non-
Federal money for each Federal dollar appropriated to the Foundation.

In recent years, the Foundation has been involved in several high profile under-
takings. For instance, last September, the Foundation joined the Exxon Corporation
in establishing the "Save the Tiger Fund." The purpose of this fund is to "generate
awareness and raise funds for the tiger's fight for survival."

In my judgment, this is a good project and it complements the effort of those of
us who were successful in having the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of
1994 signed into law.

In addition, the Foundation provided money to several groups involved in the re-
introduction of various wolf populations and for the establishment of the controver-
sial Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

Finally, it is my hope that we vidll learn what changes, if any, are needed to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act. For instance, do we need
to increase the one-for-one matching requirement? Does the Foundation still require
a $25 million per year authorization and should the law be changed to ensure that
money provided by the Foundation is not used for lobbjdng, litigation, or direct mail
appeals? I look forward to receiving the answers to these questions and to the testi-
mony of our distinguished witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Saxton. I would now like to recognize the gentlelady from
Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, who will please come forth. And I know
that we have had private conversations about this issue in the
past. And so if you would like to proceed with your testimony, I un-
derstand you are going to take a little bit more than five minutes,
which is fine. So, Helen, if you would like to proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO

Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Subcommittee. I really appreciate this opportunity to testify
about the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

During my first several months in office, I corresponded with the
Foundation to learn more about how their grants affect Idaho and
other western states with resource-dependent economies. After re-
viewing this information, I have painfully concluded that the Foun-
dation is actively funding the Clinton-Babbitt War on the West and
in some cases promotes corporate welfare. Moreover, some of the
Foundation's internal activities and grants involve political advo-
cacy.

The Foundation was established in 1984 pursuant to H.R. 2809.
However, according to reliable sources at that time. President



Reagan seriously considered vetoing this legislation. In fact, his
March 26, 1984, signing statement for this legislation said, "Enti-
ties which are neither clearly governmental nor clearly private
should not be created. The Supreme Court has recently warned
against constitutional innovations merely because they seem to be
expedient.

"Establishment of the Foundation under the terms of this bill is
an unwise and dangerous precedent. I have given serious consider-
ation to vetoing the bill even though I support its laudable objec-
tives."

The Foundation was originally provided with $100,000 annually
in Federal funds, which, according to former Secretary Manuel
Lujan and others, was intended as one-time seed money. As you
know, the Foundation and its supporters have successfully lobbied
this Congress for more Federal funds and, according to its own an-
nual report, received nearly $11 million in Federal funds in 1995.
This amounts to over 30 percent of its operating budget.

In other words, it raises over two-thirds of its funds from the pri-
vate sector. Its board of directors and advisory committee has in-
cluded such wealthy and prominent figures as Marshall Field,
Perry Pass of Texas, Nancy Weyerhaeuser, Caroline Getty, Tony
Coehlo, and others. Moreover, this list also includes many well-con-
nected former congressional and executive agency officials.

At a time when Congress is forced to make painful cuts in vital
programs for low income people, I cannot in good conscience allow
the Foundation to continue receiving any Federal funds when it is
consistently shown that it is fully capable of financing itself.

Author Alston Chase, in a column last year on the Foundation,
pointed out that America has plenty of philanthropies and does not
need another one. He stated, "By 1993, according to the Environ-
mental Data Institute, there were 1,800 environmental
grantmakers, which, since 1988, made more than 22,000 grants.
Just the top 417 of these givers have combined assets totaling more
than $110 billion and collectively award more than $340 million in
receipts each year."

Mr. Chairman, let Congress balance the budget and allow the
private sector to entirely fund the National Fish and Wildlife Foun-
dation. Last year, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
agreed on this very point. Their report on the Fiscal Year 1996 In-
terior Appropriations bill stated on page 26 that this is the last
year of Federal funding for the Foundation.

Let me explain some of the more egregious Foundation grants
awarded in Idaho that amount to taxpayers paying for gasoline to
pour on the flames of the Clinton-Babbitt War on the West. With
your indulgence, I will provide some specific examples.

Since 1992, the Foundation provided $143,500 in grants to the
Pacific Rivers Council. This is the same group which 16 months
ago, represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, obtained
a decision from a Federal District Judge, in Hawaii by the way,
which temporarily halted all grazing, all mining, and all road-
building activities on six Idaho national forests to protect salmon.
This $143,500 in Foundation grants leveraged the ability of the Pa-
cific Rivers Council to threaten economic terror to 18 of my State's
44 counties.



Although the Foundation will claim it has strict prohibitions
against its grants being given for litigation and lobbying, its grant
money put Pacific Rivers Council in a better position to be involved
in this very devastating litigation. Since Chairman Saxton joined
a majority of the House in supporting the Mclntosh-Istook amend-
ments designed to stop Federal funding of nonprofits that engage
in political advocacy, you are well aware of this abuse by certain
nonprofit groups that receive Federal funds.

Mr. Chairman, I understand at a hearing last month in Gillette,
Wyoming, you heard directly about the vehement opposition of
many Westerners to reintroducing the gray wolves in Wyoming and
central Idaho. Idaho's governor, our congressional delegation, and
the State legislature also strongly oppose this ill-conceived plan.

Unfortunately, the Foundation has provided over $140,000 in re-
cent years toward this effort. Some of this money has gone to radi-
cal groups such as the Wolf Fund and Defenders of Wildlife which
have done much to polarize Westerners on the wolf issue.

Idahoans are also bitterly opposed to the artificial introduction of
grizzlies into Idaho as proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. Our governor and attorney general are actively opposed to this
plan. The Foundation once again has ignored the wishes of Idaho-
ans and has provided grants to the University of Montana, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and others to introduce this critter into
Idaho.

One $10,000 grant was approved by the Foundation's Board on
April 19, 1992, to Dr. Ray Murray of the University of Montana.
Its stated purpose was to "augment the grizzly bear population in
the Cabinet-Yaak Mountains of the northwestern Montana and
Idaho area with bears from British Columbia and to develop a re-
covery plan for grizzly bears in the 5,400 square mile Bitterroot
area in northern Idaho."

I am also appalled the Foundation has awarded millions of dol-
lars to environmental groups that lobby Congress and Federal
agencies daily over the Federal legislation and environmental regu-
lation. According to the book, "Environmentalism at the Cross-
roads," between 1986 and 1995, these environmental groups re-
ceived the following total amounts:

The American Rivers received $55,000; the Center for Marine
Conservation, $94,398; Defenders of Wildlife, $149,000; Environ-
mental Defense Fund, $308,000; the National Audubon Society,
$209,000; Rainforest Alliance, $158,000; and World Wildlife Fund,
$365,580.

Mr. Chairman, these, in large part, are organizations whose an-
nual budget amounts to the tens of millions of dollars. There is a
great concern about the vast amount of Federal ownership of land
and water rights in Idaho since our arid state has already over 60
percent federally owned land.

According to a recent GAO study, the Nature Conservancy and
the Conservation Fund have transferred 18,218 and 63,838 acres
respectively to the Federal Government during the years of 1964
through 1994. Unfortunately, the Foundation has given grants to
both groups which merely puts them in a better financial position
to buy our land and water and to sell it to the Federal Govern-



merit. In the process, already beleaguered rural communities expe-
rience further erosion of their property rights and their tax base.

In fact, the Foundation's Board approved a grant of $100,000 on
November 7, 1993, to the Idaho Nature Conservancy to assist in
the purchase of the 1,450 acres of a flying ranch, and that included
the water rights in the Henry's Fork of the Snake River.

I understand you will hear today from several large corporations
supporting continued Federal funding for the Foundation which
has provided them grant moneys for various worthy projects. This
certainly appears to many to be a form of corporate welfare. I urge
these corporations to get the private sector to fully fund these
projects.

Mr. Chairman, how can I explain to sawmill workers in Orofmo
and St. Maries, Idaho, making a mere $9.50 an hour and whose
very jobs are threatened by the agenda of radical environmental
groups that their hard-earned taxes should fund research for large
corporations that own millions of acres of valuable timberlands?

Mr. Chairman, in summary, I agree with the House Interior Ap-
propriations Subcommittee that Federal funding for the Founda-
tion should terminate at the end of this fiscal year. It is fully capa-
ble of funding itself with private sources.

Idaho taxpayers should not see their tax dollars sent to Washing-
ton, DC, and given to radical environmental groups to inflame the
Clinton-Babbitt War on the West, provide corporate welfare, or to
be used to lobby Congress or take Federal agencies to court. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before your com-
mittee.

Mr. Saxton. Well, thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth, for certainly a
very articulate presentation and a very clear statement as to how
you see this situation. Let me just, if I may, come to the crux of
your testimony and just get you to verify that this is, in fact, your
problem. And if it is not, please clear me up.

The problem here exists, I believe, as you and your constituents
and other folks, particularly in the West, see it, in that the Federal
Government funds this organization which, in turn, uses money,
and I think you might stipulate probably other money that is
raised elsewhere, to fund activities that are beyond the stated stat-
utory purpose that we had in mind or that President Reagan had
in mind when he signed the bill into law. And that those activities
go in a direction which is unintended by the appropriators who ac-
tually make the money available. Is that a fair statement?

Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And to further clarify it,
actually the moneys that are donated by the Fish and Wildlife
Foundation actually free up other moneys in other organizations to
engage in litigation that really is harmful to the economic well-
being of my State — not only the economic well-being, but also the
entire culture and heritage of my State and western states.

When the Foundation is able to free up other money in these or-
ganizations, although they don't directly fund, for instance, litiga-
tion, nevertheless, they are indirectly involved in allowing or pro-
viding the ability for that litigation to occur.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Do other members have questions?

Mr. GiLCHREST. Mrs. Chenoweth, I don't have any specific ques-
tions. I just want to thank you for coming to testify before us this



morning to give us some valuable insight on your perspective con-
cerning the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I think it is a worthy
program, and it is something that probably can do an awful lot of
positive things for the country.

And maybe what is lacking here is what you have provided us
this morning — ^your insight and some better communication be-
tween the Federal Government and the State government that has
pretty clear responsibility over the region that is in their jurisdic-
tion.

I do want to say that you come from a magnificent State, and
I lived in a wilderness cabin between the Lochsa River and the
East Fork of the Moose Creek for quite some time, and it is a spec-
tacular place. So we want on this Subcommittee certainly to work
with you to ensure that the people in Idaho are treated fairly and
the beauty that you have been blessed with is maintained. But
thank you for coming.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. And I do want to
say for the record that I believe this is a worthy cause in large
part. However, the purpose in my appearing before this committee
is to make a statement about the fact that we need to ask our-
selves is funding with Federal taxpayers' fund the proper role for
the Federal Government to be engaged in — this kind of activity. So
I thank you very much.

Mr. Gilchrest. And I think that is a good question to raise.

Mr. Saxton. Mr. Torkildsen.

Mr. Torkildsen. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Saxton. All right. Well, listen. Thank you very much, Helen,
for being here with us this morning. We appreciate the time that
you have spent, not just today, but over the past months on this
issue, and you will be hearing more from us.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.

Mr. Saxton. I would like to now introduce our next panel of wit-
nesses — no strangers to this Subcommittee. Mr. Dan Ashe, Assist-
ant Director of External Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr.
Amos Eno who is the Executive Director of the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation; and Mr. R. Max Peterson, Executive Director
of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Wel-
come. You have heard the previous testimony. Would you like to
proceed? We will start with Mr. Ashe.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. ASHE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to have the op-
portunity to present our views on the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. In a nutshell, the Foundation is doing an outstanding
job. It has pioneered and practically perfected the common sense
concept of public-private partnerships for conservation.

There are many examples, but a few of them are outlined in my
testimony — the Malpai Borderlands Group in Arizona and New
Mexico, which is demonstrating how to manage rangelands for cat-
tle, hunting, and biological diversity. This is an effort which is real-
ly spearheaded by landowners and ranchers themselves.

Cooperative demonstration projects in Wyoming and Utah that
involve landowners, big game and livestock interests, and State



and Federal land managers; grants to the TREE Foundation in
Maine that are helping to bring together major timber companies
and conservation groups in common conservation efforts.

The Foundation also is able to provide financial assistance to the
Fish and Wildlife Service for a variety of projects for which we sim-
ply cannot afford to do on our own. Some of this assistance is small
like a $15,000 grant from the Foundation and outside sources to


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Online LibraryWildlife United States. Congress. House. Committee on ResouNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation : oversight hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on the effectiveness of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and projects th → online text (page 1 of 11)