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 3 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 3 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Mr. Peterson can. I really respect the work that he has done and
that he continues to do, and I was very pleased to hear his testi-
mony, as well as all of the gentlemen's testimonies.

But I do think that we need to be — probably everyone who issues
grants needs to be a little careful upfront as to how that money is


being used because when you have a governor of a State, the entire
legislature, and the entire congressional delegation objecting to a
project that may be funded by the organization, then it doesn't
place the organization in the best light. Admittedly, these are only
a small portion of your activities, but it sheds a dark shadow.

I do want to ask Mr. Ashe, according to the Foundation's 1995
annual report, a William Ashe is listed as the Foundation employee
assigned to work on special projects. Is he related to you?

Mr. Ashe. He is my father. He is related to me. I would just say
if my father has spent 40 plus years in the conservation field, it
would be hard for me and my work to avoid crossing tracks with
my father from now and then.

And I would also point out that I am not here today to represent
my personal views. I am representing the views of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Inte-
rior and not my personal views. And neither do I in my job have
any direct control over the Foundation or influence over the Foun-
dation at all.

Mr. Peterson. Might I say something on that?

Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.

Mr. Peterson. I know Mr. Ashe who retired from the Fish and
Wildlife Service after a distinguished career; he has been one of the
most cooperative people we have ever worked with. Unfortunately,
he had major brain surgery a few years ago which he is recovering
from now and is doing a splendid job up in the Northeast working
with the Foundation. He is one of the people that I consider one
of the heroes of the conservation movement and a very fine co-
operator with states and with others.

Mrs. Chenoweth. I can understand the son not wanting to cross
his father because I have fond memories of a father who I just re-
cently lost, and I am so glad you still have yours. I just wanted to
establish that for the record.

Mr. Ashe, I also wanted to ask you. Secretary Babbitt appointed
a New York investor, a Paul Tudor Jones, II, to the Foundation's
board of directors in 1994, and he still serves on the board. In
1990, Mr. Jones pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in Federal Dis-
trict Court for a violation of the Clean Water Act involving the fill-
ing of wetlands on his 3,000 acre Tudor Farms property on Mary-
land's eastern shore.

Part of Mr. Jones's plea bargaining included $1 million in court-
ordered restitution which was channeled through the Foundation.
My research indicates that this $1 million in court-ordered restitu-
tion made its way to the Conservation Fund of Arlington, Virginia,
to purchase Barren Island in Chesapeake Bay and sell it to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for expansion of the Blackwater Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge.

My question is do you believe it was ethical for Secretary Babbitt
to appoint Mr. Jones to the board after he had used his $1 million
court-ordered restoration as a donation to the Foundation?

Mr. Ashe. Well, I think Amos wants to respond also, but I will
say without — I guess I would prefer to let the Secretary speak for
himself in that regard. But Mr. Jones, before he was affiliated with
the Foundation, was involved in this infraction and this settlement.


And I think just like sinners are welcome to the temple, I think,
you know, that Mr. Jones made a mistake. He made restitution,
and he has subsequently become involved and an active partner in
conservation. And I think Mr. Jones and Amos and the Foundation
should be applauded for their efforts in that regard.

Mr. Eno. May I respond in part because I think I can get to the
heart of your question? First of all, Mr. Jones's $1 million was not
a contribution of the Foundation. It was a court-settlement fee.
That is the first issue.

Mrs. Chenoweth. That is right. That is part of my question.

Mr. Eno. And it had nothing to do — it wasn't a donation, and it
went — the court ordered that money go to acquire and enhance
Blackwater Refuge. The Conservation Fund was just a vehicle. The
second issue here, and this is a very famous case — it has been in
every publication, and many conservatives have used Mr. Jones as
an example of overzealous regulations in the Clean Water Act.

And this is a man who operates a banking firm on a 51st floor
in New York, and his on-site manager goofed and was nailed. But
he is a committed conservationist and is one of the largest support-
ers of fish and wildlife and, particularly, hunting and fishing con-
servation projects in the country. So I do not think there is any-
thing unethical — to be wrong here. The man paid his fine and has
gone about his business.

Mrs. Chenoweth. I don't question his dedication to conservation.
What I do question is that four years after the $1 million restitu-
tion fund, he was appointed to the board. I find that odd. And, you
know, it is interesting. This seems strange, and I do hear you, Mr7
Chairman. But this seems strange.

In Idaho, the average income is about $19,000 a family, and yet
the board awarded $25,000 of an $80,000 grant to a Mr.
Weyerhaeuser — Rick Weyerhaeuser, the son of Nancy
Weyerhaeuser. You know, it is just real hard for those of us who
come from states where people don't make a whole lot of money to
understand why taxpayer-contributed dollars go to these kinds of
activities and these people could well afford.

Mr. Eno. Well, that kind of activity, for example, was a grant to
highlight the community development programs that are going on
in Africa that are directly pertinent to rural communities like
Idaho and Montana and the West. A lot of South Africans are way
ahead of the United States in setting up programs that protect ani-
mals but give local communities a piece of the action.

Part of the fees for conservation when hunters go to hunt a given
area go to the community. They train the guides. And that grant
was given in direct reaction to concerns raised by this committee
in hearings two or three years ago, and it was a fundamentally
good grant. And there were no Federal funds used. It was all pri-
vate fundraising.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has ex-
pired. Mr. Gilchrest will be the next questioner. While Mr.
Gilchrest is getting ready, I would just follow up on Mrs.
Chenoweth's last point. I know of an incidence in New Jersey that
is quite similar to this island acquisition.

A chemical company in New Jersey was cited for violation of cer-
tain laws, and their restitution was to make a substantial contribu-


tion to the Trust for Public Land for conservation projects around
the Barnegat Bay. And, you know, I am glad that these moneys are
funneled into productive uses.

Mr. Eno. We are receiving more and more mitigation funds. We
have one coming in right now from Pennsylvania involving a pipe-
line company — Iroquois Pipeline. And the money — we funnel it
back into conservation to put it to good use. I think it is a very im-
portant purpose and role for the Foundation.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Gilchrest, it is your turn.

Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Tudor Jones sit-
uation on the eastern shore in Dorchester County was to a large
extent — I guess at least to some extent — misunderstood by an
awful lot of people. It was a very complicated situation. I think Mr.
Jones is, for the most part, a very interesting character.

To the extent that he is dedicated to conservation is probably rel-
atively apparent except sometimes he is — especially in the case on
the eastern shore, I think some things were done with his not fully
understanding what the contract was doing, what the Corps want-
ed to be done or needed to be done, and what the local community
expected from the project.

But I think it was after pulling teeth from a fully conscious rhino
with a small pair of pliers that he purchased not at Wal-Mart but
at a local store owned by local people, I think Mr. Jones has some
recognition of what finally happened.

I think the Tudor Jones situation, the situation with the Wildlife
Foundation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and other organizations is
that I think we have reached a point in understanding the essen-
tial urgency in conservation. But what is amply needed now from
all sides is a very positive, aggressive form of communication be-
tween all entities that might be involved in a specific situation.
That is the Federal Government. That is the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Fish and Wildlife Foundation, local governments, local pri-
vate landowners.

We really need to begin to sit down around the table and discuss
situations so that everybody feels that they are fully represented,
and that everybody feels that everybody knows what is going on.
An awful lot of times people down the street, down the country
road have no idea what is happening, and that is the problem with
a lot of misrepresentation.

It took me a long time to figure out what was going on on Tudor
Farms over there in Dorchester County. And I went and visited the
place, and it took me at least four hours to get some sense of what
was happening. And that was after the experts were telling me
what was happening. I can imagine the people up the road that
didn't have that opportunity to figure out what was going on.

I just have a couple of quick questions, and I haven't resolved in
my own mind the fact that we do need an awful lot of private sec-
tor dollars put into this. And if there is Federal tax dollars spent
on this, we have to make sure that it is done as efficiently as pos-
sible and is certainly going to benefit those people who are on the
ground in the immediate area.

Let us see. If I can get in three quick questions. The situation
in Arizona and New Mexico, Malpai, where, Mr. Ashe, you men-
tioned where the Fish and Wildlife Foundation is involved in a


project that deals with managing the public lands as far as grazing
and a number of other activities are concerned.

Could you tell us in what aspect are you involved with the ranch-
ers with the grazing activities? Are they on public lands? Is it man-
aging the public lands for grazing on BLM land? That is a big issue
up here in Congress, and we are dealing with a bill right now that
has some major consequences.

And what you are doing in those two areas, Arizona and New
Mexico, is that related at all to the bill that is going through Con-
gress now? And is there any input you can give to us on how to
improve the bill that we are getting ready to vote on?

Mr. Ashe. Well, without commenting on the bill itself, and I am
sure Amos can elaborate on this as well, it certainly has relevance
to the issue of grazing and public and private land management.
The Malpai Group actually is principally focused on private lands —
about 100,000. The management strategy covers about 100,000
acres, most of that in private ownership. But it also involves the
Bureau of Land Management and one of our small refuges, about
a 2,400 acre San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge.

So we have got all the landowners, private landowners, public
land managers together in one process in a cooperative experiment
on how to manage land for truly multiple purposes, benefiting wild-
life, benefiting sportsmen and big game hunters, and benefiting the
extractive users and the grazers who are dependent upon that land

Mr. GiLCHREST. Is that at all pertinent as far as the manage-
ment of that land to the legislation — the Senate version or the
House version?

Mr. Eno. Congressman, if you will let me, I don't think so. It is
a model though of how things should be done. Malpai is an organi-
zation created by 40 different ranchers in the boot heel of New
Mexico and the adjoining area in Arizona. They do have leases on
both Forest Service and BLM lands. There is a small refuge in the

And it is a very dry, arid area, and they have come to the table
cooperatively with both the Federal Government and the State gov-
ernment to work out a consensus for grazing, fire management,
and reseeding the grasses of these areas in a rotation so it allows
one landowner to shift his cows to another owner's pasture to rest
the former pasture and back and forth.

Mr. GiLCHREST. Is there a critique or a summary or a report of

Mr. Eno. We can provide everything in our files on it. We have
a number of reports on the grant which has been a year ongoing.
There have been a number of public articles on this. And I would
just point out the Foundation really was the first entity that
stepped forward to fund this as a prototype for a new way of ranch-
ing cooperatively.

Mr. Peterson. Let me relate this to the bigger effort I mentioned
earlier, the seeking common ground effort. Our association has
been involved in the effort for about eight years now in trying to
bring together ranchers on private and public land. People are con-
cerned about big game particularly where you sometimes get con-


flicts with cattle on winter ranges and that type of thing, to try to
work out solutions. It does involve both private and public land.

The Foundation has been sort of an advisor on the effort and
have given grants in certain specific locations for projects. But the
effort has primarily involved the State fish and wildlife agencies,
the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management and

It does relate to the grazing bill that is now pending. I have tes-
tified before this committee that I think the bill that came from the
Senate is a very bad bill even for the ranchers because it attempts
to set up a priority use for ranchers on public land, which is going
to create a tremendous backlash in the West because there is a
feeling that everybody should have an equal opportunity to use the
public land.

I have been a strong advocate for ensuring that ranchers have
stability, that they have permits, that they have an opportunity to
remain on the ranch and so on. And, unfortunately, the "Cattlefree
in '93" type of thing from ardent environmental groups caused a
great problem in the west.

But the solution, in my view, is not the proposed legislation. The
solution is to get people out there, as you say, communicating and
working together. And the statewide groups that have now been
formed to look at ranching and grazing have been very much of a
help to that effort. The Foundation has been, I would say, an im.-
portant player in that, but a fairly minor player in terms of helping
provide some advice and assistance.

Mr. GiLCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. We
are now running a little bit late. Thank you very much. We are
going to move on to the next two panels actually in order to facili-
tate this process. Panels three and four will be combined.

And if I may ask those folks to come forward starting with Mr.
Jack Jarck, the Director of Forestry in Forest Resources, Georgia-
Pacific Corporation; Mr. Carlton Owen, Director of Timberlands
Program, Champion Paper International; Mr. Eugene Kim
MacColl, Jr., of VanRosky, MacColl; Mr. Stephen Gast, Onshore
Regional Exploration Manager of the Phillips Petroleum Company;
Mr. Jim Little, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association; and Mr.
Fred Bonner of Gamer, North Carolina. Mr. Jarck, you may begin.


Mr. Jarck. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Walter Jarck.
I am the Director of Forestry for Georgia-Pacific Corporation in At-
lanta, Georgia. Georgia-Pacific is a Fortune 100 forest products
company with an ownership of almost 6 million acres of managed
forest lands.

I appreciate the chance to speak with you on behalf of the Fish
and Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation is an important ally and
asset to Georgia-Pacific as we grapple with the challenging natural
resource issues.

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex situation, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to say that our partnerships with the Foundation rep-
resent conservation the way it should be done; that is, conservation


without regulation, without the taking of private land, and without
the heavy hand of government.

Instead, conservation based on voluntary participation where the
partners come to the table to identify mutual, agreeable solutions
that benefit natural resources while also protecting our economic
interests. I submit that the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
provides a model for the way the government can, and should,
interact with the private sector to conserve our nation's natural re-

Georgia-Pacific is a partner with the Foundation on many con-
servation projects, but I would like to highlight two in particular.
The first involves a development of a Habitat Conservation Plan —
we call it an HCP — in Wisconsin for the federally endangered
Kamer blue butterfly. The second involves conservation of the At-
lantic salmon and its habitat in Maine.

These two very different projects epitomize the kind of natural
resource challenges, we as a corporation, face. These projects also
illustrate the power of cooperative solutions forged by decisionmak-
ing at the local levels.

In both projects, we actively pursued participation with the Na-
tional Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We did this for these reasons:
First, the Foundation has matched our funds and those of the for-
est products companies for research, monitoring, and management
activities that were critical to the success of these conservation

In Wisconsin, on the Kamer blue butterfly HCP, the Foundation
provided $33,500 in matching funds to the $67,000 in private funds
contributed by Georgia-Pacific and eight other forest products com-

Even more importantly, the very promise of matching funds from
the Foundation enabled us to secure participation and funding
from smaller companies that would in other situations not have
contributed to this project.

Second, the Foundation serves as a credible and unbiased third
party to help manage projects associated with conservation pro-
grams. Third, the Foundation acts as an effective liaison between
the forest products company, the Federal and State agencies, uni-
versities, private conservation and environmental groups with
whom we have to work on in making this HCP.

Finally, we invited participation by the Foundation because they
are skilled natural resource professionals who seek innovative solu-
tions to natural resource challenges. Now, it would be very easy for
Georgia-Pacific to simply sell the land in which the endangered
species are found and walk away. In some cases, we have done
this. We just relieved ourselves of that responsibility in the past.

However, in a vast majority of cases, Georgia-Pacific does not see
this as a viable solution for the future. Our preference is to use our
expertise and that of our partners to develop solutions that con-
serve natural resources but also maintain or enhance the economic
values of our lands.

We do not feel that natural resource conservation and economic
return are mutually exclusive goals. We do feel that traditional ap-
proaches and mind-sets to conservation — those that emphasize con-
frontation and litigation — have created this artificial dichotomy.


Too often, the business and conservation communities meet for
the first time in the courtroom with battlelines drawn to fight an
expensive legal battle that could be avoided. We would prefer that
our financial resources go on on-the-ground conservation rather
than in legal fees. Given the opportunity, Georgia-Pacific will do
this. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation helps create those
opportunities for us.

We sought the partnership with the Foundation because it
shares our desire for innovative, tradition-breaking solutions, as in
this case with the statewide HOP which involved all the land-
owners. As it turns out, the forest products industry has the poten-
tial to contribute to conservation of the Karner blue butterfly in a
very meaningful way and also complements our primary function
which, of course, is harvesting timber.

I was going to spend some time talking about the main project
with the Project SHARE, which is the Salmon Habitat And River
Enhancement. I understand my colleague here, Mr. Owen, is going
to talk about that so I will defer to him.

Over the past several years, Mr. Chairman, we have worked with
the Foundation on eight separate conservation projects ranging
from the Louisiana black bear conservation to environmental edu-
cation at the Atlanta Zoo. We have passed through more than
$125,000 to the Foundation for conservation projects around the
country. This is certainly a case of putting our money where our
mouth is in terms of support for the National Fish and Wildlife

Georgia-Pacific works with the Foundation because they make
good things happen. They share Georgia-Pacific's proactive ap-
proach to conservation. They share Georgia-Pacific's quest for mar-
ket-driven incentives for conservation. They share Georgia-Pacific's
commitment to conservation that is compatible with an integral
part of our nation's economy. So it is with great pleasure, Mr.
Chairman, that we speak in support of the National Fish and Wild-
life Foundation. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Jarck may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Jarck. I would also like to just
thank your organization, as well as the International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, for the great cooperative role you
have played with some of us in trying to fashion an Endangered
Species Act reauthorization bill. Your organizations have been most
helpful. Mr. Owen, if you would like to proceed at this time? We
are anxious to hear from you.


Mr. Owen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Sub-
committee. We too appreciate the opportunity to speak about the
National Fish and WildUfe Foundation. I am Carlton Owen, and I
am Director of Wildlife and Resource Issues with Champion Inter-
national Corporation. We too are a major manufacturer of pulp,
paper, and forest products and also one of the largest private forest
landowners in the nation. We own about 5.3 million acres in 17


Today, I would like to just share three examples of activities
where we are cooperating with the Foundation and three very dif-
ferent types of opportunities. The first is research. Research is crit-
ical to making better resource management decisions for the fu-

The Foundation is partnering with us in the State of Tennessee
to determine new survey methodologies to allow private forest
landowners to better protect critical aquatic resources. The results
of these studies will not only be applicable upon Champion land,
but upon the lands of other private landowners and enlist them in
the conservation arena.

In the area of education, we have been joined by the Foundation
on a project in the State of Alabama where we have sought to pro-
vide common sense, user friendly information directly to those who
need it most — loggers and private foresters working on private
lands. And you have just been handed the publication that was a
result of that project.

That full-color, shirt-pocket-sized guide does more than just pro-
vide some pretty pictures about endangered species. It brings
loggers and foresters into the conservation of those species by re-
moving fear, showing them what species they need to be address-
ing, and providing the forestry considerations that they need to
know about to do their job.

In a conservation-cooperation arena in an ideal world, sufficient
incentives would be in place for private landowners to actively be
participants in species conservation. Unfortunately, because of the
way the Endangered Species Act has been implemented, the threat
of an endangered species being found on private property evokes vi-
sions of horror by most private citizens.

We, like many others, including the Foundation, are seeking new
ways to approach protection and management of those species on
private land. We would like to bring to your attention Project
SHARE, as mentioned by Mr. Jarck, in the State of Maine.

Project SHARE was formed by Champion, Georgia-Pacific, and

1 3 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 3 of 11)