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 4 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 4 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Baskahegan Company nearly two years ago to address salmon
habitat conservation in Downeast Maine. Our goal was not to form
a coalition to oppose listing of a species, but rather to form a coali-
tion to address voluntary habitat restoration.

Our belief was simple; if we could support the State and Federal
agencies that have responsibility for protection of the species and
show alternatives to the normal regulatory approaches that follow
species listing, then the responsible agencies would have more op-
tions to develop flexible, constructive, and potentially beneficial
plans for recovery.

Today, Project SHARE boasts a list of more than two dozen co-
operators, including State and Federal agencies, universities,
sportsmen's groups, local businesses, blueberry growers, and the
aquaculture industry. As a result of what we believe is one of the
models of conservation in the country, the Federal agencies have
now recommended a course of action that could substantially limit
regulatory burdens while strengthening the potential for focus on
the wildlife resource itself. We have also provided you with a docu-
ment about our experiences with endangered species, and the back
panel highlights our activities around Project SHARE.


While the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is far broader
than these three specific examples we bring to your attention
today, we believe that each are examples of the type of activities
that engendered conservation's success in this country.

First, the Foundation is leveraging funds and encouraging re-
search that will help develop a platform of peer reviewed, sound
science to aid in management of the nation's natural resources.
Secondly, the Foundation's staff and board have recognized that en-
listing everyone in the protection of the nation's natural resources
is critical to success. Education and information materials such as
those that we have jointly developed for loggers are serving to en-
list others for conservation.

And, finally, our experience with Project SHARE supported in
large part by the Foundation stands as a shining example of the
potential to build bridges for conservation; to take an inclusive ap-
proach to species recovery; and to explore new and more productive
ways to address endangered species protection. The Foundation is
an invaluable resource for us in promoting the role of the private
sector in conservation.

While the Foundation's funds are critical in leveraging additional
financial resources for projects like those we have described, there
is another and perhaps even more important benefit. The National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation provides credibility and creativity
that brings" private corporations, not-for-profit conservation inter-
ests, and government agencies together for the good of conserva-
tion. Our experience suggests that the Foundation is achieving im-
portant results that will prove increasingly important to the cause
of resource conservation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Owen. Mr. MacColl.


Mr. MacColl. Thank you very much. I am Kim MacColl. I am
the Vice President of the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation. We
are a private 501[c][3] foundation based in Portland. We are a vol-
unteer organization. We are made up of business leaders, profes-
sionals, ranchers, private citizens. I am here today as a private citi-
zen. I would like, of course, to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to speak with you this morning.

Mr. Saxton. Mr. MacColl, could you repeat the name of the orga-
nization that your firm represents?

Mr. MacColl. Yes. By the way, I am an attorney, and our firm —
I am not here representing anybody. I am here as the Vice Presi-
dent of the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you.

Mr. MacColl. Over the past three years, I have become well ac-
quainted with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation because
during this time period, our foundation has received two grants of
$100,000 each for salmon habitat restoration in the north and
midcoast regions of Oregon. Our goal is to stop the decline of salm-
on runs in both Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

These two grants from the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion have allowed us to go to private landowners, timber compa-


nies, various State agencies, and other local foundations for the
purpose of forging a partnership. This partnership has raised over
$300,000 in local funds as part of the required two-for-one match
of any National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant.

We have hired biologists to work with the private landowners
and the timber companies to finalize all restoration plans. Also,
during the summer of 1995, approximately 25 significant habitat
restoration projects were completed as part of the North Coast
Habitat Restoration Project.

During the summer of 1996, it is estimated that another 30 sites
will be restored in the north coast region, while habitat restoration
efforts will commence on another 40 to 50 sites in the midcoast re-
gion of which, I might point out, Georgia-Pacific is an active partic-

Needless to say, this was and still is a major undertaking. But
to be quite candid, most of this effort probably never would have
happened had it not been for the National Fish and Wildlife Foun-
dation. No other organization was willing to step up and create the
kind of major support that we needed in order to convince the

Mr. Saxton. Would you just stop there for just a minute, you
made a very pointed statement there saying that this probably
would have never happened without the Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion. Tell us why.

Mr. MacColl. About three years ago, we were trying to find a
way in Oregon to do something for the declining salmon, trout, and
steelhead runs. We are in constant contact with the Oregon De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife, and they kept saying, "We have to
do something about habitat. If we don't improve the habitat, we are
not going to improve the fishing situation."

So we started looking around and talking to various State agen-
cies, local foundations to try and find a way to raise money to put
a project together that would do this because the Oregon Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife, with a limited budget, kept saying, "We
can't afford the biologists that you need to do the restoration plans.
We don't have the manpower to do this. You have to go find money,
and then we can get the biologists to put the plans together, to
then go to the private landowners, the farmers, the ranchers, the
timber companies." And we said OK.

So we talked to the Audubon Society. We talked to the Nature
Conservancy. We had a lot of informal discussions. The most we
could get a commitment for was something in the neighborhood of
5 to 10 to $15,000. Well, that just wasn't going to do it.

I was acquainted with the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, and I made some phone calls. I had a meeting when Amos
Eno came through Portland. He said, "Kim, this sounds like a great
program, and we would probably be interested." And the numbers
we were talking about were six figure numbers.

When we went back to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild-
life, they said, "Those are the kind of numbers we have got to have
to do this because it is a multiyear thing. You don't go in and re-
store habitat in one year and then turn it off because the salmon
situation is a four to six year timeframe. The steelhead situation
is a three to five year timeframe. You have got to do the habitat.


Then you have got to watch through the whole life cycle of the

So, in a nutshell, that is why we did what we did, and we are
in the process now — we are in the middle of the north coast project.
We are about to start — I am sorry. We are in the middle of the
north coast, and we are about to start the midcoast.

I will try and shorten my remarks. You have heard about the
leveraging aspect. What you are hearing a lot about is 1 to 2, 1 to
2.7, 1 to 3. What about all the in-kind contributions that these
companies and individuals are making that never show up on the
bottom line?

We have timber companies in the State of Oregon putting thou-
sands and thousands of dollars into habitat restoration, and we are
not getting credit for it with the National Fish and Wildlife Foun-
dation. We are getting credit for maybe about five percent of it.

What about all the volunteer hours that people are putting in
just in the State of Oregon in terms of the Oregon Wildlife Herit-
age Foundation and some of our other citizen groups that are work-
ing on this? I am here today two days out of my law practice. I am
not getting paid for this. I am not getting a write-off". IRS isn't
going to, you know, get any more or any less from me because I
am here today.

It is the volunteers that are out there. Above and beyond the
$168 million that you hear about, how about the hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars from all the volunteers that are out there trying to
help our conservation effort in this country today?

Moving on, it is an incredibly flexible program. It is user friend-
ly. I haven't encountered any red tape or bureaucracy in the last
three years. I could sit here and tell you about stories from the bi-
ologists in the State of Oregon who are trying to work with Jobs
in the Woods programs and whatnot that get bogged down in red
tape. The money gets held up. We have got our money. It is coming
through. We are doing these projects.

You have heard about public-private partnerships. I am not
going to say any more about that. We are a spitting example of the
very essence of a public-private partnership, and we are certainly
not, as we also heard this morning, a radical environmental group
out there. We are working with these corporations and with the
private landowners. We are not involved in litigation. We are not
involved in fighting. According to Congressman Gilchrest, we are
the positive, aggressive communicators that are trying to pull all
this together.

Lastly, I am just going to conclude by saying that the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation provides a vision for the future of
conservation in America, which, in our view, encompasses healthy
habitat, abundant fish runs, enhanced angling and hunting oppor-
tunities, public and private partnerships, and also economic oppor-
tunities for those areas in Oregon and the Northwest that have
been hardest hit by reduced timber harvesting and poor fisheries.

If we can rebuild the poor fisheries, then we can rebuild some of
the economies in some of these areas that have been so hard hit.
I would like to see the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ex-
panded. We are talking about the future of conservation in Amer-
ica, and I think it provides the framework to do that. Thank you.


[Statement of Mr. MacColl may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Saxton. Mr. MacColl, thank you very much. Mr. Gast.


Mr. Gast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Saxton. I interrupted and I won't do that again, and that
is why I let Mr. MacColl go on. But please try to be mindful of
those lights. I know you can't miss them. Thank you.

Mr. Gast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Sub-
committee. We are all concerned about effective utilization of lim-
ited public funds, and we are also concerned about our environ-
ment. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is successful in
addressing both of these at the same time.

I am Steve Gast. I am an Exploration Manager for the Eastern
U.S. Onshore Region for Phillips Petroleum Company. I am based
in Houston, Texas. At the same time, I am also Vice President for
the Houston Audubon Society Chapter, one of the largest in the
U.S., and a member of the National Audubon Society for 29 years
now. My primary responsibilities with Phillips are evaluating and
recommending oil and gas prospects and overseeing the exploration
activities over those.

Phillips is an integrated petroleum company engaged in explo-
ration and production, chemicals distribution and production world-
wide, and in the U.S., we are involved in the natural gas business
in a large way, and also in refining, marketing, and transportation
of petroleum products.

Phillips was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, with employees numbering around 17,400.
I am pleased to represent Phillips Petroleum before this Sub-
committee this morning and to share with you how my company
and the Foundation are working together in partnership.

Moreover, I am Phillips' representative directly to one of the
many programs we are involved in. This is the Gulf Coast Bird Ob-
servatory. This is a partnership that is working to protect habitat
for migratory songbirds. When the concept of the Gulf Coast Bird
Observatory was conceived in 1992, its primary mission was to en-
hance and protect habitat for migratory birds along the Chenier
Plain, as well as to conduct research and educational outreach on
these birds.

The Chenier Plain is a narrow strip of land along the southeast
on the coast of Texas and the southwest coast of Louisiana, and it
is one of the most important ecosystems for a wide variety of North
America's migrating birds.

Now, that work is well underway along the Chenier Plain, the
observatory is broadening its mission. The partnership is aggres-
sively working to identify, protect, and enhance habitat for all
birdlife along the entire Gulf Coast, from Florida to Mexico.

And although the bird observatory is just one of many projects
in which Phillips Petroleum Company is cooperating with the
Foundation, it exemplifies three very important contributions that
the Foundation is making to wildlife conservation.

First, it represents how public funds can be leveraged to create
greater financial support for a project and to build larger, more ef-


fective partnerships. Since 1992, the Foundation has contributed
over $150,000 to the observatory effort. In matching, the partner-
ship has raised more than $750,000 over the same period.

That means for every dollar of public money contributed by the
Foundation, the partnerships has been able to raise almost $5 from
other sources. And, moreover, this does not include in-kind dona-
tions of manpower and donated time by volunteers. And even more
significantly, this does not include a 155-acre donation made by
Amoco, one of our partners, which was valued at over $700,000.

If the value of this is included, this one project, the partnership
raised in excess of $9 for every dollar of public funds from the
Foundation. Now, this level of matching does not reflect in the
Foundation's records, but this is the reality of the success of these

The Foundation brings credibility to these projects. Donors are
often much more likely to contribute to a program when they learn
it has the support of the Foundation. That is one of the main rea-
sons we have been successful in raising funds for our programs.

Second, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation represents
the benefits of working in partnership. The Foundation is the cata-
lyst that brings together diverse organizations to solve common
problems. The observatory is a good example. This partnership, I
think, is a very unique alliance in that it involves three State and
Federal agencies two nonprofit conservation organizations and two
petroleum companies all seeking a common goal.

On issues outside the partnership, certainly we are going to have
differing opinions sometimes. However, within the partnership, we
are all committed to the common objectives of preserving habitat
for migratory birds on the Gulf Coast. And the mutual trust and
understanding that this builds cannot be overvalued.

Finally, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation represents
the human dimension of partnerships. The Foundation does far
more than write a check. People like Amos, Peter Stangle, Whitney
Tilt, Krishna Roy, all the others at the Foundation, offer much
more than money to a partnership. They bring the heart and soul
and the commitment that it takes to build effective partnerships,
and Phillips has really enjoyed working with the staff.

We found them to be responsive and efficient, not bureaucratic
and full of red tape. We found them to be good stewards of the en-
vironment and good stewards of the funds that have been en-
trusted to them.

Phillips is proud to be a partner of the Foundation. Our company
has been able to participate in many important projects as a result
of this. I have only talked to you about one. If you would please
accept the detailed written submittal to the record, you will find a
number of projects that are detailed that I am not able to speak
on today.

But I do thank you for the opportunity to speak about Phillips'
work with the Foundation, and I assure you that Phillips supports
the work of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. And we
trust that you will continue to do the same. Thank you.

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

Mr. Saxton. Mr. Gast, if you would like to provide those mate-
rials that you mentioned to us, we will certainly make them part


of the record. And I thank you for your testimony. Mr. Little, I un-
derstand that you are a resident of the district which is rep-
resented by Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mr. Little. That is correct.

Mr. Saxton. And I would like to offer her the opportunity to say
a few words at this time.

Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just very
pleased that Mr. Little is here to offer his testimony. He is an out-
standing leader in natural resource issues in Idaho, and he is about
a fifth-generation Idahoan; comes with a deep understanding of our
State and the issues that we are dealing with. And I just appre-
ciate him taking his time to be here with us today.

Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Little.



Mr. Little. As was said, my name is Jim Little, and I raise cat-
tle in Emmett, Idaho. I am Chairman of the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association Private Property Rights and Environmental Man-
agement Committee. I am here to testify on behalf of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, as well as on behalf of the Oregon
Cattlemen and the Idaho Cattle Association.

More specifically, my comments today represent the concerns and
interests of 230,000 American cattle raisers who are struggling to
maintain their livelihood despite economic uncertainty and amidst
a constant battering of an environmental community that often
fails to recognize the contributions our industry makes toward pro-
tecting the environment.

During the past year, the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and
the Idaho Cattle Association have taken a keen interest in the ac-
tivities of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation after discover-
ing that the federally funded Foundation provides grants to envi-
ronmental groups who, in turn, initiate legal action against cattle
producers and other resource users.

Of utmost concern was a series of grants totaling $143,500 given
to the Pacific Rivers Council in Oregon by the Foundation. The Pa-
cific Rivers Council was subsequently named a plaintiff in a law-
suit in 1994 which forced the U.S. Forest Service to remove cattle
from permitted lands on the Wallowa/Whitman/Umatilla National
Forest. Some of our members living in these counties are respon-
sible for paying a portion of the attorney fees for legal representa-
tion in defense of the Pacific Rivers Council suit.

We first became aware of this activity when we learned that
General Motors had given a grant to the Foundation, and we sub-
sequently investigated the use of Foundation moneys. The Oregon
Cattlemen's Association contacted the Foundation in order to con-
vey our concerns that their funding to this and other groups was
enabling lawsuits and lobbying that was not only damaging to us,
but to other resource users as well.

Records provided to the Oregon Cattlemen's Association by the
Foundation clearly verified that the Foundation does indeed finan-
cially support environmental groups that tend to become involved
in litigation. We are not alone in our concerns.


Last July, the Committee on Appropriations noted their concerns
that the Foundation was becoming greatly politicized. The report
language states, "The committee is concerned about certain grants
that have been made by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
to organizations known to be hostile to the interests of private
landowners £ind those engaged in the productive and lawful use of
public lands." This evidence of a federally funded organization's
willingness to participate in political advocacy is alarming.

When the Oregon Cattlemen's Association met with the Founda-
tion in January of 1995, it was agreed that they needed policy
change in awarding grants. They outlined changes for us, which in-
cluded oversight privileges to any cattlemen's group, and as far as
we know, they went forward with that implementation.

Initially, we did receive some grant proposals, reviewed and re-
vised them, and provided input which appeared to cut or freeze
funds going to Oregon for questionable projects. However, with the
exception of grant proposals we received from the Foundation dur-
ing the past week, we have not been included in the grant review
process during the last nine months. That raises some concerns
about the activities of the Foundation during this time period.

Furthermore, while seeking clarification of the proposals sent to
us this past week, we learned that these projects had already been
approved. It seems as if their willingness to openly communicate
faltered for a while, then resumed just before this hearing.

Many programs already exist which promote active environ-
mental protection and are of little or no cost to the taxpayer. The
National Cattlemen's Beef Association and our member organiza-
tions are proud of the proactive programs we have implemented to
provide protection and improvement of the natural environment.

The NCBA Environmental Stewardship Award Program honors
ranchers who successfully produce livestock while simultaneously
protecting and enhancing the integrity of wildlife habitat and wa-
tersheds on public as well as private lands.

The Oregon Cattlemen's Association is proud of its WEST pro-
gram, which provides education for and by its own members with
the assistance of Oregon State University, enabling cattlemen to
learn about successful ecological management that includes man
and livestock as mutual components of ecological systems.

We are encouraged that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service re-
cently adopted a cooperative program for assessing proper function-
ing conditions for riparian areas that allows stockmen to actively
participate in riparian area management and acknowledges live-
stock grazing as a common and acceptable use of these areas.

We believe in applying the principles of individual rights and re-
sponsibilities to the conservation of our natural resources because
if policy is bad for people, it is bad for the environment. We believe
that environmental improvements will only be achieved by those
closest to the land and that ownership establishes the best incen-
tive for resource protection. We believe that a healthy environment
provides the foundation for healthy economies.

Although the original intent of the Foundation was possibly good,
it has evolved into a superfluous instrument of a regulatory govern-
ment agency whose objectives seem diametrically opposed to our

25-646 0-96-2


own. We urge this committee to recommend the defunding of the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much. We just heard the buzzers.
We are going to have a couple of votes here, but, Mr. Bonner, if
you would proceed at this time, we will certainly get your testi-
mony in. Thank you.


Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fred
Bonner. I am from Raleigh, North Carolina, and I am here at the
request of Representative Walter Jones, who is a member of this

I am a wildlife biologist, freelance writer, and editor of a hunting
and fishing magazine in Raleigh, North Carolina. But I am here

1 2 4 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 4 of 11)