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 6 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 6 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


endangered species proponents. In the Pacific Northwest and Carolinas, we have created
partnerships between timber producers and bird watchers. Likewise, we have acted to provide
"special management" for the burrowing owl in California and the pygmy owl in Texas rather
than watching the Fish and Wildhfe Service add these species to the Endangered Species List. The
Foundation's role was crucial to each of these successful solutions.

I would like to include a list of some of our recent corporate partners to illustrate the
private firms with which we have worked in partnership to find proactive voluntary solutions to
environmental problems.



ABT Company

American Forest & Paper Association

Bass Pro Shops

Boise Cascade Corporation

Budweiser

Champion International

Chevron Corporation

Consolidated Paper

Exxon Corporation

FMC Corporation

The Franklin Mint

G. Loomis Outdoor Adventures Inc.

Hamer Forest Products

International Paper

Kenetech Windpower, Inc

Marplex, Inc.

Memphis LG&W

Mill Pond Press



Alberta Pacific

Anderson Tully Corporation

Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill

Busch Entertainment Corporation

Capital Cities/ABC News

Chevrolet

Church & Dwight Company, Inc.

DOW U.S.A.

Federal Cartridge Company

Forest Industries

Frontiers

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Hancock Timber

Johnston Timber Corporation

Louisiana-Pacific

Marriott

Mesa Limited Partnerships

Mosinee Paper Corporation



43



Nagel Lumber Co. Orvis Company

Phillips Petroleum PIC Technologies

Potlatch Corp. Rajala Lumber Company

Rasmussen Mill works. Inc. San Diego Gas and Electric

Scott Timber Company Seneca Mills

Shell Oil Company Times Mirror Magazines, Inc.

Tudor Investment Corporation Union Camp Corporation

Westvaco Corporation Weyerhaeuser Company

WMX Technologies, Inc. Willamette Industries

This list is by no means exhaustive, but illustrates the breadth of types of companies with
which we have forged partnerships.

While all of these many partners are important, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service remains our
primary, steadfast partner. Through the years, we ha\e developed a solid working relationship with
the Service, striving to be of assistance with its natural resource management responsibilities as well
as with its regulatory responsibilities. We have come to know first hand the multiple responsibilities
the Fish and Wildlife Service confronts and just how difficult and divisive those issues are. Despite
increasing acreage to manage and declining budgets, the Service is making every effort to keep its
natural resources from deteriorating while attempting to work as flexibly as possible within the
confines of the Endangered Species Act. At the same time, it is having to balance carefiilly the
sometimes conflicting uses of its refiige lands. We should all be grateful for a staff of able
professionals within the Fish and Wildlife Service billing to take on all of these challenges.

Let me describe briefly who we are and who we are not

NFWF works with both the namral resource coiimiunity and the natural resource based
industries. We create bridges between them, meaning that sometimes we are standing in "no
man's land" when no one else will go there.

Let me give you an illustration. We work with the chemical, petroleum, forest products
industries, and numerous other "resource utilization" industries. However, many of these
companies are reluctant to come before a hearing like this for fear of attack from the left.
Likewise, we work with the conservation community, which is afraid it will be attacked from the
right.

Let me pose a rhetorical question, do you want a polarization of these communities— where
they are afraid to work together and are instead encouraged to stand at the extremes and shoot at
each other? Or do you want to seek common ground? Which in your mind is the responsible
approach?

When Congress created the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in 1984, it wanted
someone to face the bullets and walk into "no man's land." Much of the legislative leadership for
the Foundation came from the Republican majority in the Senate, with bipartisan support from the
House (with a Democratic majority) and the bill was signed into law by a Republican President.
The Foundation has lived up to the Congressional mandate to face those fire fights and seek
common ground solutions. The Foundation has done this in a noiqiartisan way. It has been driven



44



by its Congressional directive to take on tough issues and provide the best professional expertise
to enhancing the management of the nation's fish and wildlife resources.

Many of the issues the Foundation is called on to assist with (for example declining salmon
populations in the Pacific Northwest or breaking the impasse on Endangered Species problems
such as the Karner Blue Butterfly) are environmentally, economically, and politically difficult.
The Foundation has made its mark by being able to work with groups with a variety of
perspectives— conservative, liberal, protectionists, resource extractors, etc. We recognize the
validity of a variety of perspectives. We can provide that outreach and professionalism to bring
groups together. Some will attack the Foundation for working with the conservation community-
others for working too closely with industry. We believe this is our mission— to build common
ground solutions to difficult issues.

Changes at NFWF since last oversight hearing

Three years ago the Fish and Wildlife Service provided the vast majority of federal seed
funds for NFWF partnership programs. Since that time both Congress and the agencies have
called on NFWF to broaden the number of institutions it works with. Quite simply, there is no
single natural resource agency. Instead, the federal government is organized so that many agencies
have natural resource management responsibility. Agencies and Congress have called on the
Foundation to add their expertise, leveraging and partnership ability, and coordinating talents.

In FY 1996, at Congressional direction, NFWF was directed to develop a pilot program
for the Department of Agriculture to see if it is practical to operate a partnership matching
program for the Wetland Reserve Program. In addition. Congress also directed NFWF to work
with the Bureau of Reclamation to assist that agency in meeting its responsibilities of providing
for management offish, plants, and animals. Working with these agencies we are stretching scarce
federal funds, building partnerships with the private sector and local government, and providing
better integration in resource management.

Second, before any potential projects go before our board of directors for consideration
today, we notify members of Congress about prospective grants in their districts. This provides
additional information to the Foundation in selecting projects. Frankly, it gives us both a heads
up if there is a potential problem. This has resulted in both better projects and better
communication between the Foundation and Congress.

Third, we have extensively revised our grant information packet, grant guidelines, and
grant contracts to assure that no federal funds are inappropriately used for activities like lobbying
or litigation. The Foundation not only requires grant recipients to meet the applicable federal
requirements (such as 0MB Circular A- 122) but sets a higher and more demanding standard than
the federal government.

Finally, the Foundation continues to reach out to the private sector to broaden the base of
voluntary conservation. This year the Foundation entered into what we believe is the largest
corporately sponsored species recovery program ever undertaken.

NFWF Activities in Past 6 Months

By way of example, let me give you a brief overview of our activities just since this past
fall. In September, in partnership with Exxon, we unveiled the Save The Tiger Fund. Exxon



45



pledged $5 million over five years for the Save the Tiger Fund, but the full dimension their
corporate participation will soon generate far more than the $1 million per year originally
specified. The program will be administered by a Tiger Council .which includes the best tiger
experts in the world, ranging from the Smithsonian's John Seidensticker to Malaysia's Mohammed
Khan.

Although Exxon's S5 million probably represents the largest corporate contribution for
endangered species in this country, the real significance of this program lies in the fact that a
corporation has stepped forward and assumed responsibility for trying to recover one of the
world's most endangered species. And talk about headaches, the tiger is no ordinary endangered
species. Its core habitat lies in the midst of the most populous regions of the world. Since World
Wildlife Fund announced its Operation Tiger in 1972, the populations of India, Indonesia, and
China have grown by 815 million people. Think of it, that is more than the total population of
North and South America combined in just over twenty years. And Tigers eat people and
livestock— they are not potentially threatening like grizzly bears or wolves— they regularly devour
livestock, dogs, cats, and hundreds of people a year. Exxon and all its affiliates are weighing in
on behalf of the tiger, underwriting education and research in this countn.' and sending almost
seventy percent of the funds to conservation projects on the ground in the range states or Russia,
Indonesia, India, and Malaysia.

Second, just last week at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, we launched International
Migratory Bird Day and a brand new conservation initiative to conserve Neotropical migratory
birds: our Flight Plan. Flight Plan builds and combines previous Foundation investments such as
Panners in Flight for song birds, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the
Shorebird NetworkAVetlands for America, to create a single umbrella for partnerships and
coordinated bird conservation activities. Specifically its calls for the involvement of corporate
America, companies like Phillips Petroleum, and for private landowners an unprecedented scale.
We are also trying to mobilize the 65 million bird watchers in this country into an effective force
for conservation at the local level, as opposed to another adversarial crusade aimed variously at
thumping Congress, making punching bags of bureaucracies, or painting corporations as eco-
villains.

Third, in January in Portland, Oregon, with Congressman Furse. PacifiCorp and a
coalition of Portland hotel chains, we launched the Environmental Technology Challenge, a new
program that seeks to put on the ground the president's Environmental Technology Strategy, but
without the onus of additional government regulations or the cost of acquisition programs. In fact
the Challenge hardly involves government at all; it is a true challenge to corporate America to
proclaim and unveil their new environmental technologies and to challenge their competitors to
match their game.

In Portland we unveiled a new water treatment technology by Wastewater Resources, Inc.
of Scottsdale, Arizona at the Red Lion Hotel chain and a new electric commuter transit system
developed by PacifiCorp.

A month later in Orlando we highlighted Trane Corporation of LaCrosse, Wisconsin's new
CFC refrigerant technology that is providing the cooling system for the city offices of Orlando
and Busch Garden's new manatee and Wild Arctic exhibits.

Two weeks ago, a few blocks from here at Eastern High School, we unveiled Phillips



46



Lighting's new mercury-free lights, which now provide a ray of reduced contaminant lighting to
this impoverished city's largest high school.

Finally, in mid-April we made a presentation to the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus,
because today, we are probably the largest underwriter of conservation for game species and the
many organizations, such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Foundation,
Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation to
name just a few that invest in conservation activities on behalf of our nation's hunting and fishing
public.



Basic Facts About the Foundation

The Foundation is authorized to receive federal appropriated funds, and in 1994 Congress
extended our funding authorization through FY 1998. The authorized funding level for FY 1997
is $25 million. The Foundation invests in the best possible solutions to conservation problems by
awarding challenge grants using its federally appropriated funds to match private sector funds. We
have a statutory requirement to match federal funds with at least an equal amount of nonfederal
funds, but we have consistently exceeded a 2:1 overall matching ratio. These combined
federal/nonfederal resources fuel effective conservation projects.

The Foundation is governed by a fifteen-member board of directors appointed by the
secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the secretary of Commerce. At the direction of
Congress, the board operates on a nonpartisan basis and currently has a roughly equal number of
Democrats and Republicans. Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on
the board. Just the opposite; all of our directors make financial contributions to the Foundation.
It is a diverse board representing corporate America and the philanthropic and conservation
communities. Their only common characteristic is a tenacious commitment to fish and wildlife
conservation.

In a decade, NFWF has awarded over 1,330 grants, leveraging approximately $53 million
in federal funds into over $190 million for on-the-ground fish and wildlife conservation. The funds
we dispense cannot be used for lobbying, litigation, or other advocacy activities.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation works by:

• Forging innovative partnerships between the public and the private sectors

• Supporting projects that examine and provide workable solutions for root causes of
environmental problems

• Minimizing administrative costs— less than four percent of our total budget

• Distributing grants widely— our 1,300 grants have gone to more than 500 grantees in all fifty
states, including federal, state and provincial agencies; colleges and universities; private
corporations; and both domestic and international conservation organizations

• Obtaining the maximum leverage possible from our federal funds

NFWF is the most cost-effective conservation program funded in part by the federal
government. By implementing real-world solutions cooperatively with the private sector, while
avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is more consistent with Congress's



47



philosophy than ever before. We serve as a model for how private sector leadership can be
brought to the federal agencies and develop cooperative solutions rather than command and
control approaches to environmental issues.



48



TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION



Presented by

R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

May 16, 1996

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. 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. The International Association was
founded in 1902 and is a quasi -governmental organization of public
agencies charged with the protection and management of North
America's fish and wildlife resources. The Association's
governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the
states, provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada and
Mexico. All fifty states are members. The Association has been a
key organization in promoting sound resource management and
strengthening federal, state and private cooperation in protecting
and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public
interest.

It is for these reasons that the International Association is
appearing before you today to discuss the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. The Foundation is known for forging effective
partnerships between the public and private sectors to provide some
on the ground solutions to fundamental natural resource problems.
These cooperative endeavors not only help get much needed work done
but provide continuing cooperation between groups that may be
traditional competitors or even opponents. The Association has
followed the work of the Foundation over the years and is aware of
the benefits for the nation's fish and wildlife resources that the
Foundation has provided. One of our Directors, Willie Molini,
Director of Wildlife in Nevada, served for several years on the
Foundation's board.

The Foundation invests in solutions to natural resource
problems by awarding challenge grants. The combined resources from
Foundation partnerships under-gird effective conservation projects.
Simply put, the Foundation probably exemplifies the partnership
concept better 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
conferred 1337 grants that have totalled $190.5 million for
conservation projects. In fiscal year 1995 alone, the Foundation
obligated $23.6 million for 208 conservation projects, committing



49



$5.8 million in federal matching funds that were leveraged by $17.8
million raised in cooperation with their many conservation
partners. 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 would unlikely be
done withou't' 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 continents 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 projects in 34
states, ranging from acquisitions and habitat restoration to public
education and outreach projects.

The Foundation has also provided important cooperative
leadership for the "Partners in Flight" conservation program for
neotropical migratory songbirds by helping bring together federal
and state government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to
coordinate and expand efforts for protection and management of
songbirds and raptors. Through "Partners in Flight" an
unparalleled nationwide conservation program has been successfully
launched; all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies are involved.
Their matching grants program has allowed some of these states the
opportunity to augment or develop conservation actions to halt the
decline of over 250 species.

The Foundation has also played a significant role in the
Partnerships for Wildlife Act assisting state agencies with
obtaining matching grants for conservation projects related to fish
and wildlife not hunted or fished or on the endangered species
list. There are over 1,800 species these grants will aid, many of
which have been neglected for years due to limited state and
federal funds.

These are only a few examples of the Foundation's conservation



50



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'm not suggesting that this Foundation bats 1,000 in making
grants- sometimes a proposal that looks good and passes rigorous
review does not work out as planned or one of the organizations
Involved does something controversial. We deplore such instances
but would point out that in 99% of the cases the Foundation is
successful. This is an enviable record.

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
including a state fish and wildlife agency head to the Board, and
second through additional appropriations for the Foundation.

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 p^roblem. 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.

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.

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.

s: \angola\testimony\nf wf 96 . tes



51



Gieorgia-f^cific Corporation 133 Peachtme street ne 00303)

PO Box 10S605

Atlanta. Georgia 30348 5605

Telephone (404) 652-4000



TESTIMONY OF WALTER JARCK, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

REGARDING THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
MAY 16, 1996



Mr. Chairman, my name is Walter Jarck, Director of Forestry for the Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia-Pacific is a Fortune 100 forest products and paper company with an
ownership of over si.x million acres of managed forest land.

We appreciate the chance to speak with you today on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. We are pleased to have this opportunity because the Foimdation is an important ally,
and asset to, Georgia-Pacific, as we grapple with challenging natural resource issues on our corporate


1 2 3 4 6 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 6 of 11)