PUBLIC POLICY DIVISION

Dan Beard, Senior Vice President

Upper Mississippi Campaign

The past few weeks have been exciting ones for the campaign. Major developments took place on four fronts. First, we launched a 1999 River Inspection Tour aboard the Audubon Ark. The tour took nearly a month and visited 38 communities along 325 miles of river between Minneapolis, Minnesota and Rock Island, Illinois. Board Member Pat Heidenreich represented Audubon at the kick off event. At each stop along the tour, there were press conferences, live music and exhibits to promote the "save the river" campaign. A three-member crew from the Discovery Channel spent six days filming the events and will broadcast a one-hour segment about the campaign in the first half of 2000.

Second, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 is on its way to the President for approval with language calling for reauthorization of the important Environmental Management Program. This was our number one legislative goal for the campaign in 1999.

Third, the campaign staff, working with the Minnesota Audubon Council staff and volunteers, secured a contract with the City of Wabasha, Minnesota to work in partnership to complete design, fundraising and program development for a new National Eagle Center. Audubon will hire a center director within the next month, and the $3 million center is expected to break ground in mid-2000 and be completed by the end of 2001.

Finally, the campaign has received a $78,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to broaden the scope of the river stewards program along the Upper Mississippi River.

Wetlands Campaign

The campaign continues to emphasize empowering community-based wetlands conservation, building local Audubon capacity, assisting in the development of Audubon Centers, and coordinating grassroots input on federal wetlands decisions. To support our work, we recently received a two-year $300,000 grant this quarter from the Surdna Foundation.

Grassroots. We have completed design of our field workshops, and the first five will be presented in September-October in Washington State, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. To date, 150 people have registered. The workshops are designed to foster lasting coalitions and partnerships, as well as to advance a specific local wetlands project or issue.

Ongoing recruitment and cultivation of activists continues. We are working to help chapter leaders find the resources they need to support strong local wetlands programs and ordinances. In coordination with state offices we continue to work with chapters of grant-writing for their wetlands projects. Our listserve is a clearinghouse for information of all kinds, and we mobilized our network of grassroots activists on two important federal policy issues.

Yet another draft of the replacement permits for Nationwide 26 was released for one last public review in early August. Unfortunately, the draft proposes mitigation, agriculture and other loopholes that further weaken these permits. This development doesn’t bode well for wetland protection, especially when you consider that the Corps has reduced permit enforcement and two appropriation bill riders will weaken enforcement of the Clean Water Act. All these developments undermine the President’s goal to achieve a net gain of one million acres of wetlands by 2005.

Nearly 100 new activists were recruited to work on the Better America Bonds proposal, and the email listserve has grown to over 200 subscribers. Bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate. The House bill has 116 co-sponsors. The grassroots efforts were instrumental in obtaining bipartisan support for the Senate bill (co-sponsored by Senators Hatch (R-Utah) and Baucus (D-MT)).

The campaign has developed a packet, sent to all state field offices, that includes fact sheets and other information on Center wetlands programs, such as leadership training for conservation advocacy, how to organize wetland tours and other on-site programs, and wetlands citizen science and restoration projects. The packet includes resources for wetlands curricula, sources of funding, and design standards for building near wetlands.

Agriculture

At the end of the 1999 fiscal year, 18-year veteran Agriculture Policy Director Maureen Hinkle took early retirement from Audubon. Julie Sibbing, formerly Assistant Director for Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge Policy, will be taking on the Agriculture Policy work half time in the DC office, in addition to continuing her policy work with the Wetlands Campaign. Sibbing will report to me and will be assisted half-time by Program Assistant Elizabeth Pomper.

Since the personnel transition, the agricultural policy team has focussed on making government agency and conservation community contacts in the DC policy arena. We’re also working to prepare an analysis on the effects of an expanded Corps of Engineers agricultural Nationwide Permit that could lead to significant destruction of farmed wetlands across the country. In addition, the program has worked with Congressional offices to promote the inclusion of funding for Conservation Reserve Program in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that is providing a large bail-out to farmers hurt by the drought.

Population

Audubon won a major victory in Congress during the summer, and took a giant step toward achieving a central objective of the campaign with the passage of the House FY 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The bill maintains a funding level of $385 million for international family planning and population assistance and reinstates a $25 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, which had been eliminated in last year's funding. This was the first time since 1995 that a pro-family planning, pro-environment amendment will move forward to the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate version of the bill provides an even higher level of funding.

Our success in the House came only after a hard-fought battle. Although it took a coalition of organizations to bring about this victory, there is not doubt that Audubon's grassroots played a critical role in producing the successful outcome. Several members of Congress specifically said that calls they received from Audubon members in their districts made a difference in their vote. In several key states where we have a staff coordinator and a well-organized advocacy network, the needed swing votes went our way.

Our work with the United Nations over the past year, including participation in the final meetings in NY in July, helped produce a final report from the ICPD+5 Review process affirming the 1994 Cairo Program of Action and calling for all nations to meet their funding commitments to international population assistance.

Audubon is spearheading the organizing of a nationwide series of Youth Summits and other youth-oriented activities to mark the day when our global population will reach 6 billion (October 12). Major Audubon-sponsored events are planned for New York, Miami, Los Angeles and other US cities. The related PBS broadcast "Six Billion and Beyond," which premiers on October 8, features a segment filmed at the Sabal Palm Grove Sanctuary, Texas. In other youth-related activities, the Campaign worked with Audubon Adventures staff to produce an issue on Population and Habitat for inclusion in this year's curriculum.

The Campaign has recently received major grants from the Goldman Fund ($100,000), the Hewlett Foundation ($75,000), the Huber Foundation ($40,000), and the Wallace Global Fund ($85,000). Alison Heaphy, our NY state campaign coordinator for the past three years, has transferred her position to the NY State Office, as was intended. This summer the Campaign headquarters in Boulder hosted two CSX Scholars who contributed significantly to our Youth Summits planning initiative.

Forest Campaign

The Forest Campaign is focusing on three key policy areas: reforming federal payments to counties; chip mills; and annual appropriations fights over funding and legislative riders.

Land owned by the Federal government cannot be taxed by local governments. To compensate for the loss of revenue, counties will receive 25% of the proceeds from timber sales for use for schools and roads. This system has acted as an incentive to increase logging on public lands. Forest Service Chief Dombeck has proposed compensating counties with payments that are not linked to logging levels, and the timber industry has opposed this plan. We have helped form a group called "The Coalition for Education and Forests," to promote Chief Dombeck’s reform. A vote is expected this fall.

We have developed a strategy for raising the visibility of chip mills throughout the country. This strategy would involve cable TV programming throughout the southeast and more generic grassroots and press outreach in the rest of the country. We hope to bring the plight of southeastern forests to the country and generate interest and action similar to the nationalizing of the plight of the ancient forests of the northwest.

This year is no exception to our annual ritual of countering under-funded programs and unrelated riders in the Interior Appropriations bill. Our major focus has been to oppose a rider to allow the Forest Service and BLM to log without conducting wildlife impact studies. We have been working hard to develop support for an amendment to strike this language that will be offered in the Senate this fall

Refuge Campaign

Charging into a new fiscal year, the wildlife refuge campaign posted significant progress in a number of areas, while realizing positive changes to the campaign that will make us more effective in the coming year. Our Audubon Refuge Keepers and Earth Stewards efforts continued to reach new communities, while on the policy level we geared up to address several issues related to individual refuges and the broader system.

This quarter we established six new ARK groups for a total of 72. Two of the new groups were the product of a presentation given at the Illinois Audubon Council. In an effort to broaden our base of support for the program, we have begun recruiting volunteer state ARK coordinators. The "Bringing Home Alaska" program also continues to demonstrate success with 23 house parties performed to date. This program has generated editorial board interest, and several newspaper articles. It has also helped obtain seven new House members as cosponsors of the Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act.

The campaign also continued its close work with chapters to secure Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) dollars for local land acquisition projects, while assisting many with grant writing for the Refuge mini-grant program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We expect that at least 10 ARK groups will receive funding for their projects.

In June, we participated in a national Earth Stewards round table that brought together representatives from most current Earth Stewards sites to discuss individual programs and plan for a strengthened future of the program as a whole. Audubon’s goal is to add 10 additional sites to the program over the next year. New Audubon-oriented sites include John Heinz NWR at Tinicum (PA), Neal Smith NWR (IA), Beidler Forest Sanctuary (SC) and natural areas in central Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

In an effort to build greater commitment for Earth Stewards by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leadership, we provided a series of comments on new education guidelines proposed by the Division of Refuges. We are hopeful they will adopt a more aggressive strategy to promote comprehensive outdoor learning on refuges that includes Earth Stewards.

The campaign has also teamed up with Sally Conyne, Fred Baumgarten, Chuck Remmington and Kristen Stramm to begin developing a comprehensive outdoor education initiative that can be adopted by state offices and Audubon chapters.

Starting August 1, the campaign experienced a boost in its ability to address refuge policy issues with the addition of a full-time policy person. Mike Daulton, who joins us as Assistant Director for Policy, takes the place of Julie Sibbing who will now devote her time to wetlands and agricultural issues. Mike, who formerly interned for Audubon, comes to us from the General Accounting Office.

We have prepared a multi-organization sign-on letter to the Army Corps of Engineers citing concerns with proposals to dredge a channel through White and Cache River NWRs in Arkansas, and siphon billions of gallons of water a year from the White River to irrigate rice farming. We also submitted comments on Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) underway at several refuges. Development of strong CCPs are vital to halting incompatible activities (such as jet skiing) on refuges.

The Wildlife Refuge Campaign continues to reach large audiences through several communications tools. The "America’s Next Homeless" PSA ran full-page in the July/August issue of Martha Stewart Living. A joint FWS/NAS education poster was printed in August and will be mailed to more than 90,000 classrooms, wildlife refuges and other outlets to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week in October, and we produced a new issue of Refuge Watch newsletter.

In early July, we joined with the Montana State Office to conduct a donor trip to Montana’s Centennial Valley. Eight guests converged at the ranch of John and Melody Taft for four days of hikes, wildlife drives and canoe outings designed to build an awareness and appreciation of this spectacular landscape. Any gifts will go toward our efforts to secure conservation easements on ranch lands adjacent to Red Rock Lakes NWR within the valley. We also worked with membership to create "Refuges at Risk" direct mail piece that reached Audubon members in July. Lastly, we met with the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education to discuss education department grants to support the Earth Stewards program.

Funding for Wildlife

Action is taking place in both the House and Senate to move a major bill to provide permanent funding for land acquisition for recreation and wildlife habitat. Both the House and Senate Resources Committees scheduled markup session before the recess, but had to cancel because of last minute negotiations. These bills would insure that several billion dollars is made available each year for recreation and wildlife habitat acquisition. The Clinton Administration has their own proposal – called the "lands Legacy Initiative" – and they are working to encourage Congressional action. The D.C. policy staff has been spending considerable time to lobby for these bills. We will continue our efforts when the Congress returns in the fall.

South Dakota Wetlands Lawsuit

The Board Litigation Committee has approved our involvement in an important lawsuit dealing with Prairie Pothole wetlands.

Under the "Swampbuster" provision of the 1985 Farm Bill, Congress encouraged wetlands protection on private agricultural land by terminating farm benefit payments when producers drained or destroyed wetlands. The Natural Resource Conservation Service or NRCS (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service) was charged with identifying these wetlands, and determining when agricultural program benefits should be withheld.

In 1994, the SCS signed a Memorandum of Agreement with other federal agencies to lay out a process for delineating wetlands, and how to enforce Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on farmland.

In May 1999, NRCS unilaterally and with no prior notification or consultation changed the wetlands mapping convention for South Dakota. The replaced the criteria in the 1994 MOA with a much less comprehensive definition and criteria borrowed from Minnesota. The result was to significantly decrease the number of wetlands in South Dakota.

In the face of this significant threat, Audubon will join with the National Wildlife Federation in a lawsuit to force repeal of the South Dakota decision. Our brief states that the decision should be repealed because it violates the Swampbuster law, NRCS regulations, the 1994 MOA, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Heritage Forest Campaign

This campaign has had a tremendous year. Nearly 500,000 comments have been sent into the Administration through postcards, internet outreach, and petitions. The Campaign generated a sign-on letter to Vice President Al Gore with more than 450 conservation organizations, 230 scientists, and 40 religious organizations. Separately, a "faith" sign on letter has generated the support of more than 200 clergy members.

The Campaign has generated more than three dozen editorials using the campaign materials. In addition there have been more than 80 articles generated in daily and weekly print and electronic media related to roadless area protection. Over a dozen guest opinion editorials have been published in daily newspapers.

The effort to save roadless areas has also generated support on Capitol Hill. The Campaign worked with Representatives Horn and Hinchey to circulate a congressional sign-on letter supporting a strong roadless area protection policy as an outcome of the Administration's policy making initiative. This letter was submitted with 168 co-signers.

The result of all this effort has been to convince the Administration to broaden the Forest Service’s roads policy to include protection of roadless areas. Meetings with the White House staff indicate that a major announcement by the President could take place this fall.

Garrison

The Garrison Diversion Unit legislation continues to be a possibility in the Senate. A hearing was held on the bill last May, and at that hearing, the Administration announced it would support the bill if certain amendments were included. The North Dakota delegation has been trying to get the bill approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Audubon continues to oppose the legislation.

AUDUBON CENTERS: IMPLEMENTING THE 2020 VISION

(Draft 9/9/99; revised 9/17/99)

The Big Picture: Audubon Education

"Audubon Education". Potentially powerful words. Words that could, over time, represent the cutting edge of environmental education internationally. Words that could, with focus, discipline, creativity and a commitment of resources, change the way Americans think about and interact with the environment. "Audubon Education": words that imply the path to creating a culture of conservation; making the protection of natural resources a valued part of daily living for the masses. Words that could come to represent the participation of people of all ethnicities and socio-economic levels in environmental activities.

In 1998 the Education Committee Task Force of the NAS Board of Directors took an important step in moving Audubon Education towards this vision by adopting the following goals: "The overall goal of Audubon Education is to foster a culture of conservation in the next generation." The document goes on to state that the specific goals will be to:

• "Foster connections between people and the natural world"
• Increase understanding about how humans affect nature and what they can do to conserve it
• Increase environmental literacy of the general public, particularly about birds, other wildlife and their habitats
• Increase willingness to apply this knowledge directly to conservation

Furthermore, in December 1998, the Board of Directors unanimously adopted the 2020 Vision, a commitment to making NAS the most powerful environmental organization in the nation by cultivating a broad-based constituency that cares about natural resources locally and nationally.

The challenge now is to truly apply these ideals to Audubon Education and to implement the above stated goals in a clear and consistent manner. This will require focusing Audubon Education on programs that accomplish specific priorities of NAS.

Audubon Education will utilize a combination of comprehensive field programs offered through Audubon Centers, in combination with curriculum and citizen science programs designed to complement and enhance the field experiences. The framework will be designed with age appropriate goals, for example, to develop an environmental ethic in young children, scientific understanding and problem solving skills in teen-agers, and a commitment to taking action to protect the environment in adults. In the broadest sense, our goal is to develop a citizenry with a lifelong commitment to environmental stewardship.

Audubon Education will also include a variety of programs strategically targeted to reach traditionally under served audiences; accomplish specific scientific, conservation or public policy goals, and to enhance the field programs to ensure that they provide a fully comprehensive educational experience of the highest quality.

Audubon Centers lie at the heart of Audubon Education. Centers will become the primary vehicle for the delivery of programs and environmental action at the community level.

In the process of connecting people to nature, Audubon will become a leader in site based environmental education, known nationwide for its innovative hands-on field programming. Audubon Education will have redefined the current definition of environmental education, elevating its importance in the conservation movement because of its ability to connect people of all ages and ethnicity’s to nature. The results of building these personal relationships between people and the environment is a broad based constituency and membership who cares passionately about the natural world and is pro-active in its protection.

Questions:

a. What is Audubon Education? What do we want it to accomplish? Where is it today? Where should it go?

b. Building Credibility/Getting NAS Ed House in Order. How do we most effectively go from where we are today with Audubon Education to a focused carefully thought out agenda?

c. Relationships Between Programs. What are the direct relationships between Centers and Audubon Education? Science? Public Policy? What are the indirect relationships? What are the reporting relationships between Centers staff and State Directors? Education Directors?

Philosophy of Audubon Centers

Audubon Centers are places throughout our nation that connect people to nature in a positive and meaningful way. Their purpose, one experience at a time, is to develop an environmental ethic in our citizenry, creating over time, a culture of conservation; generations of people who feel and act based on their personal bond with the natural world.

Each Audubon Center is unique to its site and community, yet together Audubon Centers form a powerful network of natural resources, educators, scientists and people of all ethnicity’s and socio-economic levels. A logical extension of Audubon public policy advocacy takes place at Audubon Centers serving as a powerful force for building relationships with, and educating decision-makers at all levels, building constituency, and engaging people in positive action. Over time, Audubon Centers will ensure that caring about the environment in one’s community is not the purview of a small sector of our population, but rather the inherent desire and responsibility of the masses.

By the year 2020 Audubon will create more than 1000 Audubon Centers both by developing new centers, and by partnering with existing nature centers. While centers will come in all shapes and sizes, collectively Audubon Centers will help to conserve more than a million acres of natural resources, serve hundreds of thousands of people each year, and serve as a base for generating membership, volunteerism, and community leadership on environmental issues.

The Essential Elements of Audubon Centers

1. Audubon Centers focus on education programs that build a relationship between people and the natural world.
2. Audubon Centers emphasize site-based education; programs that focus on teaching about the environment, in the environment.
3. Audubon Centers emphasize field education programs for young children and families using hands-on, concept-based methodologies.
4. Audubon Centers provide a range of science based programs for all ages, and are designed to meet the unique needs of their community.
5. Audubon Centers are linked financially and through supervisory authority to the National Audubon Society and bear the Audubon name in a consistent manner nationwide.
6. Audubon Centers revolve around a place on the landscape, and include the protection, management, and interpretation of natural resources, both publicly and privately owned.
7. Audubon Centers include a mix of programs targeted at different audiences and providing science-based information on environmental issues of importance/concern to the communities where they are located.
8. Audubon Centers serve diverse ethnic and socio-economic groups.
9. Audubon Centers provide a meeting place for the community and encourage learning about environmental issues and the community process, and engaging in civic participation.
10. Audubon Centers reflect "green building" standards.

Questions:

a. Public Policy. Should there be an essential element that specifically uses the term Public Policy? Is the 80/20 ratio relative to each center? Each state? NAS overall?

b. Administrative Issues. Is administrative issues as an essential element? I.e.: will every Center be required to use the same accounting system, membership, etc.?

c. System for Authorization. We have moved away from the "tool kit" system of licensing Audubon Centers. How should it be replaced? Are there certain requirements/criteria/elements that one must pass to become an Audubon Center? If so what kind of system do we need to put in place? How will quality be ensured?

d. Branding. How will Audubon Centers be branded consistently, yet allow centers to have individual marks/local autonomy?

Implementation of Audubon Centers

1. Empower locally. State Directors and their staff will be the front-line implementers of Audubon Centers. The Senior Management Team role will be to support State Directors.
2. Respond to Community Needs. Audubon Centers must be relevant to the communities where they are located. This requires understanding the needs of each community and designing a program and facilities that address those needs simultaneous to achieving NAS goals.
3. Lead with Programs. The priority of Audubon Centers is to connect people to nature, not to build buildings.
4. Start with Children and Families. Research has consistently demonstrated that lifelong attitudes and values are developed between the ages of 0 and 8, and that the most effective way to "grow an environmentalist" is to provide a child with a direct experience in nature assisted by an inspired adult interpreter. Further more, one of the greatest influencers of adult behavior is feedback from their children. Serving children is the most effective way to reach parents, older siblings, teachers, and community leaders.
5. Provide a Range of Programming. Audubon Centers will also offer programs for all ages: programming for young children will emphasize broad concepts about natural systems and the development of values and attitudes; programs at the intermediate and high school level will emphasize science, critical thinking and problem solving skills; programming for adults will emphasize topical knowledge and public policy issues.
6. Take Action. All Audubon Centers will provide pro-active opportunities for participants to take positive action to improve the environment. These activities will range from habitat respect and restoration, to citizen science activities, to advocacy.
7. Grow Sustainable Operations. Each Audubon Center will have an individualized strategy for its long-term sustainability. This will include revenue generating activities, fund raising, and endowment.
8. Utilize Available Resources. Audubon Centers will involve independent NAS operations, partnerships with government agencies and private organizations, and the involvement and leadership of chapters. Chapters will be the heart of Audubon Centers, providing grassroots leadership, volunteerism, scientific expertise, etc. Conversely, chapters may choose to use Centers as a base of operations for meetings, birding activities, etc.
9. Think Creatively. Each Audubon Center will be unique. While we can apply best practices and lessons learned from one to the next, there is no "cookie cutter" formula for a successful center.
10. Encourage Involvement in Advocacy. Audubon Centers will teach problem-solving and leadership skills, and advocate good citizenship and good stewardship seeking lasting solutions for environmental problems.
11. Engage People. Audubon Centers will build a broad-based constituency and provide opportunities for increased volunteer support, NAS membership, and chapter involvement.
12. Link with Schools. Field programs and curriculum for school children will be designed in connection with federal, state and local educational standards and requirements.

Questions:

a. Priorities. With limited time and resources how do we serve the whole country at one time? How do we remain flexible and able to respond to opportunities, while carrying out a realistic set of priorities? (see section below)

b. Infrastructure. What is a realistic level of staffing (i.e.: funding) to respond to the level of enthusiasm and multitude of opportunities that exists? What is the make-up of this staff? THIS IS A PRIORITY ITEM TO RESOLVE!!!

c. Funding. Where will the funding for the infrastructure come from? Initially? Long-term? How much leadership time should be devoted to fund raising for the national program, versus in the field assisting State Directors?

d. Chapters. What is the relationship between chapter centers and NAS? Is there a specific relationship required? Many versions? Will centers compete with chapters? How do we address this issue?

e. Public Policy. What is an appropriate and realistic expectation for Public Policy work at Centers? How is this measured? What role do Centers play in lobbying? Do Centers raise funds to directly support lobbying activities?

Determining Priorities

There are currently more opportunities and interest in Audubon Centers than can be accommodated with our existing resources. While every effort will be made to give all interested parties a positive response to their inquiries, the internal sieve for determining where to focus our limited resources will be as follows:

1. States with State offices.
2. Opportunities that include adequate financial and natural resources for long-term sustainability.
3. Opportunities that reach traditionally under-served populations.
4. Opportunities that include a significant impact on a major conservation issue.
5. Opportunities where we already have a commitment.
6. Opportunities that will significantly launch the 2020 Vision and effectively brand Audubon.
7. Opportunities where we can have control over quality programming.
8. Opportunities that allow NAS to strengthen and expand the centers network.

Questions:

a. Should NAS focus on making a few Centers very successful i.e.: Models/flagships, or try to develop a lot quickly?

Measures of Success

1. Audubon Centers will be measured qualitatively by the impact of the programs and experiences offered, and quantitatively by the number of people served, number of acres preserved, and number of centers established.
2. A framework for assessing progress will be established, based on activities, results and impacts.
3. A visual tool will be developed that depicts progress. (What is this tool?)
4. Funding will be sought to develop a long-term, externally conducted study on the impacts of Audubon Centers relative to developing a culture of conservation.

Questions:

a. Quality. How do we assure a high level of quality and accuracy for Audubon Centers? Initially? Long term? There are many interpretations of centers and environmental education, how do we focus the definition? Internally? Externally?

b. Audubon Education. How do we develop quality controls for existing Audubon products/programs?

 

Next Steps

1. Work with existing State Directors to develop statewide plans for Audubon Centers.

   a. Develop a template.
   b. Assist State Directors in hiring of education staff.
   c. Work with State Directors and their staff on development of statewide plans, prioritization, etc.

2. Hire Staff.

   a. Administrative Assistant
   b. Program Specialist
   c. Other

3. Work with State Directors to develop a Strategic plan for their priority Center initiative.

   a. Develop a template of a strategic plan to include: program plans, site and facilities plans, feasibility and financial plans and market studies.

4. Visit existing Audubon Centers and chapter centers.
5. Develop "Best Practices" videos or other method of communicating end results.
6. Collaborate with Science Division to develop a framework for all existing Audubon Education programs.

   a. Develop framework.
   b. Assess Quality, audiences served, future directions.

7. Redefine and grow the CSX intern program for nationwide applicability.
8. Redefine and grow Audubon Camp program.

Audubon Advocacy and State Offices

Audubon's Strategic Plan - "Audubon 2000" - lays out a bold plan to establishing offices in all 50 states. These state offices are the building blocks for a solid foundation on which we can base our future science, education and advocacy activities. To insure that we are developing a solid foundation for future advocacy activities, the National Audubon Society Board of Directors expects that each state office will strive to achieve the following elements within its state program dealing with advocacy. Each state office should:

• Strive to become the leading voice in the conservation community of that state for advocacy on behalf of birds, other wildlife and habitat;

• Develop effective working relationships with environmental and other significant organizations;

• Develop close working relationships, including a regular series of visits, with their Senators, Representatives, Governor, and state legislative and administrative leaders;

• Build a working relationship with environmental reporters, appropriate political reporters and editorial boards of major news outlets in the state.

• Develop a cadre of leading citizens who can assist Audubon in contacting elected and appointed leaders on issues of concern to Audubon;

• Institute mechanisms for alerting Audubon members and activists about upcoming issues of concern;

• Put into place mechanisms to enable Audubon members and activists to have a meaningful impact on policy debates and controversies;

• Take advantage of the latest technology, including the internet, to improve communication with members and activists on policy issues; and,

• Develop and institute training issues designed to improve the ability of Audubon members to have an impact on advocacy issues.

Developing Audubon Grassroots Advocacy

Audubon has long had a strong interest in developing an effective grassroots program. The Strategic Plan calls for reaching out to our members and involving them in a meaningful way in our advocacy efforts. Recent changes in technology enable us to communicate with many members in a faster and less costly manner.

As a result, we need to look at the goals national and state offices should strive for in improving our grassroots efforts. These goals include the following which are four building blocks for effective grassroots advocacy:

1. Grassroots

• Develop a cadre of 50,000 Audubon members who can be accessed by email, and who can respond to as many as five "general" issues per year.
• Develop and activate 50,000 members who are available to respond to specific issues of interest to our program areas.

II. Grasstops

• Develop an effective Grasstops cadre of at least 20 individuals in each state.
• Institute means and measures to implement the grasstops program through state offices.
• Work with State Directors to identify 10 major givers, and 10 heads of other organizations who would be willing to assist on various issues.

III. Volume

• Develop means to identify members who want to be involved.
• Develop and communicate appropriate materials to our members they can be effectively involved. .
• Enabling our members to speak with a loud voice.
• Maximize the efficiency of the Internet and other outreach technologies.
• Raise the funds necessary to have an impact.

IV. Communications

• Develop capability to articulate issues to the media on a timely basis.

Advantages of List Enhancement to Audubon

List enhancement is the process of taking a membership list, matching it against information-rich sources such as state voter files and motor vehicle registration files, and "enhancing" the list with new data. These data could include: address and phone number updates; e-mail addresses; federal and state legislative districts; political party affiliation; demographic information such as age and gender; and, in the case of a joint list enhancement project with other organizations, how many members are common to multiple organizations.

Why Participate in a List Enhancement Project?

1. Increased ability to communicate with supporters Address and phone number updates, and in particular the addition of e-mail addresses to our membership files, will ensure that we have available a range of ways to communicate with our members and supporters.
2. Better targeting for advocacy and fundraising Members who vote consistently in primary and general elections tend to be more motivated and educated on issues, and hence are often the best targets when soliciting donors or recruiting volunteers.
3. Greater understanding of your membership Through list enhancement, an organization can gain important information about its membership, such as average age, geographic distribution, gender ratio, and in a joint list enhancement project, how many of its members belong to other organizations.

How is an Enhanced List Used?

Advocacy:

• Identify constituents of key legislators for grassroots lobbying purposes
• Target action alerts based on geography and voting frequency
• Recruit grassroots leaders based on their congressional district and voting frequency
• Turn out members in a particular county to a town meeting or legislative hearing
• Inform lawmakers of exactly how many of the organization's members are voting constituents

Fundraising:

• Focus fundraising efforts on high-frequency voters
• Develop prospecting lists based on group demographics

Membership:

• Conduct membership appeals based on gender or age

To: Public Policy Committee
From: Dan Beard and Valerie Cook
Date: September 2, 1999
Re: Green Group List Project

This spring, the Turner Foundation approached the Green Group to propose that national conservation organizations join forces in a list project to strengthen our collective ability to advocate for environmental protection. The Turner Foundation approved a $5 million grant in July to launch this initiative.

Project Specifics

A new nonprofit organization called the Partnership Project has been formed to implement the grant. A two-person staff will coordinate the list project and future fundraising efforts, but the Partnership Project will differ from a traditional organization in that it will not have a membership, nor will it attempt to market itself as a separate entity. Instead, the Partnership Project will work to accomplish the following:

1. Create momentum around overarching issues of national importance ("campaigns"); and
2. Enhance the membership lists of conservation organizations with information such as legislative districts, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, voting history, and demographic profiles. (These enhancements would be prohibitively expensive were each organization to add them independently.)

Organizational Structure

A board of up to 20 directors will govern the Partnership Project, and a subset of these directors will form an executive committee. Nomination to the board of directors and executive committee will be based primarily on the size of the membership list an organization lends to the project. Representatives from the six organizations contributing the largest lists will form the initial executive committee, which will then appoint up to four other organizations to the committee.

Participating organizations agree to use their enhanced lists in at least two collaborative campaigns per year, although an organization can elect not to participate in any campaign. Should an organization bow out of two or more campaigns in a year, it must reimburse the Partnership Project for the cost of the enhancements to its list during the previous 24 months, although the executive committee may vote to waive this penalty. An organization also can leave the Partnership Project by submitting written notice 30 days in advance.

The following protocols have been established to protect the membership lists:

1. Triplex Systems Corporation, which warehouses lists for several participating organizations, will be the only entity with access to all of the organizations' lists. For example, only National Audubon and Triplex will have access to Audubon's list, and the only information we will learn from other organizations' lists will be the number of members that we have in common.
2. No fundraising or membership development will be done by the Partnership Project from the lists. The lists will be used exclusively for advocacy purposes.

Campaign Development

The board of directors will determine the topics and strategies for the campaigns. Selection of the campaigns will be by three-quarters of the executive committee and a simple majority of the board of directors. At least three collaborative campaigns will be launched each calendar year, and ad-hoc working groups will develop the campaign strategies.

The campaigns may take a number of different forms. Communications could be largely electronic, or regular mailings or phone banks could predominate. Furthermore, one communication could be sent out on stationary listing all of the participating groups, while another communication may be sent out on individual groups' letterhead to their subsets of members. The effectiveness of different techniques will inform future campaign strategies.

Campaign topics under consideration include land conservation, anti-environmental legislative riders, global warming, and voter participation. Two campaigns will be launched this fall.

What Does This Mean for Audubon?

1. Audubon would receive enhancements to our membership and donor lists, including address and phone number updates, e-mail addresses, voting frequency, and demographic information. This information could be used for our own advocacy, fundraising, and membership development efforts.
2. We already are involved in many of the issues likely to become Partnership Project campaigns. Collaborating with the Partnership Project on these issues will allow us to activate our membership more frequently. In addition, the Partnership Project's efforts may have more impact than our individual efforts could.

Next Steps

We have tentatively decided to participate in this effort. However, because this project could be controversial with some members, we are seeking support from the board in the form of a resolution. A draft resolution is attached for your review.

To date, we have contributed a portion of our membership and donor lists to the initial list merge/purge for the project, from which a combined list will emerge. The size of Audubon's list—approximately 441,000 members and donors—has earned Audubon a seat on both the board of directors and the executive committee. Audubon and Triplex signed a confidentiality agreement for the initial list merge/purge. An additional confidentiality agreement would be signed for any future list usage that Audubon participates in.

Resolution
National Audubon Society
Brewster, MA
September 17,1999

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE GREEN GROUP'S "PARTNERSHIP PROJECT FOR LIST ENHANCEMENT"

Whereas, the National Audubon Society and other environmental organizations would benefit from a coordinated, national grassroots advocacy project in which all organizations work together on significant national issues;

Whereas, the Turner Foundation has agreed to flind a national Partnership Project to improve the effectiveness of national environmental organizations using a coordinated, grassroots advocacy program targeted at a narrow set of issues; and

Whereas, the National Audubon Society would benefit from having a portion of its membership files "enhanced" with background information about the members;

Therefore Be It Resolved, the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society supports participation in the national Partnership Project and directs management to take the appropriate steps to support this resolution.

Template for Developing a Statewide Plan for Audubon Centers

DRAFT 9/9/99

I. Introduction

Following is a first attempt at articulating a set of questions that will assist State Directors in developing a statewide plan for Audubon Centers. It is important however to recognize that there is no "cookie cutter" approach for developing nature centers. Each Audubon Center will be unique, making standardized formulas useful as a guideline, but necessarily varied from state to state and community to community. It is also recognized that every state is at a different level of development relative to developing Audubon Centers. The ideal sequence of events for developing a nationwide network of Audubon Centers looks something like this:

• Hire a State Director
• Develop a Statewide plan for Audubon Centers
• Focus on implementing the top priority center in the plan by:
  • Developing a Strategic Plan for the Center which includes

• Market study
  Financial Feasibility Plan
  Program Plan
  Facilities and Resource Management Plans

Again however, in recognizing that some states may already be focused on a single center effort this will vary.

Perhaps what is most important to note as an introduction is that State Directors, with the assistance of their education staff and NAS senior management team will be the implementers of the 2020 Vision. Ultimately the network of Audubon Centers will be comprised of a mix of National Audubon Society owned centers and other affiliated Audubon Centers with affiliation relative to direct budgetary and staff reporting relationships between a center and an NAS State Office. The network will include State Office initiated and operated centers, and partnerships with chapters, independent non-profits, private organizations and government agencies. Each center will be a small business in and of itself, yet part of a larger "franchise" operation.

What follows is the who, what, where, why, when and how of developing a statewide plan for Audubon Centers.

II. The Task

Who: State Directors with the assistance of State Education Directors, NAS Senior Management Staff, and consultants as needed.

What: Develop a Statewide Plan for Audubon Centers

Where: In every State where we currently have State Offices. (A priority for new State Directors as they are hired.)

When: This will vary by State, however ideally this effort should lead any State’s Centers agenda.

Why: To develop a thoughtful, strategic game plan for creating a culture of conservation in each State, utilizing Audubon Centers as the focal point. To help prioritize the needs, opportunities and resources in each State.

How: Ask a lot of questions; do a lot of homework; talk to a lot of people. Look for opportunities that address major needs and conservation issues of a local community. Look for opportunities that include natural resources, financial resources, and human resources necessary for long-term success.

III. Key Components of a Statewide Plan for Audubon Centers

1. An analysis of the environmental education status and needs of the State.
2. An analysis of major environmental/conservation issues facing the State.
3. Identification and analysis of existing nature centers and similar organizations already in operation or being planned for the State.
4. Analysis of different audiences and their specific needs/interests.
5. Identification and analysis of available or obtainable resources, both natural, financial and human.
6. Identification, analysis and prioritization of Audubon Center opportunities.

IV. The Questions to Ask

1) An analysis of the Environmental Education status and needs of the State.

• Does your State have established standards or requirements for Environmental Education? If so, what are they? Are they applicable only to specific grades, etc.? Similarly are there existing science or social studies standards that may be applicable?
• How is science/environmental issues/natural history currently being taught? What grades?
• Are field trips feasible? What is the cost/system for obtaining ground transportation? How is the day/year scheduled?
• Is there pressure in your State to focus on academic basics (reading, writing, math, etc.)? If so, are there test standards that must be met? At what grades? When during the year does the testing take place? Is there an opportunity to design program that will meet the needs of teachers/students to achieve these standards?
• What other organizations are already supplementing these needs? Are any of the State/Federal/County agencies involved with resource management/protection looking for education programs to support their missions? (Departments of Health, Land and Natural Resources, Water, Parks, Refuge, etc.)

Our goal is to develop Audubon Centers that are relevant to the community. One of the most effective ways to become involved with a community is to become involved with its schools. This also becomes a vehicle for reaching adults, families, public officials, government agencies, etc. In order to develop Audubon Centers that are successful, we need to meet the needs of the schools. It should also be noted that in many States the standards and requirements might need to be examined both at the State and local level, and relationships established with officials at both levels.

2) An analysis of major environmental/conservation issues facing the State.

• Are there one or two key environmental issues in the State?
• Is it an issue that requires resource protection or education about a specific species or habitat? Could a Center be established that would address the issue from an educational perspective? Protect key resource? Etc.
• The process for identifying Important Bird Areas can assist you in identifying environmental resources that are important ecologically for your State. Are any of the IBA’s also potential Center sites?
• Sometimes a singular conservation issue that is facing the State will attract significant financial resources from both government and the private sector. Is there potential to focus a Center on such an issue and tap into existing resources.

The National Audubon Society is committed to developing a nationwide network of Audubon Centers. This plan is outlined in the 2020 Vision, which calls for the establishment of, more than 1000 Audubon Centers by the year 2020. This number is a goal. The actual number of centers in each state will vary based upon the needs of the State.

3) Identification and analysis of existing nature centers and similar organizations already in operation or being planned for the State.

• Who else is in the nature center business? Are they effective? Who do they serve? What are there biggest challenges? Greatest strengths? Is there opportunity for collaboration or partnership?
• Are there other NGO’s in the community that fulfill the niche for field programming? Who? Same questions as above.
• Are there any gaps across the State? Areas where service is not provided? Why?
• Based on your research and analysis of existing efforts what is the unique niche that Audubon can fulfill in your state?

4) Analysis of different audiences and their needs/interests.

• What are the environmental education/field program opportunities for various audiences and age groups in your State? Where are the populations and what do they want and need?
• If there are already many successful nature centers in your community, is there a gap group audience that they may not be serving? Why? Is there a way that an Audubon Center could serve them effectively?
• Is there a specific target audience that would most benefit from a specific site or field experience? I.e.: all fourth graders study salmon and we have a potential center on a salmon run…
• What do the people of the target community want? What will they come to/use? Determining this may require focus groups throughout the State.
• Are there specific areas of need that an Audubon Center might be able to effectively address? (Think outside the box here, and listen to what people are telling you they experience as a problem…it may be something like after school care for kids, or the cost of busses for field trips. After you assess the problem area, think creatively about solutions via an Audubon Center.)

5) Identification and analysis of obtainable resources, natural, financial, and human.

• Where’s the money? What public and private financial resources are available to support a Center both short and long-term? Think broadly: individual donors, local and national foundations, local and national government, private corporations, etc.
• Is there adequate leadership and community commitment to start and sustain a Center? Are there local residents, university students, etc. that could form a volunteer corps?
• Are the natural resources inspiring? Are they accessible by car? By bus? Are they too fragile to sustain programming? Who owns them? Can you use them? Is there a private or government owned resource that merits interpretation, etc.?

Chapters are likely to be a huge asset, particularly in identifying human and natural resources in a given community.

6) Identification, analysis and prioritization of Audubon Center opportunities.

This section requires an analysis of all of the above information that has been gathered, and a strategic look at where the greatest opportunity lies for Audubon Centers. Many centers happen because a piece of land becomes available, a financial gift is obtained, or a set of circumstances provides the right combination of factors for a successful center. Some of these opportunities will surface during the process of developing a state plan. Others may arise later and need to be incorporated into the existing priorities.

A statewide plan is likely to have a variety of centers across the State prioritized into high, medium and low. The level of priority will reflect the quality of the opportunity, i.e.: availability of resources, likelihood of success, etc. While NAS needs to be completely committed to the success of every center that we become involved in and call an Audubon Center, it is very likely that not all Audubon Centers will be initiated or operated by NAS. Partnerships and collaborations will vary, with an underlying requirement that every Audubon center is tied directly to a state budget, and that there are direct reporting relationships between center staff and state NAS staff.

DRAFT as of 9/14/99

America's Hidden Lands: A Proposal to Discover Our National Wildlife Refuge System

Executive Summary

Our government has a secret. It has been ignoring a system of lands larger than the National Park System an area about the size of the state of Montana - that protects millions of birds, scores of wildlife, and twice as many endangered species as our national parks. This vast hidden system of lands - the National Wildlife Refuge System - is managed by a bureaucracy that treats it as an orphan, deserving only crumbs of federal funding and scant attention from government or the public. Refuge managers in the field try to care for it, but they struggle in obscurity. This report proposes that the neglect has gone on long enough - it is time to discover our national wildlife refuges, and finally give them the attention they deserve.

To free the Refuge System from the bureaucratic handcuffs that prevent it from reaching its full potential, the Congress should pass - and the administration should support - legislation that would create a bureau within the Department of the Interior that has as its sole responsibility the promotion and administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Refuge System Has the Potential to Be the World's Model of Wildlife Conservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest network of lands dedicated primarily to wildlife conservation, with the potential to be a model of effective land management and successful wildlife protection for the world to witness. The Refuge System is vast - it covers over 93 million acres peppering its 516 units throughout all 50 states and five U.S. territories, with the potential to extend its environmental and recreational benefits to all Americans.

The Refuge System conserves an incredible array of the nation's ecosystems: deserts, forests, tundra, great rivers, vast marshes, swamps, mountains, prairies, estuaries, coral reefs, and remote islands. This diverse set of habitats is home to a stunning diversity of wildlife, from the vast herd of Porcupine caribou roaming the unspoiled tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to the endangered West Indian manatee nestling into the quiet seagrasses of Pelican Island in Florida. In total, the Refuge System protects more than 2,000 fish and wildlife species, about one-tenth of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered. On refuges, threatened wildlife can begin their recovery, or hold their own against extinction.

While some refuges are visited only by seals and seabirds in the remoteness of the Pacific Ocean, others are visited by thousands of schoolchildren just a short bus ride from their classroom. In 1998, the Refuge System attracted 34 million visitors for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and outdoor education.

The Potential of the Refuge System is Held Back by Its Unusual Bureaucratic Context

As has been noted in several reports published by expert panels over the past three decades, the unusual bureaucratic context within which the Refuge System is situated has contributed significantly to hiding wildlife refuges from public view, and has been a barrier to adequate funding, strong leadership, and effective management.

What's So Unusual? Only the Fish and Wildlife Service does not focus on land management

The federal government owns and manages 650 million acres of land, or about 30 percent of the nation's surface area. About 95 percent of these lands are managed by four bureaus - the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture. Three of these four bureaus have mission statements that designate land management as their primary function.

Only the Fish and Wildlife Service operates under a broader mission - to conserve fish and wildlife. Accordingly, in addition to land management the Service has many other wildlife-related functions. As a result, the Service is the only land management bureau that does not focus solely on land management.

Everything but the Kitchen Sink - The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with a diverse set of major functions other than land management

Created in 1939, the Fish and Wildlife Service historically was a conglomeration of disparate wildlife-related functions, including enforcing early wildlife laws and managing a modest system of public lands. The responsibilities of the Service have since ballooned. In addition to the complex task of managing the 93-million-acre Refuge System, the Service also must carry out a diverse set of other major functions that distract from the management of wildlife refuges. These functions include:

Regulatory function: Under several wildlife-related laws, the Service has major permitting and enforcement responsibilities, including:

• Administering the Endangered Species Act The Service identifies and lists species as endangered or threatened; issues permits for "incidental takings" of endangered species; and develops Habitat Conservation Plans to ensure the long-term protection of listed species.

• Enforcing wildlife laws. Under several wildlife laws, the Service reviews and issues permits for importation and exportation of certain species of wildlife and plants, and investigates cases of migratory bird hunting violations, large-scale poaching, and commercial trade in protected wildlife.

Professional services function: For a range of customers, including federal and state agencies, foreign governments, industry, and members of the public, the Service provides professional services, such as:

• Assessing the impacts of development projects. Traditionally, the Service has offered expert advice to federal and state agencies, industry and the public on the impacts of development projects on fish and wildlife. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service assesses impacts on endangered species. • Providing technical assistance to foreign governments. Under 40 treaties, statutes, and international agreements, the Service helps to develop the conservation capabilities of cooperating countries and responds to requests from foreign governments for technical assistance.

Other functions

• Operating fish hatcheries: The Service works to restore fisheries that have been depleted by overfishing, pollution, or other habitat damage by operating 80 national fish hatcheries. • Conserving migratory birds. Under several laws and international treaties, the Service leads U.S.

efforts to conserve more than 800 species of migratory birds.

• Protecting waterfowl habitat. Under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Service works with its counterparts in Canada and Mexico to protect wetland habitat for waterfowl.

Too Many Mouths to Feed - The many functions of the Fish and Wildlife Service act as a barrier to public recognition, adequate funding, strong leadership and effective management

Public recognition of the Refuge System has been weak. Several reports published by expert panels over the past three decades have noted that the many functions of the Fish and Wildlife Service serve to hide refuges from public view. Weak public recognition of the System leads to weak or sporadic public support for wildlife refuges, less public use of refuge lands for wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities, and less public participation in the planning and decision-making processes that will guide the management of refuges in the future.

Funding for the Refuge System has suffered because it must compete with a diverse set of other functions for scarce funds in the Fish and Wildlife Service budget. In sharp contrast to the other land management bureaus (see figure 1), in 1999 the Service directed only about 37 percent of its total appropriated funds to land management. Underfunding and understaffing in past years has handcuffed the Fish and Wildlife Service, hindering their ability to address invasive exotic species, inadequate water supplies, and other problems that encumber many refuges, leading to declines in refuge habitats and wildlife populations. The Service now has a maintenance backlog of $526 million, leaving many critical projects uncompleted.

Leadership attention to refuges is also diluted. Senior leaders are forced to spread their attention across many disparate responsibilities, and often are trained in the legal, budgetary, policy and planning issues relevant to Service functions other than land management Compounding the problem, some of the Service's responsibilities are more controversial, and thereby command more leadership attention. In response to a 1997 survey conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), one refuge manager commented that "de-emphasis of refuges at higher levels of leadership have resulted in a weakened refuge system. Most regional directors pay lip service to refuges while pushing hot topics concerning endangered species."

Management of a major system of federal lands is a full-time job -just ask the National Park Service, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Land Management. In part due to the weak public recognition of refuges, inadequate leadership attention and inadequate funding, the management of refuges on the ground has suffered. In 1997, the managers of 125 refuges across the country voiced concerns about these problems in a Campfire Note to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and called for an elevation of the status of refuges as the solution.

Audubon's Solution: Create a New Bureau Focused on the Refuge System

To free the Refuge System from the bureaucratic handcuffs that prevent it from reaching its full potential, Congress should pass - and the administration should support - legislation that would create an independent bureau within the Department of the Interior that has as its sole responsibility the promotion and administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Creating such a bureau will:

• Align the Refuge System with other major federal land systems. Currently, independent bureaus dedicated to effective land management administer three of the four major federal land systems. The Refuge System is the only major land system not managed by such a bureau.

• Remove bureaucratic barriers that prevent the Refuge System from reaching its full potential. The division of priorities within Fish and Wildlife Service serves as a barrier to public recognition of the Refuge System, as well as a barrier to adequate funding, strong leadership, and effective management. Creating an independent bureau for refuges would remove these bureaucratic barriers, allowing a strong focus on improving government performance in the complex undertaking of refuge management. As a result, the Refuge System will be better able to provide its many important services to the American people.

For Further Background and Supporting Documentation:

1. "The National Wildlife Refuge System," Report of the Advisory Committee on Wildlife Management, Appointed by Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall, A. Starker Leopold, chairman, Clarence Cottam (Welder Wildlife Foundation), Ian McT. Cowan (University of British Columbia), Ira N. Gabrielson (Wildlife Management Institute), Thomas Kimball (National Wildlife Federation), March 1968.

2. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Task Force Report, Forrest Carpenter (National Wildlife Refuge Association), Charles Clusen (Sierra Club), John Grandy (Defenders of Wildlife), Laurence Jahn (Wildlife Management Institute), Willard Klimstra (Southern Illinois University), C. Eugene Knoder (National Audubon Society), Betty MacDonald (League of Women Voters), Chester Phelps (Virginia Commission of Game and Fish), Ronald Way (Department of the Interior), Robert S. Cook (Fish and Wildlife Service), 1978.

3. "Putting Wildlife First," Defenders of Wildlife, Robert Weeden, Chair (University of Alaska), Mollie Beattie, Vice-chair (Commissioner of Forests, Parks, and Recreation in Vermont), sixteen other distinguished commission members representing private organizations, 1992.

4. "The National Wildlife Refuges: Theory, Practice, and Prospect," Richard J. Fink, Harvard University Environmental Law Review, 1994.

5. "Campfire Note: Strengthening the Refuge System," memorandum from Refuge Managers across the country to Jamie Rappaport Clark. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997.

Resolution
National Audubon Society
Brewster, MA
September 17,1999

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY BOARD RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ELEVATING THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM TO BUREAU STATUS

Whereas, the National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses more than 93 million acres in over 500 units in all 50 states, is vital to advancing National Audubon Society's conservation mission;

Whereas, Audubon was a catalyst for establishing the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island in Florida in 1903, and provided wardens for many of the early refuges;

Whereas, National Audubon Society members and chapters have been strenuous supporters of their local national wildlife refuges throughout the century, helping them achieve important conservation objectives through volunteering, advocacy, citizen science and community outreach;

Whereas, National Audubon Society's Wildlife Refuge Campaign is charged with building public visibility, support and appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge System through the Audubon Refuge Keepers (ARK) and Earth Stewards community enlistment programs; public policy advocacy; and national media outreach;

Whereas of the four major land management agencies only the USFWS does not have land management as its primary mission;

Resolved, the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society hereby support the creation of an independent bureau within the Department of the Interior that has as its sole responsibility the promotion and administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Such a bureau will increase public recognition of the Refuge System, strengthen its leadership, and improve its management, thereby increasing the System's potential for conserving America's diverse wildlife heritage for future generations.

Avian Deaths Resulting From Encounters with Towers
Background for Resolution
September 1, 1999

Published accounts of birds striking tall, lit structures have appeared in scientific and popular literature for over one hundred years. The first long-term study of the impact of communication towers on birds was begun in 1955 by Tall Timbers Research Station at a television tower in north Florida. Over a 25-year period, over 42,000 bird carcasses representing 189 species were collected and identified from collisions with this tower, its guy wires, other birds, or the ground. Much other information about bird strikes with communication towers (radio, television, and now microwave and cellular) has been published since the 1970's. Unfortunately, most accounts only review carcass counts and species variability, not the presumed or suspected cause(s) of the collisions. Research into this arena is sorely lacking.

Published studies do, however, answer one question. Bird species vulnerable to communications towers comprise nearly 350 neotropical migratory species. These species generally migrate at night and appear to be most susceptible to collisions with lit towers on foggy, misty, low-cloud-ceiling nights during their migrations. All towers greater than 200 feet in height above ground level are required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to contain a pilot warning light(s) for safety purposes. It is the lights that appear to be most problematic for songbirds.

Two recent events have drawn increased attention to the problem. An estimated 10,000 Lapland Longspurs were killed at a tower in western Kansas on January 22, 1998. This event received considerable press attention throughout the nation. The second issue involves the proliferation of new, communication towers. According to some estimates, as many as an additional 60,000 communication towers will be built over the next decade. Each of these towers creates yet another potential for bird collisions and deaths.

In the late 1970's, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the electric utility industry cofounded the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). APLIC has periodically published suggested practices for reducing bird collisions with power lines. See: Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: the State of the Art in 1994, and Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 1996 (both documents currently being updated). In 1994, the Service began a partnership with the wind generation industry, leading to the formation of the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee. In response to turbine collisions, wire strikes, and electrocutions, A Pilot Golden Eagle Population Study in the Altamonte Pass Wind Resource Area, CA was published in 1995. The Avian Subcommittee is preparing a sixth and final draft of a metrics and methods document, with planned publication by year's end. National Audubon has provided comments to this document.

Are towers a significant problem, given the multiple impacts to birds of habitat loss and other factors? The USFWS estimated in 1979 an annual mortality of 1.4 million birds at 1,100 then-existing "tall" towers (greater than 200 feet tall). Today, based on the February 1999 FCC database, at least 48,642 towers greater than 200 feet, and lit (not including towers classified as "poles") currently are sited in the U.S. Other groups, however, feel that the FCC's Antenna Structure Registry understates the number of towers that are subject to marking and lighting, suggesting that upwards of 80,000 towers are currently lighted.

Whatever the exact figure. Bill Evans (ornithologist and acoustical researcher) has taken the Service's 1979 estimate, incorporated other mortality estimates from the Tall Timbers Research Station and other sources, and calculated a mortality estimate of upwards of 4 million birds killed per year by collisions with towers. Actual tower mortality could be an order of magnitude larger, but we simply do not know for sure. Research is needed into the cumulative impacts of all towers, especially when one considers the dramatic increase in the siting of new towers (approximately 6-8% per year) and its potential for bird strikes. Add to this the mandates of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring the digitization of all television stations by 2003, possibly resulting in the placement of some 1,000 new DTV towers ~ 1,000 feet above ground level within 5 years. These very tall towers are usually illuminated with multiple lights and supported by multiple bands of guy wires. Their potential impacts on birds are, according to the USFWS, quite serious.

While some migratory bird species are doing well (e.g., snow geese, urban Canada geese, cowbirds, and cormorants), many others are not. Declines persist in over 200 species. Approximately, 90 of these are listed on the Endangered Species Act, and the WatchList continues to grow each year. Thus, the individual factors that kill birds — including collisions with towers, wind generators, power lines, glass windows, pesticides, oil spills, cats, cars, aircraft, and other causes — are of growing concern.

What are the cumulative impacts of tower collisions on birds? We don't yet know, and research is needed to provide answers.

To begin to address the issue of bird collisions with communication towers, the Service convened a meeting in Panama City, FL, last November to discuss "Migratory Bird Conservation and Communications Towers: Avoiding and Minimizing Conflicts." In June, representatives from 40 groups met in Washington, DC at a meeting facilitated by RESOLVE, the environmental dispute resolution group. Audubon participated in this meeting which discussed towers, bird collisions, and research needs. As a result of the meeting, a "Communication Tower Working Group" will be formed to develop research needs and develop funding possibilities. Audubon is a member of this group.

The National Audubon Society has long been concerned about the growth of communications towers because of their possible impacts on migratory birds. There is no controversy that large towers kill migratory birds. The debate centers on how many birds are killed, when and how. It is also clear that mitigation measures can and should be taken to avoid excessive impacts on migratory birds.

As towers are concerned by local, state or federal permitting agencies, we should know how many towers exist, what impact these towers are having, what impact a prospective tower could have, and how these impacts can be mitigated.

Despite the many unanswered questions surrounding tower kills, it is apparent this is an issue we should encourage government agencies and the private sector to address. The following actions should be undertaken whenever a permitting agencies is faced with the responsibility to approve any proposed new tower:

• A detailed review of the possible impact of the proposed tower on migratory and non-migratory birds;

• An environmental analysis examining the impact of the proposed tower on birds, as well as the impact of the proposed tower in relations to other towers in the general area;

• All alternatives to a proposed tower should be considered, including the alternative of not building the tower or imposing a moratorium on new towers pending completion of appropriate studies and reviews;

• If a tower is to be approved, reasonable conditions should be placed on the permit insuring the conservation of birds, other wildlife, and their habitats will continue; and,

• The permitting agency should take every reasonable step to collect and analyze the appropriate research information about birds in the area of the proposed tower.

Taking these steps will not eliminate bird ills associated with towers, but they represent important steps to gaining a better understanding of this issue and to mitigating the impact of towers on birds.

Resolution
Minimizing Bird Deaths Associated with Towers
National Audubon Society

Whereas, Birds are killed as a result of encounters with man-made towers, including radio, television, and communication towers;

Whereas, Our knowledge of how and why birds are killed as a result of encounters with towers needs to be improved;

Whereas, Some mitigation steps can be taken to avoid bird deaths with towers, or mitigate the impact of towers; and,

Whereas, The construction of an estimated 40,000 new towers in the next decade represents a significant and growing new threat to many WatchList species

Therefore, Be It Resolved That the National Audubon Society urges all local, state and federal agencies to take the following steps before they permit towers:

1. A detailed review of the possible impact of the proposed tower on migratory and nonmigratory birds;

2. An environmental analysis examining the impact of the proposed tower on birds, as well as the impact of the proposed tower in relations to other towers in the general area;

3. All alternatives to a proposed tower should be considered, including the alternative of not building the tower or imposing a moratorium on new towers pending completion of appropriate studies and reviews;

4. If a tower is to be approved, reasonable conditions should be placed on the permit insuring the conservation of birds, other wildlife, and their habitats will continue;

5. The permitting agency should take every reasonable step to collect and analyze the appropriate research information about birds in the area of the proposed tower;

6. Take steps to minimize the number of towers permitted by mandating the multiple use of permitted towers where possible; and,

Resolved Further, The Board calls on the communications and tower industries to finance and undertake an aggressive research program to answer the many outstanding questions surrounding this issue.

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

QUARTERLY LITIGATION REPORT

SEPTEMBER 1999

NEW CASES:

Essential Fish Habitat -- American Oceans Campaign, et al., v. Daley.

The 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) amendments require, for the first time, protection of "essential fish habitat (EFH)." "Essential fish habitat" means "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity." The MSA requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to amend existing fishery management plans to comply with the Act’s new EFH requirements. Specifically, plan amendments must identify essential fish habitat, minimize adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify action to encourage conservation and enhancement of such habitat. This lawsuit alleges that five of the regional EFH amendments approved by NMFS fail to comply with the MSA because they fail to "describe and identify essential fish habitat" and fail to "minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitats caused by fishing" as required by the Act. The lawsuit seeks to compel NMFS to comply with the requirements of the law.

Highly Migratory Species -- National Coalition for Marine Conservation, et al., v. Daley.

"Highly migratory species" (HMS) are defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as Atlantic tunas (bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye), swordfish, sharks and billfish (marlin, sailfish and spearfish). The 1996 MSA amendments require NMFS to amend fishery management plans (FMPs) for highly migratory species in order to comply with the Act’s new requirements to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks and minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. This lawsuit alleges that the HMS FMP prepared by NMFS fails to meet the MSA’s new requirements, because it fails to minimize bycatch (fish that are harvested in a fishery but are not sold or kept for personal use) and fails to prevent overfishing of swordfish, particularly juvenile swordfish.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Overfishing -- National Audubon Society v. Daley.

This case challeges the fishery management plan (FMP) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, a species that is classified as "overfished." Specifically, this suit alleges that NMFS failed to develop a stock rebuilding plan that meets the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Sharks -- Southern Offshore Fishing Association v. Daley.

National Audubon has moved to intervene in a lawsuit filed by several commercial fishing organizations and individual shark fishermen against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The fishermen’s lawsuit challenges NMFS’s recently approved fishery management plan (FMP) for sharks. That FMP reduces the commercial catch quotas for sharks and places additional restrictions on shark fishing. These restrictions are necessary to prevent the current steep decline in shark populations. National Audubon is seeking to intervene in the case in order to defend NMFS’s actions with respect to quotas and management of sharks.

South Dakota Wetlands -- National Wildlife Federation v. Dean Fisher and NRCS.

In 1985, Congress created an important new tool for protecting wetlands when it passed the Food Security Act, also known as the Farm Bill. Under the Act’s so-called "Swampbuster" provision, Congress sought to encourage the protection of wetlands on private farmland by terminating federal farm benefits to agricultural producers who drained or destroyed identified wetlands. Under Swampbuster, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), has the responsibility for identifying wetlands and determining whether benefits should be denied if wetlands were drained, dredged, or filled. In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the NRCS which combined and coordinated wetland determinations made by the NRCS under Swampbuster and wetland delineations made by EPA and the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

On May 13, 1999, NRCS State Conservationist Dean Fisher unilaterally changed the mapping conventions for South Dakota in such a way that up to 90% of areas currently determined to be wetlands would not longer be classified as wetlands. The directive violates Swampbuster by failing to establish a process for the identification of wetlands that complies with criteria set out in the law, and violates the 1994 MOA because it was adopted without consultation with EPA, the Corps, or FWS. The NRCS also violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), or even an environmental assessment (EA) before issuing the May 13 directive.

In July 1999, the National Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit against the NRCS challenging the May 13 decision to change wetland determinations in South Dakota. In addition to alleging that the May 13 violates Swampbuster, the suit also alleges that the NRCS violated NEPA and Endangered Species Act in issuing the directive. National Audubon joined the lawsuit on September 1, 1999.

ACTION IN PENDING CASES:

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna -- Tutein v. Daley.

In August 1998, National Audubon moved to intervene in a lawsuit, filed by commercial bluefin tuna fishermen, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS), definition of "overfished," and its designation of Atlantic bluefin tuna as an "overfished" stock. NMFS’ action was taken in accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. Fish stocks designated as "overfished" trigger a series of requirements under the Act designed to rebuild the stocks. On March 19, 1999, the federal court dismissed the fishermens’ major substantive claims and denied National Audubon’s motion to intervene, on the ground that Audubon had not met the applicable test for intervention. The court did leave open the possibility for Audubon to participate as amicus. In July, the plaintiffs and the government jointly moved the dismiss the case and the judge granted their request. The case is now closed.

Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat – Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior.

This case, filed in federal district court on September 1993, challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) decision to not designate critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher after the FWS listed that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS had determined that it would not designate critical habitat because it would not be prudent to do so. The district court ruled in favor of the FWS in late 1994 but, in May 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals reversed. The FWS was ordered to designate critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. On remand, the FWS reversed its earlier decision, finding that it would be prudent to designate critical habitat –but again, failed to do so. In October 1998 the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the FWS to comply with the court’s order.

On August 4, 1999 the district court issued an Order directing the FWS to designate critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. The court gave the FWS 60 days in which to do so. Future action (in the form of another order to compel compliance) may be necessary if the FWS’s critical habitat designation omits some keys areas or in any way violates the Ninth Circuit’s 1997 decision.

Summer Flounder – Natural Resources Defense Council v. Daley.

In January 1999, National Audubon filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 1999 commercial and recreational harvest quota for summer flounder, a stock that is classified as "overfished." The quota set by the agency has less than a 20% chance of meeting NMFS’s rebuilding target for the stock. The lawsuit alleges that NMFS’s 1999 summer flounder quota violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically the requirement that NMFS’s management measures must prevent overfishing, and the requirement that any regulations (such as the quota) must be consistent with fishery management plans. NMFS’s quota fails to meet both requirements. The complaint also alleged that the environmental assessment that accompanied the proposed quota is deficient and, therefore, violates the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

On August 11, 1999, D.C. District Court Judge June Green ruled in favor of NMFS, concluding that the Magnuson-Stevens Act imposes a duty on NMFS to not only prevent overfishing, but also to minimize economic impacts on fishing communities, and that NMFS has extremely broad discretion to set a quota that – in the agency's view – meets both goals. The court also rejected the NEPA claim with little explanation. The district court’s ruling has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wolf Reintroduction –Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, et al., v. Bruce Babbitt.

In January, 1995, National Audubon joined three wolf conservation groups in a lawsuit challenging the Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) plan to reintroduce gray wolves into central Idaho. The FWS planned to manage the introduced wolves as an "experimental population" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The groups argued that the FWS’s plan failed to provide full endangered species protections to "naturally occurring" wolves that might migrate into the experimental population area. Shortly thereafter, the Wyoming Farm Bureau filed a separate lawsuit challenging the validity of the FWS’s reintroduction plans for central Idaho and for Yellowstone National Park. Over the wolf conservation groups’ objections, the two cases were consolidated. In December, 1997, the federal district court set aside the entire reintroduction program and ordered that all the experimental wolves and their offspring be removed from Yellowstone and Idaho. The FWS appealed the decision. On appeal the wolf conservation groups are defending the district court’s resolution of their claims but objecting to the court’s order to remove the wolves.

After reassessing the law and facts in this case, National Audubon concluded that the FWS’s implementation of the reintroduction program fully complies with the ESA. The wolf reintroduction has been, without question, a huge success. The wolves have settled into the areas in which they were released and have begun to successfully breed, increasing the populations. Accordingly, on August 21, 1998, National Audubon filed a motion with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it be allowed to realign its status in the case and join the arguments made by the federal government and several other conservation groups that are supporting the FWS. On July 30, 1999 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case. A decision can be expected sometime in the next few months.

PENDING CASES:

Grizzly Recovery Plan – National Audubon v. Babbitt.

In 1994 National Audubon and several other conservation groups filed suit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for failing to prepare an adequate recovery plan for the grizzly bear as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In September 1995, the federal district court ruled in Audubon’s favor, holding that FWS’s Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan failed to identify adequate recovery criteria by which to assess whether the Recovery Plan would indeed lead to a recovery of the species. The court remanded the Plan to FWS for reconsideration and required the FWS to submit a timetable for revising the plan. The FWS submitted a compliance schedule but then failed to meet the deadlines set in that schedule.

In February 1999 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Show Cause requesting that the court issue a revised compliance schedule and order the FWS to meet the deadlines in that schedule so a revised Recovery Plan will finally be completed.

Leg-hold Traps – National Audubon Society v. Davis and Glickman.

This lawsuit seeks to prohibt the enforcement of part of California’s Proposition 4, which passed in the November 1998 election. Proposition 4 effectively ends commercial fur trapping in California. It also prohibits local, state and federal government officials from using leg-hold traps for any purpose, including predator control. This last provision is the subject of this suit. Leg-hold traps are appropriate and necessary means of predator control to trap animals, such as coyotes and non-native red fox that prey on threatened and endangered bird species in certain areas in California, including the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The lawsuit alleges that enforcement of Proposition 4 with respect to predator control actions taken by government officials to protect federally protected species is pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause because it directly conflicts with the Endangered Species Act and frustrates the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In February 1999, the court entered a preliminary injunction which allows padded leg-hold traps to be used on federal or non-federal land by federal employees or their contractors, for the purpose of protecting endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

RESOLUTION
REGARDING NEGOTIATION OF AN MOU
WITH
FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY
Dated: September 18,1999

Whereas, both Florida Audubon Society ("FAS") and National Audubon Society ("NAS") are tax-exempt corporations described in Section 5l0(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and

Whereas, FAS has a substantial staff, membership and program in Florida to advance the Audubon mission, and

Whereas, NAS wishes to establish a state office in Florida as it is establishing in other states pursuant to the NAS 1995 Strategic Plan, and

Whereas, FAS and NAS wish to combine operations in Florida to create a seamless Audubon presence in Florida to accomplish a common Audubon mission, and

Whereas, FAS and NAS intend that FAS will serve as the state office for NAS in Florida.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the President to negotiate and enter into an agreement on behalf of NAS pursuant to which FAS shall serve as the state office for NAS in Florida.

Marketing and Communications Meeting
Resolution Concerning Funding of Branding Initiative

Board of Directors Meeting
Brewster, Massachusetts

September 18,1999

WHEREAS, Audubon's 2020 Vision sets forth several important strategic goals including the substantial growth of its membership from 550,000 members to more than 2,750,000 (or 1% of the United States population), and the establishment of 1000 Audubon Centers throughout the 50 states by 2020; and

WHEREAS, Audubon lacks comprehensive market research, a focused brand and a clear brand image, including a consistent visual identity and communication vehicles (magazine, direct mail, newsletters, website, etc.) which convey uniform messages; and these shortcomings are impeding our 2020 Vision, including growth in membership, fundraising, advocacy, citizen science, licensing, and our environmental education and Center development efforts; and

WHEREAS, the Board Of Directors established a Branding Committee in June, 1999 to explore branding firms that could assist Audubon in establishing a focused brand identity that is consistent with Audubon's rich bird appreciation and conservation tradition, and which positions Audubon for achieving its ambitious 2020 Vision goals for community-based conservation and environmental education through the establishment of Centers nationwide; and

WHEREAS, the Branding Committee subsequently solicited proposals from select branding firms and based on the firms' proposals, presentations and references, the Committee ultimately selected Interbrand as the best candidate to undertake this branding project on Audubon's behalf; and

WHEREAS, the Branding Committee subsequently entered into negotiations with Interbrand for its services (which are tailored to Audubon's unique requirements as specified by the Branding Committee and set forth in a written proposal), and a sum of $409,000 was ultimately agreed upon, pending approval by the Board of Directors and execution of a contract approved by Audubon's senior management; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Audubon Society will authorize a special funding allocation of $449,000 during Fiscal Year 2000 (which includes the $409,000 proposal amount plus a 10% internal contingency for out-of-pocket costs and for additional services that are not covered by the proposal) for Interbrand's services, which shall commence immediately upon execution of a contract between Audubon and Interbrand.

Important Bird Areas

Fred Baumgarten

Program Expansion: The number of states launching IBA Programs continues to grow. The Alaska State Office under Stan Senner (who helped originate the IBA Program at Audubon) has put in a proposal for identifying Important Bird Areas focusing on Beringia. The Iowa State Office will roll out IBAs at its first annual statewide Audubon meeting in October. Other states due to come on board this year include Minnesota, Mississippi, and West Virginia.

Funding: Audubon has received the second year of a two-year, $300,000 grant for the IBA Program from the New York Community Trust’s Henry Philip Kraft Family Memorial Fund. This includes funding for the national IBA office, the New York State model IBA Program, and a matching grant program for state offices. This program was a smashing success the past fiscal year, with five state offices successfully raising a combined $65,000 for IBA projects from community foundations, many of them new donors to Audubon.

A major grant from the LaSalle Adams Fund, a private foundation, has continued to produce excellent results for IBAs (and other Audubon work) in the Rocky Mountain region, and prospects for continued funding are very good. The foundation’s board met in July at Chico Hot Springs in Montana to review the IBA Program and its other projects, which include the "Yellowstone to Yukon" initiative featured in a recent AUDUBON magazine. We are actively seeking avenues for dovetailing these projects.

Publicity: Numerous IBA "dedication" events have been held in recent months. These have helped increase public recognition of IBAs and the value of bird conservation, build partnerships, and generate media attention. Some of the sites include a privately-owned tract in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, that holds 20% of the known breeding population of Black-crowned Night-Heron in Pennsylvania (a state-listed species); the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve in eastern Washington, Lake Hodges in San Diego County, California; and the Mississquoi National Wildlife Refuge in Vermont.

Notes: The new IBA website is almost complete (www.audubon.org/bird/iba).
It includes a prototype online nomination form. Camilla Herlevich has made a compelling case for IBAs as the foundation of Audubon’s expanding centers vision.
We are following up on that with a new push to link these two key programs.
The New York State Office is developing a model for combining IBAs with Citizen Science Education. Important Bird Areas in Pennsylvania has been published; copies available from the Pennsylvania State Office.

Christmas Bird Count

Geoff LeBaron

The review of the data included in the 99th Christmas Bird Count by Regional Editors is nearly complete. The challenges relating to producing that issue from the BirdSource database have all been met, and the issue should be in the mail in September. Final corrections of the cumulative Christmas Bird Count/BirdSource database are underway in preparation for a debut of the new BirdSource technology at the end of the year. As a lead element of Bird Source, CBC OnLine will be the ultimate tool for researchers interested in early-winter bird population trends.

Planning for the upcoming 100th Christmas Bird Count is in full swing. Articles featuring the Christmas Bird Count will be appearing in several magazines, including Wild Bird and North American Birds (formerly Field Notes). The series of meetings with compilers, Regional Editors, and concerned participants has continued, with valuable and well-received meetings in Winnipeg, Minot, Bismark, Des Moines, and at the 30th Annual American Birding Association meeting in Tucson.

BirdSource

Sally Conyne

Much of the summer of 1999 has been spent writing and submitting funding proposals for BirdSource in general, individual citizen science projects, and for the Latin American education program. Proposals were submitted to the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, foundations, and potential corporate sponsors. We have a tiered benefits package designed to be used by both partners to build corporate support for BirdSource.

We promoted BirdSource and our citizen science projects at the New Jersey Audubon Council Meeting in June, at the American Birding Association Convention in Tucson in July, and at the AOU meetings in Ithaca in August.

Our primary BirdSource goal is to complete the building of new mapping and data analysis capabilities. As this core E-bird structure is put into place, we are updating last year’s projects and creating some new ones. Great Backyard Bird Count 2000 will be held February 18 – 21. We are editing our existing Great Backyard Bird Count materials and lists while we create new materials for families, Scouts and youth groups, and classes across the continent. Efforts to engage the Boy Scouts, with help from the Texas State Office, 4-H, Boys & Girls Clubs, Girls, Inc. and other groups are under way. We will test a plan to allow the state offices to use GBBC2000 as an outreach and fund-raising tool. State offices will have the opportunity to seek local sponsors who can support the printing and distribution of educational materials on a local basis as they support the state program. For an additional contribution, BirdSource will place the sponsor’s logo on the web pages pertaining to that state.

In addition to the GBBC, we are creating a much expanded fall HawkWatch during which all birds of prey will be counted during fall migration rather than only Broad-Wings. In response to the proposed de-listing of the Bald Eagle from the endangered species list, we are preparing to coordinate through BirdSource the eagle observations of tens of thousands of North Americans as they take up the role of guardian of the national bird.

Sally Conyne participated in a review of Cornell Lab’s PigeonWatch-Parents Involved as a member of the advisory board in Washington DC. Piloted at seven urban locations in 1998-99, the project will expand to 30 sites in 99-00. This exciting program may interest urban Audubon centers in the near future.

Seabird Restoration

Stephen W. Kress

The Seabird Restoration Program opened operations on six Maine field stations. A team of 55 interns and volunteers assisted the program this summer by living on the Seabird Islands protecting the birds, educating the public and conducting studies of breeding biology, population size and productivity. Dry, mild weather contributed to a record-breaking field season. Endangered Roseate Terns increased from 208 pairs in 1998 to 255 pairs this summer- a 23% increase on four Audubon managed islands. Puffins also showed remarkable growth, with the Seal Island NWR colony increasing by 44% from 78 pairs in 1998 to 112 pairs in 1999. The Eastern Egg Rock puffin colony showed similar growth, increasing from 25 pairs last summer to 32 pairs in 1999 (28% increase). The growth of these colonies is not related simply to favorable weather, but to the sustained protection of these rare seabirds throughout the Gulf of Maine.

Other notable bird accomplishments include the first successful nesting of razorbills at Seal Island NWR, which makes Seal Island only the 4th nesting island for this species on the Maine Coast. The Seabird Restoration Program also succeeded in establishing a colony of Common Terns on Pond Island NWR in the mouth of the Kennebec River. After a 62 year absence (and a four year restoration effort), 22 pairs of Common Terns nested at Pond Island, fledging 19 young.

Excellent boating weather also helped the public seabird watching trips sponsored by the Seabird Program to Eastern Egg Rock. Each week, Audubon educators led 11 trips to this accessible sanctuary, circling the island to view the birds. To date, 3,300 seabird watching passengers have taken part in the tours to Egg Rock so far this summer.

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch

Bill Branan

Grassland Science Center – The new office and conference building is nearing completion, about three months behind schedule. The new building will be solar heated and cooled, but will include conventional heating and cooling back up systems. It will accommodate meetings of 50 to 75 people to further our understanding and appreciation of grasslands. We’ve also just completed the renovation of a milking barn into a brick-floored open-air pavilion, which will allow college field trips and others to have a covered, semi-outdoor classroom.

Assistant Director –Dr. Linda Kennedy has been appointed assistant director of The Research Ranch. She will receive her Ph.D. in botany with a concentration in ecology this fall from Arizona State University. Linda’s dissertation, Mycorrhizal ecology of Sporobolus wrightii, examines symbiotic relationships in sacaton grasslands. This work will provide baseline information that will enhance re-establishment of this grass back into disturbed riparian ecosystems. Her 1994 MS from the Department of Biological Sciences, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Ks involved field biology and education. Linda has been teaching Environmental Biology at Mesa Community College while attending Arizona State University.

Research – The Research Ranch (TRR) is the site for about thirty ongoing MS and Ph.D. level studies. These are listed at our web site: ww.audubon.org/local/sanctuary/appleton.

Regional Outreach - National Conservation Area (NCA): Congressman Jim Kolbe is spearheading the effort to have the Sonoita Valley area (about 500 square miles surrounding TRR ) designated as an NCA. TRR requested that the lands adjacent to TRR and Ft. Huachuca be designated as research emphasis areas.

Sonoita Crossroads: TRR and the Crossroads Community Forum are engaged in monthly workshops through which local citizens are developing a community plan for the 215 square mile Sonoita Valley. As the state legislature has mandated county growth management planning, our hope is that the crossroads effort will be adopted as the plan for the northeastern section of Santa Cruz County.

Fire Working Group: TRR, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Nature Conservancy are finalizing plans to ignite a prescribed burn on about two square miles of TRR this fall. Fire is an essential element in assuring the continuation of grasslands.

Common Ground Roundtable: TRR is an active member of the roundtable, which has proposed that "Purchase of Development Rights," or PDR, become an important component of the state’s "Growing Smarter" commission effort. It appears that PDR will be adopted in some form by the commission.

Living Oceans

Carl Safina

David Wilmot continues his duties as Executive Director of the Living Oceans Program, overseeing its growth and expansion, especially on the political front. In addition, he maintains his directorship of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign (OWC), of which Living Oceans is a member. As such, Living Oceans has had the lead on the OWC effort to receive congressional support for the ten-year swordfish rebuilding plan at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT ).

Living Oceans, working with David Wilmot, Michael Testa and Marlyn Twitchell, worked with the Ocean Law Project -- a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts -- to develop, institute and pursue litigation to enforce the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, including challenges to the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Swordfish FMP, the essential fish habitat provisions of various FMPs and the summer flounder quota. We also continued to defend the 1997 large commercial shark quota against legal attack and joined in the defense of a lawsuit attacking the FMP for yellowfin tuna and sharks.

Living Oceans, as part of the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, has again partnered with the Discovery Channel to reach out to viewers of Shark Week ‘99 (August 8 - 15). The OWC will post Public Service Announcements during each episode of Shark Week to allow viewers to call in for more information on how to help conserve sharks. In years past, over 3,000 concerned viewers called in to request background information and simple steps they could take to help in the conservation of sharks. As part of this partnership, a link was created from Discovery Channel’s web page to that of National Audubon Society.

Over the past year, through its publication, "Sharks on the Line" by Senior Scientist Merry Camhi, the Living Oceans Program has focused attention on pushing Atlantic and Gulf Coast states to improve their management for sharks in state waters. Subsequent to the release of the report, a number of the most important shark-fishing states, including New Jersey and Louisiana, implemented progressive regulations that should help speed the recovery of overfished sharks

Merry Camhi remains an active member of the American Elasmobranch Society, the scientific organization dedicated to shark and ray science, conservation, and management. At their annual meeting in June 1999, Merry drafted two resolutions on shark conservation that were adopted at the annual board meeting.

Mercédès Lee, working with designers, created an ad for Audubon's upcoming Seafood Lover’s Almanac, which included a wallet-sized "Audubon Seafood Card." This ad will be placed in the September/October issue of AUDUBON Magazine and Discover Diving magazine. In addition, the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago purchased 10,000 reprints for distribution to their visitors. Plans are for the Almanac to be released in October 1999.

Living Oceans continues to expand its staff, with the additions of Eric Gilman in July 1999 to serve as our Pacific Seabird/Fisheries Coordinator, Andy Cooper to serve as our Fisheries Conservation Biologist, and Anne Wakeford, who began a 4-month long internship with Living Oceans in June, evaluating the potential conservation benefits of fisheries buy-outs.