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 7 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 7 of 11)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


At the risk of over-simplifying a complex situation, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that our
partnerships with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation represents conservation "the way it
should be done." That is, conservation without regulation, without the taking of private land, and
without the heavy hand of the government. Instead, it is conservation based on voluntary
participation, with partners coming to the table to identify mutually agreeable solutions that benefit
natural resources while also protecting economic interests. I submit that the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation provides a model for the way government can, and should, interact with the
private sector to conserve our nation's natural resources.

Georgia-Pacific is a partner with the Foundation on many conservation projects, but 1 would like to
highlight two in particular. The first involves development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
in Wisconsin for the federally-endangered Kamer blue butterfly. The second involves conservation
of the Atlantic salmon and it's 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 decision-making at the local level.

In both projects, we actively pursued participation by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
We did this for several reasons:


First, the Foundation has matched our funds, and those of other forest products companies, for
research, monitoring, and management activities that were critical to the success of our conservation
projects. In Wisconsin, on the Kamer blue butterfly HCP, the Foundation provided $33,500 in
matching funds to $67,000 in private funds contributed by Georgia-Pacific and eight other forest
products companies. The net effect of the Foundations funding was to leverage by 50% the money
contributed by industry for these projects. Even more importantly, the very promise of matching
funds from the Foundation enabled us to secure participation and funding from smaller companies
that might not otherwise have contributed to this project.

Second, the Foundation serves as a credible and unbiased "third party" to help manage projects
associated with our conservation programs. For example, to prepare an effective HCP for the Kamer
blue butterfly, we needed scientifically credible data on butterfly dispersal, monitoring techniques,
and other facets of the species' ecology. For Georgia-Pacific to fund this work directly would invite
criticism of the objectivity of the scientists who received funding for the research. Instead, the
Foundation solicited proposals, had them peer-reviewed, and managed all financial aspects of the
project. This ensured that the research we funded would stand the test of review by the scientific and
management community who are involved with developing the HCP. ,

Third, the Foundation acts as an effective liaison between the forest products companies and the
federal and state agencies, universities, and private conservation groups with whom we work on
projects such as a HCP. Unfortunately, for historical or other reasons, it can be difficult for a private
industry to interact as effectively with these partners as is needed. '\Vhen these situations arise, we
have found the Foundation to be very effective at bridging these gaps. There are currently 26 active
partners in the Kamer blue butterfly HCP project. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, getting diverse
groups to work together and agree on procedures and practices can be a tremendous challenge. The
Foundation's connections with these diverse partners has been an asset to us, and for the other
contributors to the HCP process. _

Finally, we invited participation by the Foundation because they are skilled natural resource
professionals who seek innovative solutions to natural resource challenges. It would be easy for
Georgia-Pacific to simply sell land on which endangered species are found. In some cases, we do
this, and we are relieved of responsibility. In the vast majority of cases, however, Georgia-Pacific
does not see this as a viable solution. We employ some of the most skilled forest managers in the
world. Our preference is to use our expertise, and that of our partners, to develop solutions that
conserve natural resources, but that also maintain or enhance the economic value of our lands.

We do NOT feel that natural resource conservation and economic return are mutually exclusive
goals — whether the subject is sustainable forestry or Kamer blue butterfly conservation. We DO feel
that traditional approaches and mindsets to conservation — those that emphasize confrontation and
litigation — have created this artificial dichotomy. Too often, the business and conservation
communities meet for the first time in a courtroom, with battle-lines drawn, to fight an expensive
legal battle that could have been avoided. We certainly would prefer that our financial resources go


to on-the-ground conservation, rather than legal fees. Given the opportunity, Georgia-Pacific will
do this. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation helps create those opportunities for us.

The Kamer blue butterfly HCP is a case in point. Georgia-Pacific, and other local and national forest
products companies, have been at the table from the onset, helping craft a practical plan that will
conserve Kamer blue butterflies and their habitats without shutting down the timber industry. As it
turns out, the forest products industry has the potential to contribute to conservation of the Kamer
blue butterfly in a very meaningful way that also complements our primary function, which of course
is harvesting timber.

Please allow me to elaborate on this point, because I think it serves as an example of how we in
industry can play a meaningful role in conservation. It also serves as an example of how a little
innovation can make the difference between failure and success for the timber industry and
conservation of the Kamer blue butterfly.

The Kamer blue butterfly's distribution is determined by the presence of a plant called the blue
lupine, on which the butterfly larva feeds. Lupine grows in sites where the soil has been disturbed
ecologically, for example by fire. Lupine also grows in sites that have been disturbed by man — such
as timber cutting. In fact, the Kamer blue butterfly's very existence depends on these disturbances
to continually create new habitats.

Thus, one of the challenges to conserving the Kamer blue butterfly is, "How do we maintain a
sufficient number of disturbed sites on which the butterfly can thrive?" As you might predict, we in
the timber industry feh that our normal timber harvest operations, which essentially create butterfly
habitat, could be an integral part of the conservation process. Although this point seems obvious, it
is difficult for many of our partners to accept that Georgia-Pacific's normal timber operations could
actually be beneficial to the butterfly. Accepting this point requires a break from tradition — a new
way of thinking that has obvious benefits both for our company and the Kamer blue butterfly.

We sought a partnership with the Foundation because it shares our desire for innovative, tradition-
breaking solutions. The grants they have awarded with our matching funds have produced the
information we need to understand how best we can create habitat for the Kamer blue butterfly on
our industrial lands. This will in tum allow us to contribute in a meaningful way to the HCP, and to
the butterfly's conservation in Wisconsin.

The Foundation also assisted by having representatives from the forest products industry named to
the Kamer blue butterfly recovery team. This is absolutely critical. If Georgia-Pacific and other large
private landowners are not participating in these discussions from the onset, do you really think there
will be any hope for a mutually agreeable solution? Our biologists and staff bring great expertise,
and a new viewpoint, to what otherwise might be a very academic — and unrealistic— recovery
planning process. We are grateful that the Foundation helped make this possible, and we hope that
our participation will serve as a model for other projects.


The Kamer blue butterfly HCP process has not been perfect, and there remain many areas for
improvement, but it has been far better than the traditional alternative. The Foundations
contributions, both financial and intellectual, have been a key ingredient to the success we have so
far enjoyed.

We also have a successful relationship with the Foundation on an exciting salmon conservation
project in Maine. The Atlantic salmon has been an integral part of history and culture in New
England for centuries. Unfortunately, as a result of water pollution, loss of spawning habitat, and
overfishing on the high seas, Atlantic Salmon populations have plummeted. In fact, just this year,
the Departments of Interior and Commerce proposed that the Atlantic salmon be listed as threatened.

Rather than waiting for the salmon to decline any further, and for the regulation and red tape
associated with the listing process to consume our energies, Georgia-Pacific, the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, and 24 other partners decided to take action. We formed a partnership called
SHARE — Salmon Habitat And River Enhancement.

Georgia-Pacific and other members of the forest products industry are charter members of this
partnership. As principle owners of the salmon's critical riverine spawning habitat, we felt a strong
obligation to take charge of this magnificent fish's conservation needs in Maine.

As they did with the Kamer blue butterfly in Wisconsin, the Foundation joined us in project
SHARE: providing federal matching funds for money provided by private industry, building
partnerships with the diverse partners, and seeking innovative solutions to age-old problems.

SHARE has been very successful, and has created a dialogue that allows private industry and
government to work cooperatively and proactively to avoid costly and ineffective regulatory

Over the past several years, Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the Foundation on eight separate
conservation projects, ranging from Louisiana black bear conservation to environmental education
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 our support for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Mr. Chairman, Georgia-Pacific works with the Foundation because they make good things happen.
They share Georgia-Pacific's proactive approach to conservation. They share Georgia-Pacific's quest
for market-driven incentives to conservation. They share Georgia-Pacific's commitment to
conservation that is compatible with, and an integral part of, our nation's economy. It is with great
pleasure, Mr. Chairman, that we speak in support of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.


before the

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildhfe and Oceans
of the Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives

Presented by

Carhon N. Owen
Director, Wildlife & Resource Issues
Champion International Corporation

May 16, 1996


Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this
opportunity to offer our experience and views on the operations of the
National Fish & Wildhfe Foundation.

My name is Carlton Owen. I am Director of Wildlife and Resource Issues for
Champion International Corporation. Champion is one of the nation's largest
manufacturers of pulp, paper, and forest products. Additionally, we are
among the nation's largest private forest landowners with more than 5.3
miUion acres in seventeen states.

In my capacity 1 am responsible for forestry-related environmental issues
including wildlife habitat and forest pohcy for our lands in the U.S. In this
position I have had a long and productive relationship with the National Fish
& Wildlife Foundation.

While we have had numerous experiences with the Foundation, today we
would like to share just three as being representative of our shared activities
with the Foundation. Further, we would Uke to review some of the results
those projects are yielding.

Basing Management Decisions on a Foundation of Science

The business of forest management is complex at best. To be successful,
especially as we seek to achieve truly sustainable forest management, it is
increasingly important that our managers have access to the best science
available. In many areas, the needed information just does not currently exist.
Therefore, we and others must invest in new research to determine the best
ways to manage our forests so as to protect all outputs and lifeforms of the

On a large watershed that we own in the mountains of eastern Tennessee, the
Foundation has joined us in a recently begun study with Tennessee Tech
University. That study will help us to evaluate the feasibility and relative
costs and effectiveness of several survey methodologies to determine the
biological resources that occur in the freshwater streams on our property. We
believe that this information will be valuable not only for our management
purposes but also for use in enhsting other private landowners to assist in the
protection of critical aquatic resources.


The approaches we are pursuing break with that common to many research
projects. There are many people who believe that private landowners are the
problem ~ but few who understand that we are and must be part of the
solution. The Foundation is one of these few, and with their support, we have
been able to elevate the status of private landowners in the conservation
arena. Our goal is not just to add to the science and information base but also
to develop cost-effective methodologies that landowners can apply in their
own management planning, and develop effective protocols for future
cooperative efforts. With such simple tools based upon sound science,
private landowners can continue to do their part in the overall effort to protect
the nation's aquatic resources.

Putting Information in the Hands of Those Who Need it Most

The concern for identification and protection of threatened and endangered
species on private lands is emotionally-charged and often fraught with
conflict. The Foundation has joined us in a pilot project in the State of
Alabama where we have sou^t to provide common-sense, user-friendly
information directly to those who need it most — private logging contractors
and foresters woridng with private landowners.

The result is a full-color, shirt-pocket-sized field guide identifying hsted
species and providing forest management considerations. It is free of the
technical and legal jargon that all too often serves to fiighten and confuse.
Like this field guide, our goal is simple ~ to put usable information in the
hands of those people who are most hkely to encounter hsted species on a
daily basis. By taking this approach we are seeking to enlist these concerned
citizens in the protection of species.

This project has been so successful that we have just completed a second
printing in Alabama, and we plan to develop guides for several of the other
states in which we operate. Our success with the Foundation has encouraged
a number of other agencies and conservation organizations to join us in these
follow-up efforts. The Foundation has helped us with this low-tech approach
to endangered species identification and protection that is building bridges
rather than barriers.


Finding Solutions Through Cooperation

In an ideal world, sufficient incentives would exist for private landowners to
actively participate in species conservation. Unfortunately, because of the
way in which the ES A has been implemented, the threat of an endangered
species being found on one's private property evokes visions of horror for the
average citizen.

If those who are concerned about protection of the nation's wildlife resources
are not able to overcome this all-too-common feeling, we will never be able
to enhst the nation's majority landowners ~ private citizens ~ in efforts to
protect and recover our nation's bountiful wildlife.

We, like many others including the Foundation, are seeking new ways to
approach protection and management of listed species. We'd like to bring to
your attention one of the most promising models for conservation anywhere in
the nation ~ Project SHARE in Maine. Project SHARE, which stands for
Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement, was started two years ago as an
alternative means to the normal gridlock that often results with the Usting of a
new species.

In this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service were considering a petition to hst the Atlantic salmon as
threatened or endangered throughout all or a portion of its range. While some
of the advocates for Usting saw a new tool to stop otherwise legitimate land
management, private landowners and sportsmen saw the threats of increased
management costs, declines in property values, and regulatory burdens. In
the words of Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, another "train wreck."

Project SHARE was formed by Champion and two other forest products
companies with extensive holdings in the prime salmon habitat of Downcast
Maine. Our goal was not to form a coalition to oppose listing, rather to create
a coahtion to address voluntary habitat restoration and management. Our
behef was simple enough ~ if we could support the state and federal agencies
that have responsibiUty for protection of the species and show alternatives to
the normal regulatory approaches that follow species Usting, then the
responsible agencies would have more options to develop flexible,
constructive, and potentiaUy beneficial plans.


Today, Project SHARE boasts a long list of cooperators, including state and
federal agencies, universities, sportsmen's groups, local businesses, blueberry
growers, and the aquaculture industry. To date, the bulk of the funds
necessary to meet the organization's goals in research, management, and
education, have come from the private landowners themselves. However,
active involvement and encouragement by the National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation and challenge grants have made SHARE a success beyond our
wildest dreams.

Because SHARE oflFers a positive forum for constructive action, many
organizations from the private, public, and non-profit sector have come
together. As a result of the success of this broad-based efifort, the Federal
agencies originally proposing a Usting action to have recommended a course
of action that could substantially hmit regulatory burdens while sfrengthening
the potential for focus on the wildlife resource.

In short three gains stand out:

• The recovery planning process is being led by the state with direct
involvement by all of the interested and affected parties;

• Recommendations being considered are less "command and control" and
more positive in nature; and

• Less time is being spent in "fighting the Usting" and more time is being
spent in "planning and implementing the recovery."

We beheve SHARE stands almost alone as a potential success story in recent
apphcation of the Endangered Species Act. It meets several of our critical
tests for success where endangered species are addressed:

• states take the lead in recovery plaiming;

private landowners and other affected parties are part of the planning

process; and

non-regulatory solutions are given high priority

While these by no means exhaust our concerns about the current ESA, they
do provide hope that creative solutions to species protection and recovery are
available. I'll not go fiuther into my pitch for reasonable reform of the ESA.
We'll save that for another time.


Final Points

While the National Fish & WildUfe Foundation is far broader than the
involvement that we have depicted, we believe these three examples high-
hght some of the real values and successes.

First, the Foundation is leveraging funds and encouraging research that
will help develop a platform of peer reviewed, sound-science to aid in the
management of the nation's natural resources.

Secondly, the Foundation's staff and board have recognized that enhsting
everyone in the protection of the nation's natural resources is critical to
success. Education and information materials such as those we have
jointly designed for loggers are serving to enhst others for conservation
while additionally serving to dampen the fears flamed by command and
control regulation common in the past.

• Additionally, 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 approach to species
recovery; and to explore new and more productive ways to address
endangered si3ecies protection. As an organization that very effectively
bridges the gap between federal agencies, the academic/scientific
community, and the private sector, the Foundation is an invaluable
resource for us in promoting the role of the private sector in conservation.

While the Foundation's funds are often critical in leveraging additional
financial resources for projects like those we have described, there is another,
perhaps more important benefit. The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
provides credibility and creativity that bring for profit corporations, not-for-
profit conservation interests, and govenmient agencies together for the good
of conservation. The positive relationships formed often last well beyond the
life of a given project.

Our experience suggests that the Foundation is achieving important results
that will prove increasingly important to the cause of natural resource
conservation. We for one are proud to be a partner in this success.


Carlton N. Owen

Director, Wildlife & Resource Issues
Champion International Corporation
37 Villa Road, B-141
Greenville, SC 29615

(864) 370-7206
(864) 370-7208 (fax)

Key Points in Testimony

Provided Three Examples of Cooperative Projects With NFWF

1 ) Aquatic research project in Tennessee

• Evaluating feasibility and cost of stream survey methods for private

• Information will enlist private landowners in conservation

2) Putting information in the hands of those who need it

• Field guide on threatened and endangered species in Alabama for loggers

• Bringing loggers into conservation

• Project will be duplicated in other states

3) Finding solutions through cooperation

• Project SHARE (Sahnon Habitat and River Enhancement) in Maine

• Bringing wide range of partners together for conservation

• Provides excellent non-regulatory model for T&E conservation

• Endangered Species Act needs reforms that support these type efforts

Final Points

• Foundation leveraging funds to build base of sound science

• Education materials bring new partners into species protection

• Aiding in new models for species protection that enlist private landowners








MAY 16, 1996

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Kim MacColl . I am the Vice-President of the Oregon Wildlife
Heritage Foundation. For the last three years, I have also
served as the Foundation's chair of project/grant activities.

I greatly appreciate being given the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee today on the subject of the
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) , including its
programs and its effectiveness.

During my tenure with the Oregon Wildlife Heritage
Foundation (OWHF) , I have come to know the NFWF quite well.
I have had the opportunity to work closely with its Executive
Director, Amos Eno. I have also had the opportunity to work
with the past two Fisheries Directors.

Three years ago, the OWHF embarked on a challenging
campaign to stop the decline of salmon, steelhead and trout in
Oregon by restoring and rehabilitating the rivers and streams
along Oregon's 300-mile coastline. In cooperation with the
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) and the Oregon

1 2 3 4 5 7 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 7 of 11)