MEMBERSHIP IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

Recommendations of the Membership Task Force

September 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction from John Flicker *

MEMBERSHIP IN THE 21^ST CENTURY: Overview of the Membership Task Force Project *

The History *

The Goals *

The Benefits *

The Process *

Implementation Strategy *

Recommendations of the Membership Task Force *

Earned Membership Model *

Summary of Principles *

Examples of Earned Membership *

Supporting Membership Model *

Summary of Principles *

Examples of Supporting Membership *

Summary of Plan Recommendations *

Proposed Resolution *

Budget *

Supporting Membership Test Budget *

Associate Membership Rollout Budget *

Introduction from John Flicker

Audubon's grassroots membership base is fundamental to our Strategic Plan for the future. Audubon exists because of its members. There are clear signs that our membership base is not as large or vibrant as it should be:

Membership is not growing:

Our base has held stable at 550,000 members over the past five years. Without a major financial investment or a shift in how we approach membership development we will remain stagnant.

1994-558; 1995-543; 1996-548; 1997-564; 1998- 559.

Our membership does not reflect the diversity of our population:

Members are primarily affluent with a median income $57,720, highly educated with over 44% having a college degree, and 21% having a post graduate degree. They are professionals with an average age of 45. They are not ethnically or economically diverse.

Many Audubon volunteers and activists are not members:

About one-third of all Audubon chapter officers are not Audubon members.

Our membership structure is not customer friendly:

Membership is defined as one kind of relationship with few points of entry. An individual qualifies for membership based on the organization’s needs rather than the donor’s interests. For example, a gift of $100 to NAS restricted to an Audubon Center does not qualify for membership but an unrestricted gift of $20 to NAS via a "membership" offering does qualify.

The number of separate "Friends Of" membership databases is growing:

There is little financial incentive for most parts of the organization to acquire new members. If a chapter, center, campaign, etc. acquires a "Friends Of" member, they can keep the money. If they acquire an Audubon member, they keep much less or none of the money.

This situation has serious implications for the future of Audubon. It will eventually produce a relatively stagnant and homogeneous core membership. Instead of a growing and vibrant Audubon membership base, there will be a proliferation of fragmented "Friends Of" groups that support only those chapters, centers, or programs sophisticated enough to develop their own membership system.

The Membership Task Force was established to develop recommendations to address these concerns and to begin redesigning our system of membership to meet the needs of Audubon in the 21st Century.

After a great deal of work from the Task Force, a set of recommendations was submitted to the Management Team. The Management Team accepted all of the Task Force's recommendations including the concept of non-dues paying categories of members.

The Task Force based its recommendations in part on the principle that anyone who wanted to make a minimum financial contribution or commit a minimum amount of time to any Audubon program should be considered a member. The Management Team agreed with that principal, recognizing that we should not limit contributions to money. Audubon is an organization of volunteers and activists. Workers are as essential to our mission as money, and we should have a category of membership that recognizes contributions of time and effort.

It should be noted from the outset that this proposal does not recommend changes in the allocation of dues income between national and the chapters for members acquired under the existing system. These recommendations only apply to new members that would otherwise not have been acquired.

MEMBERSHIP IN THE 21^ST CENTURY: Overview of the Membership Task Force Project

The History

Audubon is competing in an environment where many national organizations have made deliberate and substantial investments to grow membership. They recognize that growth is no longer a natural by-product of external factors. Over the past ten years Audubon’s average membership has remained stable at 550,000 members. With no investment in membership development it will continue to be stagnant.

Audubon’s grassroots presents a unique opportunity to favorably affect membership size and profitability in ways unattainable to most national groups. Maximizing this core competency is a cornerstone of the strategic plan and the Membership Task Force’s recommendations. In particular recommendation 8.4 of the strategic plan states:

"One of the greatest challenges facing Audubon is to build a more active and diverse membership. Audubon’s grassroots network requires members who can represent the interests of their communities and who are committed to supporting Audubon’s mission. Membership should play several critical roles in developing our grassroots network…Assist regional field office staff and chapters to lead local membership drives coordinated, like the Bird-a-thon, through chapters, regional field offices and Audubon Centers. Increasing membership is not a goal but an expected result of improving the grassroots network and enlarging opportunities for involvement."

Furthermore, the strategic plan also calls for Audubon to engage citizens "interested in supporting its mission and activities, whose age, ethnic gender, and economic diversity reflects the communities in which it works."

The Goals

The Membership Task Force was established to develop recommendations that support this vision and to expand the definition of membership to embrace Audubon's rich landscape of existing and potential constituents. The goals were simple yet ambitious. Create a membership framework that:

Is customer driven

Provides the maximum incentive for local entities to recruit and retain members

Results in a centralized database – one body - of members

Creates the underpinnings for successful fundraising at the national, state and local level

 

From the constituents’ standpoint, many individuals form relationships with Audubon yet they are not recognized as members because of restrictions that limit the definition of membership to one relationship and few entry points. A key objective was to create a membership framework that engages, retains and upgrades members based on self-defined interests and alliances while at the same time complimenting this relationship with exposure to the richness of the Audubon community. In essence, building a pure member driven strategy that allows members’ behavior and responsiveness define their treatment preference over time; building a more dynamic and profitable base.

From the recruiting entities’ standpoint, many entities harbor small, not fully realized networks of supporters because Audubon has not provided a support framework or incentive structure that promotes cross propagation, or sharing, of constituents. As a result entities have focused on developing independent constituent categories rather than partaking in membership growth. It was therefore important to create a plan that provided entities with adequate membership development training, rewarded them financially for "membership" acquisition and cultivation (formerly thought of as constituency building) and allowed them to operate successfully within a solid, locally focused membership infrastructure.

The Benefits

The creation of such a plan would result in numerous benefits. It would:

Build a larger, more diverse, dynamic and profitable membership by expanding membership entry points and embracing state, chapter, center, and campaign/program constituents.

Empower local entities with an effective, locally driven membership development framework.

Support advocacy efforts by establishing a formalized core of citizen activists and volunteers that provide leadership, influence, knowledge and participation.

Strengthen Audubon’s fundraising infrastructure by making it donor/customer-driven.

Increase membership satisfaction, retention and profitability as a result of local cultivation and enhanced benefits.

Fulfill a core vision of the strategic plan - developing a coordinated membership strategy that harnesses the power and reach of Audubon’s grassroots network.

The Process

A Task Force was assembled consisting of Board, volunteers and staff. The members represented unique Audubon entities. Centers, sanctuaries and "friends" groups were represented by Charity Krueger; states by Dave Pardoe; chapters by Lynne Aldrich, Dave Eshbaugh and Carol Capobianco; campaigns and programs by Eric Draper; independent Audubon Societies by Thomas Urquhart, President of Maine Audubon Society; donors by Carol Ann May and traditional members by Jim Cunningham and Celia Tennenbaum. Its final member, Jack Dempsey, brought a broad-based strategic perspective to the project and completed the team.

Subcommittees were then formed to represent each entity. Outside staff and volunteers were brought in to participate in respective subcommittees. The teams undertook situation analyses identifying current strengths and weakness and future challenges and opportunities. The process involved interviews with eight Center and Sanctuary Directors, 25 chapter leaders representing chapters ranging in size from small to large, five campaign and program staff, five State Directors and four Membership Directors from outside organizations.

Each subcommittee developed reports and recommendations specific to its area. The individual recommendations were then combined into one model, reflecting the principals and opportunities identified by the teams. Input was also received from the Management Team and Ruth Russell.

Implementation Strategy

The task force recommends implementing the resulting "Earned Membership" model nationwide and testing the "Supporting Membership" model in four states over a period of 18 months, allowing for a complete set of benchmarking from acquisition through retention and donor cultivation. It is anticipated that the plan will be fine-tuned repeatedly to accommodate issues and opportunities that arise during the field test.

In order to adhere to the bylaws requiring a six month notification to amend the definition of membership, and to put the appropriate training and technical support in place, the launch date, pending Board approval, is March ’99. Completion is August ’00.

Recommendations of the Membership Task Force

Earned Membership Model

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

The Campaign/Program Subcommittee of the Membership Task Force developed a membership category based on the concept of earned membership. While Audubon recognizes individuals who give financial support as members, it does not recognize some of its most valued, front-line constituents– those willing to give of their time. The model proposes the inclusion of these constituents as a formal addition to Audubon’s membership mix.

The model defines an individual who donates a minimum level of time and effort to an Audubon campaign or program at the national, state, center or chapter level as an "Associate Member".

Summary of Principles

Acquisition – The Internet will serve as the primary vehicle for attracting individuals who are engaged around a set of defined interests. Individuals may earn associate membership status by registering to participate in a program or event. A minimum time investment will be required as defined by the guidelines of the individual program or entity. Existing campaign and program supporters will instantly be recognized as associate members. Alternative mediums will be used for those who cannot or choose not to receive benefits and/or communication via the Internet.

Benefits - Associate Members will receive a welcome via the Internet thanking them for their support, restating their commitment and prompting them to choose a unique associate member password. The password will provide member-only access, customized by self-selected issue areas, to program components and information such as: Audubon News, the Advisory, action alerts, campaign updates, advance notice of events, synopses of relevant Audubon articles, bird count bulletin flashes, advance registration, etc. While many of these benefits currently exist they are not packaged in a way that maximizes value to the individual or to Audubon. All benefits will continue for one year.

At any time, via the click of an Internet button Associates may opt to compliment their existing membership status with supporting membership. As a supporting member they will receive all of the benefits outlined in the supporting membership model, including Audubon magazine. If the Associate chooses this option they will be identified as a campaign/program recruited supporting member. Following the guidelines laid out by the supporting membership model; the campaign/program would receive the majority of the membership dues thereby gaining a powerful, new funding tool.

Chapters will have access to associate members residing in their territory. Chapters may solicit these individuals to support local efforts by becoming chapter volunteers or by enrolling them as a supporting member. If the latter occurs chapters would be considered the recruiting entity for dues share purposes.

The primary goal of associate membership is to increase Audubon’s base of volunteers/

citizen activists and to recognize their outstanding contribution by honoring them with membership status. The profile of associates is expected to be very different from that of a supporting member. As such, we anticipate converting a small percentage of associates to supporting members.

Support - The national membership department will work with Communications, Campaign and other staff/volunteers to develop a web presence that fulfills the associate membership model. It will also be available upon request to assist in the development of other promotional media.

Fundraising – All names will be housed in NAS’s central database. A segmentation strategy will be developed to determine the optimum level of fundraising appropriate to associates. Once again, it is anticipated that their profile and therefore fundraising treatment will differ from that of a traditional donor.

Renewal – Associates will be asked to renew their commitment at the end of the program. If there is no end date, associates will be asked to renew commitments annually. Upon renewal members will be given the opportunity to refine their areas of interest and participation. They may also make refinements, via the click of an Internet button, at any time during their membership. Periodically they will receive updates on new programs and opportunities.

 

Examples of Earned Membership

Example 1 – Population and Habitat Earned Membership – An individual visits the web site and signs up as a citizen activist for Population and Habitat. They agree to send three conservation alerts over the course of one year. As a result of this commitment they will be recognized as an associate member. They will receive a welcome message that thanks them for participating and provides them with a membership password. The password will provide web access to email updates on Population and Habitat, conservation alerts, advance synopses of relevant articles scheduled to appear in Audubon magazine, Population and Habitat resource lists, a chat room/listserv, weekly Q&A, etc. The site will include upgrade options for enrolling as a supporting member, finding out about local chapters and updating areas of interest and participation.

Example 2 – Great Back Yard Bird Count Earned Membership – An individual visits the web site and signs up for the Great Back Yard Bird Count. As a result they are recognized as an associate member. They receive a welcome message from Frank Gill and John Flicker (and perhaps John Fitzpatrick) thanking them for participating, welcoming them as an Associate Member of the Backyard Bird count and prompting the selection of a membership password. The password will provide web access to advance notice of birding events, updates on bird-related issues, advance synopses of bird articles scheduled to appear in Audubon magazine, Back Yard Bird Count results, advance registration for next year’s count and other birding programs, etc. The site will provide an option to expand their membership level to supporting member by clicking an Internet button. They would receive Audubon magazine, a pair of beginner’s binoculars, free center admission, special offers on products, services and trips, etc. They may also refine or expand their selected area of interest at any time.

These examples can easily be translated to Audubon Adventures teachers and other volunteer categories.

Supporting Membership Model

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

The model for local supporting membership defines "member" as an individual who provides a minimum level of financial support to national or a local Audubon entity. "Entity" represents states, centers (including sanctuaries), chapters, campaigns and programs.

Summary of Principles

Acquisition - Local entities will retain full first year dues for all members they recruit. The entity may tailor membership to reflect the methodology, benefits and pricing appropriate to their location. Dues will be no less than $15 student/senior and $20 individual. There is no ceiling on dues levels. The message to customers and entities should be: "Membership is how you support the entity." Each entity may elect how to distribute their funds.

Benefits - All members will receive a customized welcome/benefits package and a membership card tailored to represent the local recruiting entity.

All members will receive a minimum set of benefits including Audubon magazine as the common communication vehicle, invitations to Internet-based associate membership programs, free admission to centers, special offers on Audubon products, services and trips. Admission to chapter owned centers is at the discretion of the individual chapter. Participating centers will be showcased in the member benefit guide.

All members will be assigned to their local chapter. Chapters will continue to receive a dues share on national and chapter recruited members. In addition chapters will receive fundraising access to members recruited via other entities. While state, center and campaign members are assigned to chapters there will not be a dues share. Chapters may choose whether to provide complimentary service to those members.

Training - Local membership efforts will be reinforced with recruitment training and manpower strategies. They will be further supported by a consistent message throughout the organization emphasizing the institutional importance of membership. Training will flow from national, through the state, to centers and chapters on an ongoing basis. National membership staff will work directly with State Directors and their appropriate staff to develop training programs and disseminate information.

Fundraising - Entities are encouraged to fundraise and will retain priority access to members they recruit. If entities choose not to exercise all of their fundraising windows unused "windows" may transfer to the state and National office. If they do exercise their rights then National and states will retain limited fundraising access. Nationally recruited members and donors will receive national and state driven appeals following the guidelines set forth in the Tucson Accord.

Renewal and Dues Allocation - In order to maximize cost efficiencies and to minimize the burden on the recruiting entity, National will renew members. By utilizing sophisticated personalization technology, renewal notices will represent the local entity in signature and text. Upon renewal current constituents at the local level will be absorbed into the supporting membership model. Existing centers may choose to be grandfathered to renew existing friends independently.

Based on current success for retaining and upgrading members NAS will pursue a membership renewal upgrade strategy. As a result of members’ dues being upgraded each year, the longer a member stays with Audubon the more membership revenue the entity earns. This creates an inherent tiered financial incentive to value long-term members and to make membership a rewarding and dynamic experience at the local level. Entities will retain the majority of the renewal revenue. NAS will receive a flat $10 share for renewing and servicing members.

 

Examples of Supporting Membership

Example 1 – Chapter Recruited member – The Yonkers chapter recruits a new member. The chapter retains the full amount of the first year dues. The member receives chapter benefits including a newsletter, membership card, Audubon magazine, New York state newsletter, free admission to all national and participating chapter centers, discounts on products and services and a complete benefit kit providing them with access to other Audubon opportunities. The chapter will have priority fundraising access to this new member. The member would also receive a national and state appeal. In the following years the appeal mix would be driven by the donors response pattern plus additional, limited requests to expand their giving to other programs/areas.

National would renew the member using a renewal approach with a strong chapter and local focus. The renewal would reference the chapter name, state issues, etc. All of the renewal revenue, less $10 to cover the cost of servicing Audubon magazine, membership kit and renewing the membership would go to the chapter. Based on the tested approach to upgrading and retaining members, beginning with their second renewal, dues increase an average of $5 per year. Therefore in year one Yonkers would retain $20, National $0, year two Yonkers $10, National $10, year 3 Yonkers $15, National $10, year 4 Yonkers $20, National $10, year 5 Yonkers $25, National $10. Of course there are many members who upgrade to higher dues support at a more rapid pace making the dues split even more favorable to the chapter. Yonkers would continue to receive a $5.50 dues share, as they have in the past, on all nationally recruited members. The chapter would also receive the names of all members recruited by all other local entities, and would be able to solicit them for fundraising.

Example 2 – Center Recruited member – The Richardson Bay Center recruits a member. The center retains the full first year dues. The member receives center benefits including a newsletter, invitations to events, local chapter assignment (chapter service is voluntary), membership card, Audubon magazine, California state newsletter, free admission to all national and participating chapter centers, discounts on products and services and a complete benefit kit providing them access to other Audubon opportunities. The center has priority fundraising access to this new member. The member also receives a chapter, state and national appeal. In the following years the appeal mix would be driven by the donors’ response pattern plus additional, limited requests to expand their giving to other programs/areas.

National would renew the member using a renewal approach with a strong local and center focus. The renewal would reference the center’s name, programs, state issues, etc. All renewal revenue, less $10 to cover the cost of servicing Audubon magazine, membership kit and renewing the membership would go to the center. (Exception: if the member resides outside of the state where the recruiting center is located they will be asked upon renewal whether they wish to continue to have their local affiliation with that center or their local chapter.)

Most centers are able to charge $25 to $50 for their memberships, therefore in year two a center would be retaining $15 to $40 for basic members and more for higher level members. They would also have access to members recruited by national and other local entities for fundraising.

Examples for Campaign, Program and State recruited members follow this same framework.

 

Summary of Plan Recommendations

The membership model is intended to address Audubon’s financial and mission related needs into the 21^st century. It promotes financial solvency by building a solid foundation for membership and fundraising. It supports Audubon’s mission diversifying and strengthening its membership, by embracing supporters of time and money, at the local and national level.

Through a combined partnership at the local and national level, a more compelling, customer-driven offer, enhanced communication, local cultivation, expanded benefits, increased and coordinated opportunities to participate, and a sense of belonging to a strong, united organization, Audubon’s membership dynamics are positively impacted in three core areas:

-Acquisition -increased market share

-Retention -increased renewal rates and length of affiliation

-Extension - increased customer share through expanded opportunities beyond traditional membership including donations, advocacy, product purchases, etc.

Finally, the proposed recommendation provides substantial incentives that empower each entity to succeed in a manner that is consistent with the values, experiences and needs of the organization, its constituents and the vision of the strategic plan. When implemented Audubon should become greater than the sum of its parts.

 

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

 

Proposed Resolution

WHEREAS, Section Three of Article 1 (Membership) of the Bylaws of the National Audubon Society, Inc. states that:

"Membership classes and the designation, characteristics, qualifications, rights and limitations of such classes shall be determined from time to time by resolution of the Board of Directors." and

WHEREAS, a Membership Task Force of NAS comprised of members of the Board of Directors, staff, and chapter and centers representatives has over the past year studied in great detail the structure and definition of membership in NAS; and

WHEREAS, the Membership Task Force has recommended to the Board of Directors certain changes in the structure and definition of NAS membership (a detailed description of such changes being contained in a document entitled "Membership in the 21^st Century," (the "Document") which has been disseminated to all members of the Board).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: henceforth NAS shall have two classes of members WITH characteristics, qualifications, rights and limitations, as follows:

1. Supporting Member – A Supporting Member shall be an individual who provides a minimum amount of financial support annually to National Audubon Society or a state office, center, campaign, program or chapter thereof. Only Supporting Members shall be voting members of National Audubon Society and only supporting members shall be entitled to notice of the annual and special meetings of members. All other qualifications, rights, and benefits of supporting membership are set forth in the Document; and

2. Associate Member – An Associate Member shall be an individual who provides a minimum amount of time or effort to an Audubon campaign or program at the national, state, center, chapter or campaign level. Associate Members shall not be voting members of National Audubon Society and shall not be entitled to receive notice of the annual and special meetings of members. All other qualifications, rights and benefits of associate membership are set forth in the Document.

 

 

Budget

Supporting Membership Test Budget

Below are revenue and expense projections for the 18-month test beginning March 1999 and commencing August 2000. The numbers are based on low, medium and high scenarios for local membership recruitment during this period. All membership revenue remains with the respective local recruiting entity: chapters, centers, campaigns and states. The variable expense tied to this revenue is $10 per annum, per member for the physical cost of Audubon magazine, the welcome package and renewal and billing efforts. During the 18-month test period, national will subsidize this expense. Upon statewide implementation the expense, as per the principles of the model, will be the responsibility of national for new members, and of the respective local entity for renewing members.

The plan carries $125,000 in one-time, start-up expenses, including system programming, creative development and training which will be incurred in FY ‘98/99. FY ‘98/99 carries the majority of the expense and, due to timing (the test begins in March 99), the minority of the revenue. However the revenue to expense ratio becomes extremely favorable once the result of the local entities’ efforts are seen in year two, FY 99/00.

As stated earlier, national will incur the cost of servicing new, locally recruited members when the plan is implemented nationally. This expense to national is more than offset by the financial gain to its lifeblood, its grassroots - chapters, centers, campaigns and states. Furthermore, Audubon has the potential to offset a portion of the expense with increased revenues from advertising (each existing member contributes approximately $3 of net value to advertising revenue), list rental (currently 80% of our members allow their names to be released for list rental purposes contributing $1.40 per member), fundraising (approximately 7% of members make an additional average donation to national of $35) and increased renewal revenue as a result of Audubon and its entities focusing on membership cultivation at the local level.

Associate Membership Rollout Budget

Balance of FY 98/99

October 1998- June 1999

Associate Membership

I. Set-up Expense

Web development and programming $ 8,000

II. Variable Expense

Web updates ($5,000 per month) $45,000

Total Expense $53,000

MEMBERSHIP IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

Summary of the Membership Task Force

Recommendations

November 1998

OVERVIEW

A Task Force, with participants representing all Audubon entities, was formed in January, 1998 to review and redesign the current membership structure to reflect the goals of the 1995 Strategic Plan and move Audubon's grassroots membership forward into the next century. Following months of work, this Membership Task Force presented its report and recommendations to the National Board of Directors at their September, 1998 meeting.

The Board approved recommendations to augment Audubon's traditional membership framework by adding 2 new models of membership:

1. The Supporting Membership Model: Will recognize individuals who provide minimum financial support ($15 student/senior, $20 basic) to ANY Audubon entity (chapter, state, center/sanctuary, campaign/program) by any means with the majority of the revenue remaining with the entity over the long term.
2. The Earned Membership Model: Will recognize individuals who contribute their time to Audubon by making them an "Associate Member". Individuals qualify by registering for, and contributing a minimum investment of time to an Audubon program, event or entity; including, at the chapters' discretion, chapter volunteers.

The Board further approved the immediate implementation of the Earned Membership Model, and an 18-month, 4-state pilot test of the Supporting Membership Model. Selected chapters, centers and sanctuaries within California, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota will participate in this pilot program.

The following document provides a detailed summary of the Membership Task Force Recommendations and the new membership models. We hope you are as excited about this plan as we are. Please take the time to read this summary and distribute it to the appropriate people within your chapter.

Contents

An Introduction by Task Force Co-Chairperson, Dave Pardoe

The History

The Current Situation

The Process

The Goals Supporting the Recommendations

Expected Outcome

The Recommendations

A. Supporting Membership - Core Principles

Summary of Principles

B. Earned Membership - Core Principles

Summary of Principles

Benefits of the Task Force Recommendations

To the Individual

To Audubon and its Local Entities

The End Result

Next Steps

Appendices

Appendix A: Dues Share System Change for Chapter-recruited Memberships

Appendix B: Chapter Donations ("Friends of the Chapter")

Introduction from Dave Pardoe

Dear Chapter Board of Directors:

As you know, Audubon's grassroots is its greatest strength. A Membership Task Force was formed this year to review and redesign the current membership structure to build upon this strength as we move into the 21st Century. Chapters were represented on the Task Force by Lynne Aldrich, the past President of Houston Audubon, Carol Capobianco, President and Membership Chair of Yonkers Audubon, David Eshbaugh, Executive Director of Portland Audubon and myself, board member of the Audubon Society of Central Maryland and National Audubon regional board member. The team also included representatives of all other Audubon groups - centers and sanctuaries, state offices, campaigns and programs, and all levels of staff, volunteers and board members. Chairperson duties were shared by Celia Tennenbaum, Vice President of Membership and myself.

In addition to these team members, numerous people were interviewed during the course of the Task Force's research. These included 25 chapter leaders, eight Center and Sanctuary Directors, five campaign and program staff, five State Directors and four Membership Directors from other conservation organizations. In keeping with the Task Force team's stringent "no net loss" policy - meaning All Audubon grassroots entities must benefit from any changes made to the current membership structure - all representative groups were consulted repeatedly for their input and opinions during this process.

After completing our research and discussions, The Task Force presented its report with recommendations to the National Board of Directors at the September board meeting for their review and approval. Having reviewed the plan, the Board approved the implementation of the Earned Membership Model recommendation, and an 18-month, 4-state pilot test of the Supporting Membership Model recommendation. Selected chapters, centers and sanctuaries within California, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota will participate in this pilot program. This limited trial will give us the opportunity to measure the success of the recommendations without disrupting the current membership structure.

It is my great pleasure to send you the summary of these recommendations. As Task Force co-chairperson and one of four chapter representatives on the team, I am both confident of, and excited by these recommendations' potential to enhance the organization's current membership structure, and to strengthen our chapter network. By empowering the grassroots, this new approach will create a larger, more dynamic and more unified membership body for Audubon as a whole.

As you review this summary, please keep in mind that these recommendations are meant to be an addition to the current membership structure. The present chapter dues share system for members recruited by the National Membership Department will remain in effect. The aim of these new changes is to grow Audubon's grassroots base by encouraging and empowering chapters and other Audubon groups to build stronger, more active local memberships and by providing greater chapter income through a new local-recruitment dues share strategy, higher renewal rates and more targeted fundraising.

Chapters will now have complete control over their own member recruiting and fundraising activities, including customized benefits and dues levels. For the first time, chapters will keep the bulk of the revenue they earn from these activities. At the same time, they will receive stronger support from their state offices, the national field office and the national membership department, in such areas as training, marketing assistance, centralized database record keeping, and printing and mailing economies of scale.

On an individual member level, the recommendations will allow greater flexibility and more options for Audubon membership. For the first time, individuals, no matter how they are connected to Audubon - as a chapter volunteer, campaign or program advocate, center or sanctuary supporter, etc. - will be given Audubon membership and a full complement of benefits. Membership status and benefits will be based on each person's particular needs, interests and activities; and these will be available regardless of whether his or her contribution to the organization is in the form of money or time.

Please copy and distribute this summary to all your board members. These changes mark a significant development in Audubon and everyone in the organization, especially the grassroots, should be familiar with this plan. Upon reading this summary, I hope you agree with me that these recommendations provide a great opportunity for Audubon to strengthen and support its invaluable chapter base. The Membership Task Force welcomes your feedback regarding the report, and is in the process of establishing an on-line listserve mailing list for chapters to discuss the recommendations, ask questions and offer suggestions on an on-going basis throughout the pilot test period. Further information about this mailing list will be sent to you once arrangements have been finalized.

Best Wishes,
Dave Pardoe

The History

Audubon's grassroots are the greatest strength of our organization. Audubon exists because of, and depends on, the dedication and support of its members, chapter leaders in over 500 chapters, and volunteers. The 1995 Strategic Plan recognized this fundamental strength and called for a broad expansion of membership, as a result of:

• "Improving the grassroots network and enlarging opportunities for involvement"
• Engaging individuals as members whose "diversity reflects the community in which it works"
• Assisting the field "in local membership drives"

The Current Situation

Audubon's current membership structure needs to evolve to fulfill the opportunities identified in the Strategic Plan. Currently membership is not as large or dynamic as it can be:

• Membership is not growing. Without investment or a change in structure, Audubon's membership will remain static. The current membership is derived overwhelmingly from direct mail campaigns which use a variety of mailing lists. Such campaigns are inherently limited in that they only reach those individuals whose names are on these lists - excluding the majority of the population.
• Membership is not diverse. Membership does not reflect the diversity of the population. Direct mail lists limit the diversity of potential members and result in a membership which is older, more educated, and more affluent than the general population.
• Membership is not flexible. Overwhelmingly, membership is achieved by responding to a national membership invitation and not by choosing to support any other entity. Support, benefits and dues are not locally driven or flexible.
• The grassroots network is fragmented. Audubon is divided into a variety of small subgroups (donors, "friends of" chapters and centers/sanctuaries, campaign/program activists) which do not have access to all the information, activities and benefits that the organization, as a whole, provides. In addition, there is little incentive to unite these subgroups into a unified membership base.

While the current membership structure produces over a half million members, the potential for further growth and diversity is limited. Audubon needs to move beyond national direct mail campaigns and toward more personal contact with people in local communities. We need to offer membership opportunities which match individuals' personal interests to the corresponding Audubon campaigns or programs that will best meet their needs. The existing diversity of Audubon activities in chapters, centers, sanctuaries, campaigns and programs afford many opportunities to reach and attract people within their local communities. Likewise, by uniting the disparate subgroups that exist autonomously within Audubon, we can build a better informed, more dynamic and more active constituency, which translates into a stronger, more unified grassroots network for the organization as a whole.

The Process

The national board and staff initiated a Membership Task Force, which included representatives from all Audubon entities - chapters, centers/sanctuaries, campaigns/programs, independent Audubons, and all levels of staff, volunteers and board members - to review the current membership situation in order to determine how we can build upon the existing foundation and work toward the Strategic Plan's goals. The current foundation will remain in place - the national-recruited membership of over 500,000 members, and the chapter dues share derived from membership and renewal efforts which provide the basic financial underpinning of the chapters. The Task Force recommendations are aimed at moving beyond that base and expanding the membership through a local-oriented and program-oriented effort.

The Task Force's aim was to develop recommendations based on a set of core goals and a policy of "no net loss", meaning that all Audubon entities (chapters, centers, sanctuaries, states, campaigns/programs) would benefit from the plan and no current support would be lost. For chapters, this assures that the dues share policy remains in place for nationally-recruited members.

Subcommittees were formed to explore current strengths and weaknesses, and future challenges and threats for each entity. Numerous people were interviewed, including 25 chapter leaders representing chapters ranging in size from small to large, eight Center and Sanctuary Directors, five campaign and program staff, five State Directors and four Membership Directors from outside organizations. Each subcommittee then developed a report and recommendations specific to its area. These individual recommendations were combined into a new model of membership, reflecting the principles and opportunities identified by each committee.

Core Goals Supporting the Recommendations:

The current base of more than half a million members recruited by a direct mail program will remain in place and also provide the dues share financial underpinning of the chapters. The Membership Task Force recommendations are to provide further membership efforts and opportunities reaching beyond that base. The new membership framework should:

• Focus on creating a customer-driven and interest-driven membership base that provides local and flexible opportunities to participate in and support Audubon
• Provide the greatest membership and financial incentive for Audubon entities to recruit and retain members at their local level (incentives: financial, training, support, etc.)
• Create one centralized database - a unified body - of members. There will be diverse members from many entry points on one database with sharing and access to all names for fundraising, volunteers, and advocacy. Access would be cooperatively planned to avoid duplicate mail appeals during the same time period.

Expected Outcome:

• Build a larger and more diverse membership
• Empower Audubon entities with a locally-driven membership structure
• Support advocacy efforts with a strong core of citizen activists and volunteers
• Strengthen the fundraising structure
• Increase member satisfaction and retention
• Fulfill the vision of the strategic plan, making Audubon a strong, unified grassroots organization
• Expand membership recruitment beyond national direct mail appeals to reach people in their own communities through more personal contact.

The Recommendations:

The Process produced recommendations to:

• test a diverse Supporting Membership model among selected entities in four states over a period of 18 months
• implement an Earned Membership model.

A. Supporting Membership - Core Principles
The model for local supporting membership defines "member" as an individual who provides a minimum level of financial support to national or a local Audubon entity. "Entity" represents chapters, centers, sanctuaries, states, campaigns and programs.

Summary of Principles

1. Acquisition - Unlike the current, and continuing nationally-recruited membership program where a chapter receives $5.50 per member per year, there will be a much greater incentive for chapter recruitment. The same is true for all local Audubon entities and programs. Local entities will retain the full first year dues for all members they recruit, that is $20 of a normal introductory membership. In contrast, under the current program, chapters receive $15 for that first year only for chapter-recruited members.
In addition, these new recommendations give each entity the flexibility and freedom to develop dues sharing relationships with other entities based on their own unique situation. For example, in some instances centers and chapters located in the same area may chose to work together to recruit new members and split the dues. Likewise individual state offices may work with their chapters to promote new member recruitment on a statewide level, splitting both the recruitment effort and the dues revenue generated, and so on.
Under the new structure, the entity may also tailor membership to reflect the methodology, benefits and pricing appropriate to their location. Dues will not be less than $15 student/senior and $20 individual. However, there is no ceiling on dues levels. This means that the local Audubon entity may choose to set introductory and regular memberships at a higher level than the minimum if they believe that it is justified and will be accepted by potential members. This will be a local choice. The message to potential members should be: "Membership is how you support the entity." Each entity may elect how to budget their funds.

2. Benefits - All members will receive a customized welcome/benefits package and a membership card tailored to represent the local recruiting entity. All members will receive a minimum set of benefits including Audubon magazine as the common communication vehicle for the Audubon community, invitations to Internet-based associate membership programs, free admission to centers, special offers on Audubon products, services and trips. Admission to chapter owned centers and sanctuaries is at the discretion of the individual chapter. Participating centers will be showcased in the member benefit guide.
All members will be assigned to their local chapter, if they reside within a chapter territory. Chapters will continue to receive a traditional $5.50 dues share on national and chapter-recruited members enrolled before the beginning of the pilot program. Chapters will also receive the higher portion of membership dues which the proposed recommendations provide for chapter-recruited new members. In addition, chapters will have access to the names of members recruited by other entities, which they may choose to use for fundraising and volunteer recruitment. The names of chapter-recruited members will be available to centers, state offices, and campaigns, but only the chapter as the recruiting entity, will receive the dues share. Other entities receive access to the names but no money.
Similarly, for members recruited by a state, center, or campaign which are assigned to chapters, the financial incentive will go to the recruiting entity. There will not be a chapter dues share from these new members, as that would remove the financial incentive for the recruiting entity. However, chapters and other entities may choose whether to provide complimentary service to those members which they have not recruited. Normally this involves a newsletter, for example. No entity will be obligated to provide services, a newsletter, etc. to any member from whom they do not receive financial support. Such entities may conclude the an investment in providing complimentary services to these members would be worthwhile, others may choose not to do so.
Again, the current nationally-recruited members are not affected by this proposal and the regular chapter dues share will continue for those members.

3. Renewal and Dues Allocation - In order to maximize cost efficiencies and minimize the burden on the recruiting entity, National will renew members. By utilizing personalization technology, renewal notices will represent the local entity in signature and text. Upon renewal current constituents at the local level will be absorbed into the supporting membership model.
Based on the current success for retaining and upgrading members, NAS will pursue a membership renewal upgrade strategy. As a result of members' dues being upgraded each year, the longer a member stays with Audubon the more membership revenue the entity earns. This creates an inherent tiered financial incentive to value long-term members and to make membership a rewarding and dynamic experience at the local level. Entities will retain the majority of the renewal revenue.
NAS will receive a flat $10 share for renewing and servicing members. Consequently, in contrast to the current renewal program where the chapter dues share remains $5.50 per year, the recruiting entity under this proposed model would receive $10 from a normal first renewal at $20; $15 from a $25 renewal; $28 from a $38 renewal; $40 from a $50 renewal, and so on. The financial benefits to the recruiting entity increase year by year as the dues level is upgraded automatically. As stated above, the current nationally-recruited membership program remains the same, with the chapter receiving a dues share of $5.50 per member per year for nationally-recruited members.

4. Training - Local membership efforts will be reinforced with recruitment training and state support. They will be further supported by a consistent message throughout the organization emphasizing the institutional importance of membership. Training will flow from national, through the state office or state Audubon council, to centers and chapters on an on-going basis. National membership staff will work directly with State Directors and their appropriate staff to develop training programs and disseminate information.

5. Fundraising - All Audubon entities are encouraged to fundraise and will retain priority access to members they recruit for direct mail fundraising. National and states will retain limited fundraising access for direct mail fundraising. Nationally recruited members and donors will receive national and state driven appeals following the guidelines set forth in the development policy created by state directors and national staff.

The following are recommended principles for putting into practice the concept of "priority fundraising access" for entity-recruited members during the test implementation period.

a. Exclusive Access Under the Tucson Accord: This plan is intended to support an entity’s obligation to cultivate certain high-potential donors, by giving an entity exclusive fundraising access to any entity-recruited member at the $1000-4,999 and $5,000 levels for whom the entity has been given an exclusive responsibility to cultivate under the Tucson Accord.

b. Four Annual Fundraising Windows for Standard Priority Access: This plan is intended to guarantee each entity sufficient opportunity to fundraise from its own recruits without competition, by giving each entity four annual standard fundraising windows for priority fundraising access to entity-recruited members who are not covered by exclusive access, above, or special situations, below.

c. Access to Outside Entity-Recruited Members: This plan is intended to provide each entity with greater opportunities to seek support from other Audubon members, by giving it fundraising access to members recruited by other entities on a first-come/first-served basis during windows that the recruiting entity has not been assigned or does not exercise its own priority access.

d. Special Situations: This plan is intended to be flexible, by accommodating the assignment of non-standard windows, additional windows, "grandfathered" entity treatment, and exclusive access to donors outside the above, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

e. Ongoing Evaluation: This plan is open to refinement and improvement, by continued, careful evaluation throughout the test implementation period.

 

B. Earned Membership - Core Principles
This concept came from the Campaign/Program Subcommittee of the Membership Task Force which developed a membership category based on the concept of earned membership. The primary goal of associate membership is to increase Audubon's base of volunteers/citizen activists and to recognize their outstanding contribution by honoring them with membership status.

While Audubon recognizes individuals who give financial support as members, it does not recognize some of its most valued, front-line constituents - those willing to give of their time on policy issue campaigns. This model proposes the inclusion of these constituents as a formal addition to Audubon's membership mix. As this concept came from the Campaign Subcommittee, its focus is primarily on those volunteers who support policy campaigns through letter writing and other contact with public and elected officials. It is, however, applicable beyond these campaigns and can easily be translated to include Audubon Adventures teachers, chapter volunteers and other volunteer categories.

The profile of an associate is expected to be very different from that of supporting members because it will consist of primarily citizen activists with computer and Internet access. As such, we anticipate that only a small percentage of associates will be converted to supporting members.

The Earned Membership model defines an individual who donates a minimum level of time and effort to an Audubon campaign or program as an "Associate Member".

Summary of Principles

1. Acquisition - The Internet will serve as the primary vehicle for attracting individuals who are engaged around a set of defined interests. Individuals may earn associate membership status by registering to participate in a program or event. A minimum time investment will be required as defined by the guidelines of the individual program or entity. Existing campaign and program supporters will instantly be recognized as associate members. Alternative media will be used for those who cannot or choose not to receive benefits and/or communication via the Internet.

2. Benefits - Associate Members will receive a welcome via the Internet thanking them for their support, restating their commitment and prompting them to choose a unique associate member password. The password will provide member-only access, customized by self-selected issue areas, to program components and information such as: Audubon News, the Advisory, action alerts, campaign updates, advance notice of events, synopses of relevant Audubon articles, bird count bulletin flashes, advance registration, etc. While many of these benefits currently exist they are not packaged in a way that maximizes value to the individual or to Audubon. All benefits will continue for one year.
At any time, via the click of an Internet button Associates may opt to complement their existing membership status with supporting membership. As supporting members they will receive all of the benefits outlined in the supporting membership model, including Audubon magazine. If the Associates choose this option they will be identified as campaign/program recruited supporting members. Following the guidelines laid out by the supporting membership model; the campaign/program would receive the majority of the membership dues.
Chapters will have access to associate members residing in their territory. Chapters may solicit these individuals to support local efforts by becoming chapter volunteers or by enrolling them as supporting members. If the latter occurs chapters would be considered the recruiting entity for dues share purposes.

3. Support - The national membership department will work with Communications, Campaign and other staff/volunteers to develop a web presence that fulfills the associate membership model. It will also be available upon request to assist in the development of other promotional media.

4. Fundraising - All names will be housed in NAS's central database. A strategy will be developed to determine the optimum level of fundraising appropriate to associates. Once again, it is anticipated that their profile and therefore fundraising treatment will differ from that of a traditional donor.

5. Renewal - Associates will be asked to renew their commitment at the end of the program or campaign, e.g. reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. If there is no end date, e.g. Living Oceans Campaign, associates will be asked to renew commitments annually. Upon renewal members will be given the opportunity to refine their areas of interest and participation. They may also make refinements, via the click of an Internet button, at any time during their membership. Periodically they will receive updates on new programs and opportunities.

 

Benefits of the Task Force Recommendations

To the Individual:

Under the new Membership Models, individuals will now have local, interest-driven, and flexible membership opportunities; more entry points; expanded benefits and improved communication. They can become an Audubon member through a chapter, center, sanctuary, or campaign/program. It is all Audubon. This should result in greater overall satisfaction and a sense of belonging to a strong unified organization.

To Audubon and its Local Entities:

Under the new Membership Models, Audubon's membership structure will now combine strengths, empower entities, grow membership and expand entry points, create a unified membership base with a formalized core of citizen activists and a dynamic and diverse constituency, increase entity participation, enhance fundraising and develop a seamless, strong and united grassroots organization. By focusing recruitment at the local level, chapters and centers can better identify and reach out to populations in their communities that may have been under-represented; thereby building a membership base that better represents the diversity of their communities and the nation as a whole.

Membership recruitment opportunities will be available to the local Audubon entities which they can design to emphasize their own programs and contributions to the local community. These membership opportunities will be available to people locally and person-to-person rather than through mass, direct mail.

The End Result is:

• Improved Acquisition - larger membership as a result of greater and more effective member recruitment
• Improved Retention - higher renewal rates and increased length of member affiliation
• Improved Extension - more involvement as a result of expanded opportunities beyond traditional membership for advocacy, participation, volunteering, donations, etc.

Next Steps

• The Supporting Membership Model will be tested among selected entities in four representative states over a period of 18 months (March, 1999-August 2000) with quarterly benchmarking and on-going fine tuning as required.
• The membership recruitment training components to assist chapters and other entities will be designed and planned for during this period.
• The Earned Membership Model will be implemented in conjunction with the Audubon website redesign which is on-going.
• An initial progress report will be made to the Board of Directors and Audubon staff and volunteers in June, 1999.

A copy of the complete Membership Task Force Report is available upon request. Please contact Wendy Barnes in the Membership Department to receive your copy. Wendy Barnes, National Audubon Society, 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003 (212) 979-3104, wbarnes@audubon.org

APPENDIX A

Dues Share System Change for Chapter-recruited Memberships

Chapter Gain with the new system: $58.00

New Member Benefits

New members get more benefits with the new system

With every new member you recruit, the chapter gets $58.00 more than it did under the old system (after 5 years) AND you can offer potential members more benefits than before.

APPENDIX B

Chapter Donations ("Friends of the Chapter")

Friends Benefits

New Chapter Benefits

NAS takes on the expense of renewal/donation solicitation

NAS sends a Welcome Package with chapter-specific copy

Chapter has fundraising access to other names

Chapter receives recruitment training to develop additional members/donors

Imagine: You have more leverage to increase donations because you are now able to offer a full range of benefits to chapter-only members/donors. If you get one more person to donate, based on these benefits - that's an additional $90 to your chapter that you would otherwise not have received.

Remember: the mandate for the plan was to create a "No Net Loss" Policy - meaning all entities must benefit!

MEMORANDUM

To: Board of Directors
Cc: Management Team
From: John Flicker
Date: September 4, 1998
RE: Branding: Board Forum Discussion

A portion of the Board Forum at this upcoming Board meeting in North Carolina on September 11 will focus on two issues relating to branding. At previous Board meetings, there have been various discussions about further clarifying how we consistently describe ourselves to the public, and how we achieve a more consistent visual identity for Audubon.

At previous board meetings we have discussed the importance of describing ourselves in a clear and compelling way. We've talked about the advantages of gaining much greater clarity about how we hold ourselves out to the public and what we want them to think when they hear "Audubon" We've also discussed the tangle of inconsistent logos and the benefits of achieving a more consistent visual identity for Audubon.

We would like to focus a portion of our time on the role that Audubon Centers can play as the primary identity for the organization. Attached is a background paper with a recommendation.

We also plan to share our approach to solving the challenge of developing much greater consistency in our visual image, We will present some preliminary recommendations for the board to consider as we deal with the problem that Francis Pandolfi so aptly demonstrated at our December board meeting when he showed just a portion of the large number of inconsistent logos currently in use throughout Audubon.

Community Audubon Centers

The Audubon mission is to conserve and restore birds and other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and earth's biological diversity. We pursue this mission in two ways:

Education: We teach people to value birds, wildlife and habitat and to live sustainably.

Advocacy: We lobby and litigate to establish and maintain laws, regulations and programs to protect birds, wildlife and habitat.

While these two strategies are completely interrelated, they represent substantially different skills and activities. We run the risk of sending a mixed message and an unfocused image to the public if we can't clarify for ourselves what we're first and foremost all about. Figuring out how we think about ourselves is the first important step in developing a strong and powerful brand for Audubon and in staking out a valued position in the conservation marketplace.

When we describe the primary focus of Audubon, are we a lobbying organization that also does environmental education, or are we an environmental education organization that also lobbies? Or, are we a birding organization, a science organization, a litigating organization or something else? If we try to describe ourselves as being all of these things equally, or even more than one of these things, we run the risk of having a confusing and unfocused image in the public mind.

Many other conservation organizations have been successful in positioning themselves to achieve brand identity in the conservation marketplace. For example:

Some of these organizations have succeeded in defining their "territory" or brand identity even more specifically. Both TNC and TPL do land acquisition, but TNC does endangered species land acquisition while TPL does urban open space land acquisition. Both Defenders of Wildlife and NPCA do advocacy, but Defenders focuses on wolves while NPCA focuses on national parks. Mass Audubon and Portland Audubon each focus on environmental education, but specialize in community nature centers.

The first lesson in developing a brand identity is to match what you say you represent with what you really do. The public quickly senses a mismatch. Based on our major areas of activity it should probably revolve around either environmental education or public policy advocacy.

The recommendation is that Audubon focus on environmental education as the distinct signature of the organization and that we make that visible by establishing a network of community nature centers across the country. Environmental education matches the public's perception of what we've been doing for a long time and specializing in nature centers is a natural niche for us to fill in the larger field of environmental education. It would be our goal to establish and maintain a network of Audubon Centers in each state reporting to the state director. Mass Audubon is a great example of how successful this strategy has been on a state level; Portland Audubon has done it on a community level. We want to do it on a national scale, and we think we can succeed in developing our identity, the Audubon brand, in one single, powerful and memorable way.

Developing a brand identity around Audubon Centers can succeed because it is:

Focused

It is a single identifiable activity.

Simple

A lay person can easily understand it without further explanation.

Appealing

It potentially has very broad appeal to donors and the public. It covers a wide range of positive images: children, families, wildlife, protecting open space, sanctuaries, education, community-based activities, direct person to person contact, volunteers, private action, involvement and support for the school system, a permanent physical presence in the community, recreation for young people, fun, etc. It has the potential to generate the greatest foundation, corporate and individual support.

Lasting

This brand identity will have a long and durable shelf-life for Audubon. Much will change in the decades ahead, but every generation will need to learn about birds, wildlife and habitat. And the organization that can offer an immediate experience of nature will create real value in the public's mind. Much will change about how we learn in the future, but there will always be a need in environmental education to actually get out in nature and experience the unpredictability and excitement of real birds and wildlife in their natural habitat, and to do it close to home.

A Unique Niche

There is no other national conservation organization positioned in environmental education, much less in this specialized area of nature centers. There are various state and local organizations in this niche, but we can easily partner with them or complement their work. Many of them are state or local Audubon organizations.

Building on Existing Strength

Audubon has operated nature centers for decades, and already has a greater investment and expertise in this field than any other national organization.

The potential financial advantage of an education brand identity, as opposed to an advocacy brand identity, is significant. Education, particularly nature centers, requires significant capital and operating income. At the same time, it appeals to a broad base of potential donors. If we were to choose to position Audubon as an advocate, the resulting donor base would probably not be large enough to support the more expensive program needed to accomplish our environmental education strategy. However, if only a small percentage of the potentially larger education donor base is motivated to also support advocacy, we have the potential to also raise enough money for an effective and growing advocacy program.

Audubon Centers can be the force that carries all of our programs and activities forward. Centers appeal to far more numerous and more diverse audiences than any other activity we could embrace as our primary activity. If we locate Centers in a large number of communities across the country, we will be able to attract the broadest base of supporters. With a Center within the reach of the public in as many communities as possible, we can anticipate that we will be recognized as the conservation organization with the most dynamic and powerful product available to the largest number of people. Audubon Centers is the activity that will get the largest number of people, and potentially the most influential people "in the door." Once in the door, some percentage of these supporters will be attracted to other programs such as lobbying, litigation, science, international, etc.

It is expected, and desirable, that the advocacy side of our budget be much smaller than the education side of the budget. If Audubon eventually operates a network of centers in each state, our overall budget will grow substantially. As long as the advocacy side of our business grows proportionately, and receives the personal attention of our best people, our effectiveness in advocacy will also grow proportionately.

For example, assume that it is ten times more expensive to operate a network of Audubon Centers in each state than to be an effective advocate in each state. This is roughly the assumption Massachusetts Audubon has made. As a result, it operates a network of over 20 centers in Massachusetts with a total staff of between 150-200. Between 15 and 20 of those staff do advocacy. While that is only about ten percent of their resources, it vastly eclipses the advocacy capacity of any other conservation organization in Massachusetts. Even more importantly, the network of community centers greatly increases the credibility and effectiveness of those who do advocacy for Mass Audubon. This proposal would move National Audubon in a direction similar to Mass Audubon.

It is also consistent for an organization with expertise in teaching people about nature to also have credibility to advocate for protecting the environment. It would be less consistent for an organization positioned as an advocate to also have credibility in environment education.

Audubon Centers will strengthen our existing state programs and accelerate the process of building new state programs. While this network of centers would become our most visible signature in each state, the state office would remain responsible for both our education and advocacy goals.

Board Meeting Structure Memorandum

DATE: August 14, 1998
TO: Donal O'Brien
FROM: Leslie Dach, Ruth Russell, Jack Dempsey, Lynn Dolnick
CC: John Flicker, Carol May

At your request we met by phone and had a very productive discussion of the structure of our board meetings.

We have a series of concrete recommendations, a number of which we believe can and should be implemented at the September meeting. Others should be discussed in September for adoption at later meetings. We recommend that a portion of the September Board Forum be devoted to a Board discussion of these structural issues. (Ruth also wanted us to get some Board input on the level of interest in the current concept of pre and post Board meeting trips.)

Our Committee would like to continue its work through the next meeting, coming up with its final suggestions before the December meeting.

Our discussion was divided into two main areas. The first focused on:

• identifying major institutional issues that we felt the Board needed to discuss, that we felt were neglected by the current structure.
  
• creating a system that gave the Board an opportunity to provide input into the budget process earlier in the process, and gave the board the role of establishing clear programmatic priorities that they wanted reflected by the staff in the budget process.
  
• creating a system that had the Board return to the strategic plan on a regular basis and looked out on a multi year basis.

Our recommendation is that each board meeting contain two sessions that are devoted to these issues. One session would track the budget process and address long term strategic planning. The other would address major cross cutting institutional issues. The former sessions would be an annual cycle that repeated in year. The latter would be identified on a more timely basis.

The September session would be the opportunity for the Board or staff to bring up any major priorities that they felt should be reflected in the Society's planning for its next fiscal year budget. Specifically, we recommend that a significant portion of this September's Board Forum discuss the role of Centers in the organization and a specific review of the Packard grant application.

The December planning process session would identify the top priorities the Board wanted to set for the next fiscal year, so that they could be incorporated by staff into the budget process. The other session could be devoted to a discussion of fundraising, with the board talking specifically about how they could be involved in fundraising for the priorities established in the earlier meeting.

The March planning session would be a focused discussion of the budget. We did not have a suggested issues session.

The June planning session would focus on establishing longer-range strategic plans, with a review of progress against the existing plan and establishing new long-range goals. The issues session would discuss the desired brand image of the Society, both from a membership and public perspective, and a discussion of membership issues.

The second major focus of our discussion was the structural components of our meetings. We recommend the following:

• That the structure of meetings could change from meeting to meeting, depending on the issues to be discussed.
  
• The board meeting itself be reduced to two hours.
  
• The Finance and Development Committees be changed from Committees of the whole to smaller, working committees.
  
• The Board forum (at least a significant chunk) focus on the planning cycle discussions, and the time saved by the collapse of the development and finance committees to smaller size and the shortening of the Sunday board meeting be devoted to the issues discussion.
  
• Program Committee resolutions that need to be considered at the full Board meeting should be circulated on Saturday.
  
• There be a meeting of senior staff and program chairpeople at each meeting.
  
• We discussed field trips and concluded they should continue to be scheduled within the three-day board meeting.
  
• Program chairs take a harder look at what they have accomplished in their meetings and have clear objectives for results at each meeting.
  
• Executive Committee members should include the chairpersons of key standing committees.

September 12, 1998

BOARD RESOLUTION ON IMPORTANCE OF COASTAL HABITATS FOR BIRD CONSERVATION

Whereas, Coastal counties account for eleven percent of the land area in the continental US, while fifty** percent of the US population lives in coastal areas; and

Whereas, 110** million people now live in coastal areas, and by 2010 this number is projected to increase to 127** million people, a sixty percent increase from the 1960 coastal population; and

Whereas, the rapid rate of population growth and inadequate environmental safeguards have led to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal estuarine and freshwater wetlands that are vitally important to migratory & resident birds; and

Whereas, migratory birds depend on coastal woodlands and bottomland forests for rest. refuge, and refueling during their semiannual voyages between continents; and

Whereas, new radar research tracking migrant birds not only confirms but extends our appreciation of the value of coastal habitats as staging areas for migrant birds; and

Whereas, concentrations of migratory & resident birds at key coastal stopover sites attract large numbers of birdwatchers, whose spending enhances local economies,

Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society

Declares that coastal habitats are of critical importance to migratory and resident songbirds;

Urges conservation agencies to devote maximum resources to identifying and mapping important migration stopover and breeding areas in coastal areas;

Urges conservation agencies to protect, restore, and manage coastal habitats, especially coastal woodlands, forested wetlands, and estuarine marshes for the benefit of migratory & resident birds;

Urges Audubon members, chapters, offices and allies to prioritize coastal habitat conservation with an emphasis on educating the public and leveraging public and private resources for that purpose;

Encourages Audubon members, chapters, offices and allies to promote the awareness of local governments and businesses in coastal communities of the economic values of birds to their communities.

** = figures uncertain at this time, and will be verified. This resolution was not passed in this form, but as a Sense of the Board.

Citizenship Project Update - September, 1998

We continue to advance on the overall citizenship project and expect with new staffing, products and consultants to have the program up and running by the beginning of the 106th Congress. Our goal continues to be: The ability to deliver direct messages of issue support or opposition to key Members of Congress and Senators on behalf of Audubon's issues while building a powerful, motivated national constituency for conservation.

Earned Membership

The Membership Task Force will present a resolution to amend the bylaws to allow a new type of membership, called associate members. These are anticipated to be individuals who associate with programs and campaigns on a merit basis. Membership will be based on acts of service ranging from citizen science to environmental education The threshold will be one hour of service per quarter.

We expect the Earned Members model to fit tightly with the Wired Citizens effort. Many of the earned members will be captured on the web and will affiliate with Audubon in return for useful, timely issue information which they will then use through electronic and direct advocacy. Likely associate members will get to the Audubon pages through issues such as wetlands, sprawl and bird conservation.

Programs and campaigns are modeling their grassroots efforts to attract and maintain earned members. Fact sheets, tool kits, issue updates and electronic newsletters are techniques for servicing these members. In return, each program will have a cadre of dependable respondents to call to action.

Civic Leadership

This model assumes that the campaigns and programs will work together and with state office and chapter services to identify respected conservationists in 35-50 communities. These leaders will be recruited, trained and deployed to form relationships with their elected officials and meet quarterly to keep them informed on Audubon's issues.

The civic leadership program has been on hold pending hiring a new staff person to coordinate grassroots efforts. With a mid-September start date for our new grassroots communications specialist, we anticipate recruiting for these roles soon. A second time sensitive issue is targeting the right states and districts. Although major swings are not expected in November; some retirements and turnover will cause some shifts in focusing recruiting efforts.

Wired Advocacy

With redevelopment of Audubon's home page and linked pages on the Web and advances in database driven web sites, we expect a newly enhanced Internet advocacy effort. Existing and new members will be able to establish a personal action center linked to an Audubon Action page. Based on political and issue profiles, members will receive targeted information to their personal action centers. Email and phone calls will alert members to visit their sites, which will house complete tools and information for generating contacts to public officials.

The Wired Advocacy program showed such potential that it has become one of the leading edge products for web site redesign The bigger project has a longer timeline and may take up to three months for design and testing.

Continuing Grassroots Methods

The Audubon Advisory, Armchair Activist, Audubon News and Chat Listserve, alerts and individual campaign and program organizing efforts continue. The new Oaktree Database Cultivator system is anticipated to hold grassroots lists. However, the system is not yet configured for advocacy based use. A new staff person with strong experience in databases and electronic communications will help maintain and use the current efforts while we update our new tools.

Each campaign has stepped up investments in grassroots organizing and most have dedicated staffing for that purpose.

Next Steps for Growing Citizenship

Growing public cynicism toward the political process increases the challenge of stimulating civic participation and urging exercise of citizenship rights and skills. This is a problem faced by most public interest institutions. Alienation from the political process serves those with the most to gain from a weak regulatory and public service climate. As citizenship wanes, special interests gain, meaning that extractive and exploitative economic interests hold sway over government decisions. For the environment, even a temporary imbalance of power can mean permanent destruction of a resource or reassignment of resources and rights.

Audubon could and should continue its leadership role in the citizenship process by working with other public interest institutions to develop:

• New ways to participate
• Better communication and interpretation
• Training and sustenance for civic leaders

To do so, we will modify our budgets and appeals to emphasize recruiting, training and public participation along with conservation.

Position Statement on the Decision to Lease the National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska

Sanderling, North Carolina
September 13, 1998

Alaska's Arctic encompasses our nation's only Arctic ecosystem. This land represents a spectacular Arctic wilderness and provides critical habitat for many species of fish and wildlife.

Alaska's Arctic is also the site of a major oil and gas industry centered around Prudhoe Bay. Just west of this area lies the single largest unit of public land in Alaska, the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska (NPRA). The Bureau of Land Management has just completed a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the question of opening the northeastern corner of NPRA for oil and gas leasing.

Aside from its oil and gas potential, this 4.6 million acre northeastern region of NPRA has long been recognized for its extraordinary wildlife values. For example, the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area provides important nesting, staging, and molting habitat for many loons, ducks, geese, and swans (this area is a critical molting and staging area for over 20% of the world's Pacific Brant population) and encompasses the major calving area and seasonal travel routes for the 25,000 animal Teshekpuk Caribou Herd. To the south, the Colville River corridor contains the highest density nesting habitat north of the Brooks Range for songbirds and birds of prey, including Arctic Peregrine Falcons. The Colville River and its tributaries also provide important habitat for moose, wolves. brown bears, wolverines, hares, foxes, and other small mammals.

In recognition of their high wildlife values the Secretary of the Interior in 1977 designated Teshekpuk Lake and the upper Colville River as "Special Areas" within the NPRA. The National Audubon Society, a number of other conservation organizations, and natural resource agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department offish and Game have consistently requested habitat protection for these ecologically-rich Special Areas.

The National Audubon Society is not categorically opposed to oil development in Alaska's Arctic, including in appropriate parts of the NPRA. However, we believe that, before committing the NPRA to oil and gas leasing, it is necessary to step back, comprehensively assess our nation's only Arctic ecosystem on a landscape scale, and strategically plan how to protect the area's significant wildlife values over the long term. No compelling national-interest case has been made to justify leasing the NPRA at this time. The Final Environmental Impact Statement on leasing NPRA inadequately evaluates the long-term cumulative effects of leasing on other important resources within the reserve and the remainder of Alaska's coastal Arctic. As a result. the National Audubon Society believes that the ecological integrity of Alaska’s Arctic is at risk from unplanned, piecemeal development with no assurance of any permanent protection for the area's significant wildlife and wilderness values.

Therefore, the National Audubon Society Board of Directors recommends:

• Before any decision on leasing in NPRA is made, a guarantee of permanent protection must be provided for special areas which have the most significant biological resources within the reserve. Within the planning area, these include the region around Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River.

The National Audubon Society Board of Directors further recommends the following actions regarding leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska:

• A comprehensive EIS including a survey of affected resources and cumulative effects analysis for all of the NPRA including an overview of the entire U.S. Arctic must be accomplished before a final decision on incremental development of NPRA is made. The assessment in the current EIS is inadequate and much too narrow. Our knowledge is incomplete and the risks to other resources too high to proceed with incremental development in the absence of a comprehensive cumulative effects analysis.
• It is fundamentally important that a compelling national interest case be provided for justifying leasing of the NPRA at this time. For example, many fundamental questions, such as how this decision fits into a national energy strategy and how oil from the national reserve will be used (e.g., domestically or exported), must be addressed.

Issue Presented: Audubon’s Position on Proposed Exploratory Drilling on North Carolina's Outer Continental Shelf at "The Point"

The Significance of "The Point" to birds, marine mammals and other wildlife.

The factors that make "The Point" area of North Carolina's Outer Continental Shelf are the convergence of two major ocean currents, the Labrador and the Gulf Stream, with a major upwelling from the bottom, adding a third force. The carbon sink that results creates exceptionally rich feeding grounds, rich in sargasm, the brown algae that anchors the bottom of the marine food chain. The bottom itself has a rich and diverse benthic fauna. The Point is also a place of both abundance and rarity for the "higher" species and is described by Dr. David Lee, ornithologist at the NC Museum of Natural Sciences as "the richest assemblage in the North Atlantic ... Globally, this is one of the most diverse assemblages documented in temperate seas." Among the reasons for its significance:

About 50 species of marine birds regularly use the area. These birds originate from a number of breeding stations widely scattered throughout the entire Atlantic basin. At least 20% of the species that occur in the area of The Point on a regular basis are rare, and at least four are globally endangered. Several of the rare species, such as the Bermuda Petrel and Black-capped Petrel already suffer from reduced breeding success due to mercury ingestion, loss of nesting habitat and even hunting pressure for food in the Caribbean countries where they nest and are especially vulnerable. The entire global population of Greater Shearwaters, about 5 million birds, moves through the area during spring, as do birds from many other species.

The land closest to The Point is the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where over 265 bird species are found, and home to Audubon's Pine Island Sanctuary and many of the twenty islands of the Coastal Islands Sanctuary. Some of these birds are permanent residents, but many are tropical birds or northern species migrating through the area. Snow Geese, herons, egrets, waterfowl and hawks are common. In addition, several threatened and endangered species, including the Piping Plover, Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle call the Outer Banks home.

Eight types of dolphins are found in the area, over 40 types of shark and an astounding eighteen whale species, five of which are threatened or endangered, including the Humpback, Sperm, Fin, Sei and North Atlantic Right whale. Other rare marine mammals include Hooded seals, Harbor seals, Harbor porpoises, and Bottle-nosed dolphins. There are only seven species of sea turtles in the wor[ld] and five of them are found at The Point, swimming to maturity in the sargasm sea currents, and then returning to the land to nest. The Loggerhead, Leatherback, Green, Atlantic Hawksbill and Kemp's Ridley are all found here off North Carolina's coast.

The result of this biologically rich marine habitat is one of the most productive areas along the Atlantic coast for sport and commercial fishing and for observing rare and unusual sea birds. Nationally there is a growing interest in recreational bird watching, with $5.2 billion spent on non-consumptive bird related activities in 1991. The Point area is one of the primary places for observing rare and unusual sea birds in North America. Tourism, including deep-sea fishing and pelagic birding trips, are the primary source of revenue for the Outer Banks; local leaders have joined together to oppose offshore drilling. The currents that leave the Point travels north at 100 miles daily, distributing heat, light and food to the fishing grounds of the North Atlantic, contributing the economies of the northern coastal states.

Proposed Activity by Chevron; Existing Regulations

California-based Chevron has leased the rights to drill for oil and natural gas off the North Carolina coast from the United States Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service (MSS) since 1982. In February 1998, Chevron advised the State of North Carolina that it wanted to pursue drilling in Block 510 of its so-called "Manteo Unit", which includes The Point. Their current proposal is for one "exploratory" or test well over a period of 120 days in the summer of 2000. Chevron predicts only a 7% chance of finding hydrocarbons, but if reserves are found, Chevron believes there may be as much as 5-6 trillion cubic feet of oil and gas.

Because the proposed drill site is located in federal waters, Chevron must obtain several federal permits. However, the permits cannot be issued unless the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources find Chevron's Plan of Exploration (POE) and discharge permit consistent with its federally approved Coastal Management Program. In 1982, both the state and the MMS approved a proposal for drilling in Block 510 sought by Mobil, but its Plan of Exploration was never carried out. The state has demanded that Chevron file a new POE and provide the state another opportunity at a consistency review, rather than use the POE submitted in 1982. Chevron plans to submit its revised POE by the end of 1998.

In 1990 President Bush enacted a ten-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling for most of the United States, but NC was not included. President Clinton extended the moratorium for another five years, but did not modify the states included in the original moratorium. However, Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) recently proposed a one-year ban on drilling of the NC coast, which was included as an amendment in the Department of the Interior's fiscal year 1999 spending bill, which passed the Senate Appropriations Committee June 23.

Potential Conflicts with Oil and Gas Drilling & Exploration

One temporary well may result in only minor risks to the environment. The possibility of full oil and gas development is, however, of great concern to local residents of the Outer Banks of North Carolina, its leaders and to the environmental community of the entire region, who desire that their state's offshore waters be afforded the same protection the federal government has provided most of the rest of the East Coast. Among the impacts of offshore gas/oil exploration and drilling are the following:

• Oil spills and/or accidents at the drilling site(s), and injury or death to seabirds and other wildlife through direct poisoning from ingestion of oil while preening and through reduced reproductive success resulting from non-lethal accumulations;
• Bird concentration along drift lines and oceanic fronts where pollutants such as detergents used in drilling might be concentrated;
• Mercury, and other heavy metals released from sediments as a result of drilling operations accumulating in seabird and other animal tissues and resulting in reduced reproductive success;
• Attraction of birds to lights on drilling platforms and mortality and injury resulting from collisions; and
• Additional ship traffic, resulting in increased human debris, habitat disturbance and injury.

Positions Being Taken by Others on this Issue

Local opposition to the 1982 proposal coalesced into an Outer Banks based organization called LegaSea, which has become re-activated to fight the new proposal. In June of this year, a series of public meetings were held by the state Division of Coastal Management, at which strong public sentiments against the Chevron proposal were expressed. Statewide environmental organizations including the North Carolina offices of The Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, together with coastal groups such as North Carolina Coastal Federation and the Surfriders Foundation are on record opposing Chevron's plans. The American Bird Conservancy has expressed its concern about this potential oil and gas exploration at The Point to Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

For the reasons expressed previously, I strongly recommend that the Science and Public Policy Committees, and the National Audubon Board, approve the attached resolution.

Resolution Opposing Development of OCS Lease Off North Carolina Coast
Public Policy Committee
National Audubon Society
Duck, NC
September 12, 1998

Whereas, "The Point", an area about 40 miles east of Cape Hatteras on the edge of the Continental Shelf, is a place where two major ocean currents, the Labrador and the Gulf Stream, converge with a major upwelling creating a dynamic pelagic and benthic ecosystem; and

Whereas, The Point is an area of both biological abundance and biological diversity that is expected to qualify as a globally significant Important Bird Area, providing feeding habitat for many rare birds including the Black-capped Petrel, the Bermuda Petrel, dozens of others; and

Whereas, rare marine mammals including hooded seals, Harbor seals, Harbor porpoise and Bottle-nosed dolphin; sea turtles, sharks and other wildlife also are drawn to The Point for feeding and habitat; and

Whereas, Chevron Oil has announced its intention to exercise its rights under a lease from the U.S. Department of the Interior to drill an exploratory well for oil and gas by the year 2000; and

Whereas, oil and gas well exploratory activities, drilling and production would result in a significant risk of mortality and injury to birds and other wildlife at The Point as a direct result of this drilling activity;

Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society

• Declares that The Point is an area of critical importance to pelagic seabird, marine mammals, turtles and other wildlife;
• Encourages the Congress to support legislation offered by Senator Lauch Faircloth to prohibit the Department of the Interior from approving or permitting drilling on existing leases off the North Carolina coast until such activity is in compliance with all provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and all litigation and administrative appeals have been completed;
• Encourages Audubon members, chapters, offices and allies to exercise their best efforts to ensure protection of that area known as The Point from such activity.

Last Friday, a federal judge in Wyoming found the Interior Department's program to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho to be illegal and ordered the removal of the wolves. The Associated Press story discussing the judge's opinion contained the following sentence: "[The] ruling came in a 3-year lawsuit first filed by the Wyoming Farm Bureau and later joined by the National Audubon Society..." This sentence, and the accompanying story, left the impression that Audubon had filed suit to remove the wolves which is completely inaccurate. In case you're asked questions about this matter, I wanted you to know that we have issued the attached statement to clarify the inaccurate impression created by the article. If you have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me. Happy holidays!

FROM: DANIEL P. BEARD
NATIONAL AUDUBON SENIOR VP FOR PUBLIC POLICY
STATEMENT ON WOLVES AND LAWSUITS DECEMBER 15, 1997

National Aubudon strongly supports all wolf populations, natural and introduced, in Yellowstone Park and Northern Idaho. Wolves are a vital component of these wild, mountain regions. We oppose any efforts to remove or kill the wolves in Yellowstone or Idaho.

In a ruling opposed by National Audubon, U.S. District Judge Downes ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's wolf recovery program is illegal. The judge, at the request of Fish and Wildlife Service, combined several different lawsuits and in one ruling addressed the separate legal issues presented in the suits. Some press reports have mistakenly lumped National Audubon's position with that of the Wyoming Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau has sought to remove wolves from Yellowstone Park.

National Audubon sued to protect the endangered species status of naturally occurring wolf populations in Northern Idaho. In the ruling, National Audubon won on the issue of keeping endangered species protection for naturally occurring wolves. Separately, the judge ruled in favor of the Farm Bureau which opposes the wolf re-introduction programs. National Audubon strongly disagrees with this part of the ruling. No wolves should be removed. Naturally occurring wolves should be entitled to the full protection of the Endangered Species Act. National Audubon will continue its efforts to have a strong Endangered Species Act to provide protection for the wolf, endangered birds and other endangered wildlife.

TO: Public Policy Committee, National Audubon Society
FROM: Marlyn Twitchell, Assistant Counsel
DATE: August 24, 1998
SUBJECT: Quarterly Litigation Report

NEW MATTERS

Kissimmee Prairie: National Audubon Society v. 101 Ranch et al. After years of efforts to resolve water drainage problems on our Kissimmee Prairie Sanctuary caused by adjacent landowners, we filed suit on May 12 against several adjoining landowners.

This action was necessary in order to protect critical nesting habitat of the endangered Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. The adjacent landowners' actions have blocked water drainage, causing the water level on the Sanctuary to rise to a level that is destroying dry nesting habitat for the sparrows. The federal government intervened as a plaintiff to support Audubon.

On May 28, the federal district court ordered the landowners to install culverts and open those that were blocked, in order to drain water off of the Sanctuary. Audubon was also ordered to install two culverts. Audubon's culverts were properly installed and are functioning. However, as of August 19, the adjoining landowners have either failed to take corrective action or installed the culverts improperly. Consequently, none of their culverts are functioning. Audubon has formally requested that the landowners take necessary action to make the culverts drain water properly and thus comply with the court's order. Audubon is also pursuing administrative action before the South Florida Water Management District.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Tutein v. Daley. On August 17, National Audubon moved to intervene in a lawsuit filed by 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. The fishermen object to any rebuilding efforts even though the Bluefin Tuna population has declined by nearly 90% since 1975. This case will establish whether NMFS can take meaningful action to conserve and rebuild the Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and other fish stocks (including swordfish and marlin) whose biomass has fallen below the level considered necessary to support the long-term health of the population.

ACTION IN PENDING CASES

Wolf Reintroduction: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, et al., v, 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' 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' reintroduction plans for central Idaho and for Yellowstone National Park.

Over our objections and those of the other wolf conservation groups, the two cases were consolidated. In December 1997, the federal district court in Wyoming issued an order in which it agreed with both the Farm Bureau and the wolf conservation groups. However, rather than remanding the case of the FWS to allow the agency to change the program to comply with the court's ruling, the 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; 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' implementation of the reintroduction program fully complies with the ESA. However, it continues to object to the district court's order that the experimental wolves be removed.

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. Audubon agrees with every conservation group with an interest in this case that to remove the wolves now -- almost four years after the wolves were released into Yellowstone and central Idaho -- would be a huge step backward in the wolves' recovery.

Accordingly, on August 21, we filed a motion with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that we be allowed to realign our status in the case and join the arguments made by the federal government and several other conservation groups that are supporting the FWS. We await a ruling from the circuit court on our motion. (At the the Board Meeting, it was announced that the ruling was made in Audubon's favor.)

Special thanks go to board member Donald Carr, who has provided invaluable advice and assistance in this case, and is now representing National Audubon before the Tenth Circuit on this matter.

Tulloch Rule: National Mining Assoc. et al., v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 1993 the National Mining Association challenged a new regulation issued by the Corps of Engineers that closed a loophole in the Clean Water Act's section 404-permit program. Under the new rule, a 404 permit is required for any discharge of dredged materials into waters of the United States (which includes wetlands), including small-volume or "incidental" fallback of materials, unless it can be shown that the activity will not harm or degrade wetlands or waters. (The regulation was issued as part of the settlement of a lawsuit, National Wildlife Federation v. Tulloch, in which a developer used sophisticated techniques to avoid all but small-volume fallback of dredged materials in his development of 700 acres of rare wetlands, thereby avoiding a 404 permit). National Audubon joined several conservation groups in intervening on the side of the Corps to defend the new regulation. In January 1997, the district court for the District of Columbia struck down the new regulation on the grounds that it is beyond the agency's statutory authority in the Clean Water Act.

On June 19, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision. On August 3, the federal government and conservation groups (including Audubon) petitioned the Circuit Court for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The circuit court has asked for additional briefing from the parties, before ruling on the petition for rehearing.

Alaska Wetlands: Alaska Center for the Environment v. West. In June 1995, National Audubon joined several Alaska conservation groups in a suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenging the Corps' approval of five "general permits" under section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. (The Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps to issue general permits on a state, regional or nationwide basis for "categories" of discharges, but only if they are "similar in nature" and have a "minimal" adverse impact on the environment.) Activities covered by a general permit can proceed without an individual permit from the Corps and without public participation. The Anchorage permits are so broad they would cover nearly all development activity on as many as 2,271 acres of wetlands in Anchorage. In its lawsuit, Audubon and others allege that because the categories of discharges permitted are not similar in nature and the impacts would be fairly substantial they generally violate the Clean Water Act.

In October 1996, the Alaska district court ruled against Audubon. The court held that the activities authorized under the permit are sufficiently similar in nature and that the adverse impacts will be minimal. Audubon appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on July 15. We await a ruling from the Ninth Circuit.

Regional Board Members Position Description

Memorandum, July 24, 1998

Mr. Donal O'Brien, Chairman
Mr. John Flicker, President
Mr. Glenn Olson, Senior Vice-President
National Audubon Society
700 Broadway
New York, New York, 10003

Subject: Regional Board Member Election Task Force - Final Report

Dear Don, John and Glenn:

In June of 1997 the Board of Directors authorized the appointment of a Task Force to review and recommend changes to the Procedures for Regional Nominations to the Board of Directors. Don appointed the following to serve on the Task Force: Art Feinstein (California), Dave Pardoe (Maryland), Dorothy Poulsen (Montana), Carmen Santasania (Pennsylvania), Bruce Walgren (Wyoming), Liz Woedel (Ohio), Bernie Yokel (Florida), Ruth Russell (Arizona), Ex-Officio, and myself, Bill Ross (Connecticut), Chairman.

Virtually the entire work of the Task Force was accomplished through use of an e-mail "List-Serve" which was invaluable for this purpose since it was impossible for the Task Force to meet otherwise. Able staff support was provided by Walt Pomeroy and Chris Pepper. We examined every facet of the nomination process, conducted two surveys of chapter presidents, consulted with past and present regional board members and with key staff members. We also reviewed the Regional Board Member Position Description, a helpful document for potential candidates prepared several years ago by Ruth Russell.

Methodology: The Task Force recognized that chapter input would be essential. This was obtained, first by an article in the Chapter Networker sent to several leaders in each chapter. This was followed by a questionnaire sent to all chapter presidents, of whom 127 responded. The chapter presidents were also sent a draft of the proposed revised procedures with a request that they comment. We also reviewed the status of the Task Force and its thinking at each of three consecutive meetings of the NAS Board of Directors and at a forum held at the recent national convention in Estes Park, Colorado.

Proposed Election Procedures: Attached to this letter is a draft of the proposed revisions to the Procedures for Regional Nominations to the Board of Directors. The following is a summary of the significant changes which are being recommended:

• Substitute the words, "Chapter Election Regions" for "Regions"
• Change "Regional Office" to "the Chapter Services Office" which would henceforth administer the election process for all election regions.
• Limit mailing labels, furnished to candidates by NAS, to the chapter presidents and newsletter editors.
• Specify the number of ballots allotted for each chapter membership size.
• Set a specific date (April 1) for mailing ballots to chapters.
• Have all ballot counting done at the Chapter Services Office.
• Provide for a run-off in the event of a tie vote or if no candidate receives at least 40% of the votes.
• Provide for the Chapter Services Office to maintain, for each election period, a Web site with candidate biographies, key election dates, a way for candidates to be queried by members and a listing of chapters that have returned their ballots.
• Specify that the Chapter Services Office will promptly announce the vote totals received by each candidate but not for whom each chapter voted, and that each chapter is to inform its own members of the chapter's choice.

Regional Board Member Position Description: The Task Force recommends that this document, which is included in the Chapter Materials Notebook, be re-issued with a few revisions which rearrange the topics somewhat, emphasize that all board members are expected to assist in fundraising, indicate that funds may be available to assist in attending state council meetings, and add "e-mail" to the list of useful tools for Regional Board Members

Regional Boundaries: Some members of the Task Force expressed concern about the wide disparity in the numbers of states, councils, chapters and members among the Election Regions While making no recommendations in this regard we urge the Board of Directors: to examine this issue and determine if some adjustments should be made

Communications: Members of the Task Force also want to emphasize the importance of maintaining communications between Regional Board Members and their various constituents. We recommend that the Board facilitate a variety of techniques to accomplish this, including the use of electronics, multi-state conferences, meetings on issues and attendance at council meetings and conventions. We need to maintain a multiplicity of ways for Audubon people to keep in personal touch with each other if we are to achieve the "seamless Audubon" to which we aspire.

Recommended Action: We of the Regional Elections Task Force recommend the approval and adoption by the Board of the attached Procedures for Regional Nominations to the Board of Directors and the Regional Board Member Position Description.

Respectfully,
William D. Ross,
Chairman Regional Elections Task Force

cc: Members of the Regional Elections Task Force

Additions underlined, (Deletions in parentheses). 7/24/98

National Audubon Society
PROCEDURES FOR REGIONAL NOMINATIONS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Nominations, Campaigning, Balloting, and Conducting a Regional Election

Article III, Section Three, of the National Audubon Society Bylaws states, "the Board shall include no fewer than one Director representing each region of the National Audubon Society, who shall have been nominated by either chapters of members of the Society in the region each represents, through procedures approved by the Board… The names of the regionally nominated Directors shall be placed upon the official slate of nominees of the National Audubon Society for election at the Annual Meeting of Members…".

NOMINATION PROCEDURES

* All chapters in a Chapter Election Region where an election is to occur shall be sent in September by (their Regional) the Chapter Services Office a letter and information about the election and nomination process and a schedule of deadlines for (their) the election.

* Each chapter in good standing on the July 1st preceding the election cycle in a National Audubon Chapter Election Region has the opportunity to nominate one National Audubon member to run via the chapter nomination process.

* The member must live in the Chapter Election Region where the election is occurring.

* The specific nomination process for each chapter is to be determined by that chapter. The process must be open with (public) notice to chapter members at least 30 days prior to the selection of the nominee. All nominations must be received by the (Regional) Chapter Services Office by January 31 of the election year.

CAMPAIGNING PROCEDURES

* Campaigning by nominees may take place between February 1 and June 30.

* The (Regional) Chapter Services Office will provide each candidate in the regional election, for campaign purposes, one set of mailing labels containing the name and address of each chapter president in the region, and another set of mailing labels containing the name and address of each chapter newsletter editor in the region. (One set of mailing labels of chapter vice-presidents, conservation chairs and newsletter editors is also available upon request). One set of chapter president mailing labels will also be sent to any chapter which nominates a candidate for the regional election.

*Each nominee, chapter and council has the opportunity to take whatever campaign steps it deems appropriate to promote the election process.

CHAPTER VOTING PROCEDURES

* The Chapter Regional Election process uses a weighted vote system that provides each chapter with a specific number of ballots. The number of ballots assigned to any given chapter is based ore the total National Audubon Membership size of the chapter as of June 30 preceding the election as validated by the Membership Department of the National Audubon Society. Chapters with up to 500 members will receive 1 ballot; from 501 to 1000 members, 2 ballots: from 1001 to 1700 members, 3 ballots; 1701 to 2500 members, 4 ballots; and over 2500 members, 5 ballots. A chapter may choose to cast all of its ballots for one candidate or split its votes among the candidates.

* Each chapter is responsible for developing and carrying out its election in a fair and appropriate fashion. Whether the election is by membership vote, action of the Board of Directors, or otherwise, the chapter should provide reasonable notice (of at least 30 days) of all aspects of the election process to the members.

* Notice of the election could be provided in newsletters, correspondence or memos to members, posted on bulletin boards in places where Audubon activities are normally announced and/or by announcements at regular chapter meetings. These notices should inform the chapter members of the nominees and their biographies. The date, time and place where the actual chapter voting will take place should always be included.

* Ballots will be mailed to the chapter presidents on or about April 1. Chapters are eligible to submit their votes to (their Regional) the Chapter Services Office upon receipt of the ballots. The results of the chapter election must be certified by the chapter and mailed to the (regional) Chapter Services Office by June 30. Chapters must return the Election Certification Form provided by the (regional) Chapter Services Office in the envelope along with the ballots allotted to the chapter. Chapter elections will be certified with two signatures, one of the chapter president and one of another chapter officer.

* Ballots and Election Certification Forms postmarked after June 30 will not be counted

* Chapters are strongly encouraged to return their ballots to the (Regional) Chapter Services Office using certified mail with a return receipt.

* The Chapter Services Office will maintain a site on the National Audubon Web Page for each election. The site will contain information on the candidates, a reminder of the key dates, a "chat room" for chapters to query their candidates and a listing of chapters that have returned their ballots.

BALLOT COUNTING PROCEDURES

* All ballots will be held unopened by the (Regional) Chapter Services Office until a ballot counting meeting is convened at a predetermined time and place that has been announced to the chapters with the distribution of the ballots. Usually this meeting will be in the Chapter Services Office.

* The ballot counting is open to any Audubon members. The official ballot counting team should consist of not less than two chapter representatives from a state of states not having candidates and, where possible and feasible, from more than one chapter. The ballot counting team will open, count and tally the chapter ballots. The candidate receiving the most votes, and at least 40% of the total votes cast, will be declared the regional nominee. The ballot counting team will then certify in writing, to the chairperson of the Nominating Committee for the NAS Board of Directors, the name of the winning regional nominee, whose name will be placed on the slate of nominees to the Board that is voted upon at the Annual Meeting of Members in December. All ballots will be secured and retained by the Chapter Services Office until after the Annual Meeting.

* The (Regional) Chapter Services Office will announce promptly in writing the results of the election, including the number of votes received by each candidate, to all candidates and to the president, or acting president, and newsletter editor of each chapter in the Chapter Election Region. The name of the candidate for whom a chapter voted will not be released by National Audubon but each chapter is to inform its members of the chapter’s choice by an appropriate means as determined by its Board of Directors.

* In the event of a tie among the candidates receiving the most votes, or in the event that no candidate receives at least 40% of the votes, the Chapter Services Office will promptly make arrangements to conduct a runoff between the two top candidates. Runoff ballots will be sent to all chapters in the Chapter Election Region.

* chapter with disqualified ballots will receive a prompt letter from the Chapter Development Director explaining the fact of the disqualification and the reason why the chapter’s vote was disqualified.

* Any other questions on the election process should be directed to the Chapter Development Director.

National Audubon Society Regional Board Members Position Description and Suggestions to Candidates

Responsibilities of All National Audubon Board Members:

• Selecting and being responsible for the Chief Executive Officer.
• Establishing Audubon's Mission and defining its purpose.
• Setting major policies and priorities.
• Overseeing finances and approving the Budget.
• Participating in fundraising.

Additional Responsibilities of Regional Board Members:

• Representing their individual regions to the NAS Board and Staff.
• Conveying to the Board the viewpoints of chapters and councils.
• Representing the grassroots in Board discussions.
• Representing the Board to members, chapters and councils in their regions.
• Attending, and being prepared for, all Board meetings and conventions.
• Attending council meetings and communicating with chapters in their regions to explain Board policies, positions and actions.

The nine individuals elected to be Regional Board Members define their own roles as they respond to the different expectations of the Audubon members in their regions but, as Board Members, they all have a commitment to the Mission of the National Audubon Society.

Fundraising:

All members of the National Audubon Board assist in the Society's fundraising program by helping to identify prospective donors and by participating in fundraising programs such as the annual Birdathon. Board members are also encouraged to make personal contributions commensurate with their abilities to do so.

Time Devoted to Board Responsibilities:

From an average of 4 hours to 24 hours per week.

Expenses:

It is the Board's position that, while Board members who are able to do so are asked to pay their own expenses, no one should be precluded from serving for financial reasons. Individual expenses of Regional Board Members during one recent year ranged from $2000 to $8000. So that the best available chapter leaders will be encouraged to serve as Regional Board Members, some financial help, including the expense of attending Board meetings and some council meetings, is available. Requests for financial assistance are kept confidential. Several councils have also provided assistance for Regional Board Member visits. Non-reimbursed expenses are often tax-deductible.

Suggestions by Regional Board Members for Fulfilling their Responsibilities:

"Evaluate the time you have available... Be willing to spend the time it takes... Do your Board member homework, especially on the Budget... Be a consensus builder... Understand the structure and function of NAS... Get to know as many staff members as possible and learn which staff` members to refer members to on various issues... Have good communications throughout your region . Having access to a personal computer, e-mail, a copier and a FAX machine is very helpful."

Factors Influencing Decision to Run:

"Encouraged by others to run. .. Felt I could make a difference because of my experience. . Had enough time available. .. My interest and involvement with Audubon. Felt I had something to offer. .. An opportunity to learn and to serve. .. Had my spouse's support... Opportunity to represent my region to the Board and to interpret Board and management decisions to chapters."

From Regional Board Members running for a second term: "Enjoying being a Regional Board Member. . Felt my first term makes me a more useful Board Member."

Campaign Methods and Suggestions:

"Write letters to all chapters and councils and to specific leaders. .. Visit chapters, attend council meetings, make phone calls... Help chapters understand the role of Board members. . . Make sure chapters understand the nomination process so they will follow through and vote Go where members are, speak to as many people as possible... Get help... A campaign manager can be a great help - someone to make phone calls and speak for you. . Have someone else (possible your chapter president) write a letter of endorsement to all chapters. . Ask others to call chapter leaders on your behalf."

Drafted by the nine Regionally-Nominated Board Members on October 27, 1994. Revised by the Regional Election Task Force in 1998.

State Office Update - September 1998

Wyoming State Office - opened September 1998 at the Garden Creek Audubon Center in Casper, Wyoming with Vicki Spencer as executive director.

Iowa State Office - opened July 1998 with Paul Zeph as executive director. Office will be located in the Des Moines area.

Ohio State Office - executive director to be selected by chapter/NAS selection team from a pool of interviewees on 2 October 1998.

Missouri - a Missouri Audubon Council subcommittee, under the leadership of Brad Jacobs, is implementing a fundraising plan. To date, $65,000 in local contributions and pledges has been raised to match the Packard Challenge Grant.

Maine - discussion is underway with Maine Audubon Society for a merger with NAS with MAS becoming our state field office similar to our merger with Florida Audubon in 1997.

Colorado - the opportunity to partner with the Denver Audubon chapter to establish an Audubon Center has led Colorado Audubon Council and NAS to "fast-track" a proposal to jointly hire a state director whose first assignment would be the new center. This would be similar to New Mexico, and more recently, Wyoming.

Georgia - initial meetings were held with Woodruff and Turner Foundations as well as with leaders of the Atlanta Audubon chapter.

Hawaii - a brainstorming session will be held between Hawaii Audubon Society and NAS on 17-19 October in Hawaii. The session will focus on partnership building to establish an Audubon Center at Kawai Nui Marsh, the largest freshwater wetland in the islands and home to several endangered waterbirds.

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 12, 1998
DUCK, NC

"The overall goal of Education is to foster a culture of conservation in the next generation."

GOALS OF THE TASK FORCE

• To define a broad vision for education in Audubon, within the context of the expanding role played by State offices, local chapters and Audubon Centers
• To make general recommendations for the implementation of this vision over a three to five year period and over the longer term of 10-20 years
• To make general recommendations in terms of priorities and roles in the implementation of this vision

GOALS OF THE AUDUBON EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

• 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

WHAT DO WE WANT THE "AUDUBON EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE" TO BE?

We want to operate in both the informal and formal (school related) educational arenas, and in either we will seek:

• To base on real experience in nature and on real science
• To focus on birds, wildlife and habitat
• To encourage "approaching nature with curiosity"
• To build a commitment to conservation

When we operate in formal arena:

• To be interdisciplinary
• To meet national and local science education standards

THE AUDUBON EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE SHOULD MAKE USE OF WHAT IS UNIQUE and/or A PARTICULAR STRENGTH OF AUDUBON

• Take advantage of the multi-tiered and varied venues for delivery (National, State offices, Local chapters, Audubon Centers)
• Utilize the many communication tools, which are available to build awareness, understanding and commitment. These vary from Audubon Magazine, to Audubon Adventures, Audubon's WEB site and Internet presence, newsletters, Audubon Books, lectures
• Focus on real experiences in nature

WHO ARE OUR MOST IMPORTANT AUDIENCES?

Children

Families

Adult Individuals

Teachers

WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM STRUCTURE FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS?

National's role: Primary constituencies are State Directors and Staff and Audubon Center directors and staff:

• Work with state directors and staff to build education programming and capacity within each state
• Develop, collaborate on and produce educational materials which have national character and reach (e.g. Audubon Adventures; WEB)
• Collaborate with state offices to customize these materials to increase effectiveness at state and community level
• Work with Audubon Centers program and individual centers
• Help replicate quality education programs at state level (e.g. Classroom BirdWatch, IBAs, other state programming such as Songbird Blues, Birds for a Purpose)

State Offices/Education Staff: Primary constituencies are Audubon Centers and chapter education leaders within state:

• Responsible for development and operation of Audubon Centers in state
• Work with chapter leaders and others to equip them to provide informal education programming (in school and out)
• Lobby on behalf of quality environmental education
• Look for "best practices" in other states
• Deliver key education programming (IBA, WatchList, etc.)

Chapters: work with Audubon Centers staff and the general public:

• Meetings, field trips, source of local expertise for press, policy makers, etc.; assist with classroom and youth group education; lead community citizen-science projects and restoration projects

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:

Are these the best roles for each of these groups?

What services and training should the Audubon Academy provide to the different parts of the educational group (national staff, state staff? Chapter leaders? Other volunteers?) 

What is the relationship of citizen science to these goals? (i.e., How does citizen science "fit" in?)

SNAPSHOT OF AUDUBON EDUCATION

National Audubon Society Education and Communications Committee

Sept. 12, 1998
Duck, NC

AUDUBON CENTERS

Centers participating in "network" -- 29

Annual visitation at Audubon Centers -- 500,000 to 750,000

Centers with completed capital campaigns -- 6

Centers with capital campaigns pending -- 6

Audubon State Offices with Centers in state -- 13

AUDUBON ADVENTURES

Classrooms -- 14,500

Chapters involved -- 380

States using " Customized" Adventures -- 6

"Guesstimate" of significant chapter involvement -- 15% to 20%

Examples of Chapters Doing Adventures Teacher Training

• Wyncote Audubon Society - Pennsylvania
• Maryland Audubon Council
• Pickering Creek Audubon Center - Chesapeake Audubon Society
• Burroughs Audubon Society - Kansas City, Missouri
• Tampa Audubon Society - Florida
• St. Petersburg Audubon Society - Florida
• Saw Mill River Audubon Society - New York
• Jamestown Audubon Society - New York
• Bucks County Audubon Society - Pennsylvania
• Boulder County Audubon Society - Colorado
• Wichita Audubon Society - Kansas

STATE EDUCATIONAL CAPACITY

States with part or full-time education specialists: Alaska, California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont.

EXAMPLES OF CHAPTER EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

• Audubon YES! - Palos Verdes Audubon Society
• Vermont Council of Summer Camps Program
• Portland Audubon Society - Ecology Box/Kit School Loan Program
• Saw Mill River Audubon Society Sanctuaries Program
• Jamestown Audubon Society - Audubon Center
• Seattle Audubon Society - Vine Network Project - Urban Youth
• Denver Audubon Society Urban Outreach Program
• Wyncote Audubon Society - Refuge Keepers Program Philadelphia
• Chesapeake Audubon Society - Pickering Creek Audubon Center

OTHER ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Audubon Camps

• Audubon Center in Greenwich, Connecticut
• Maine Ecology Camp - Todd Wildlife Sanctuary, Maine
• Audubon Center of the North Woods, Minnesota
• Audubon Ecology Camp in the Rockies, Wyoming
• Vermont Audubon Council - Youth Camp

Audubon/Cornell Lab of Ornithology Collaborative

• Eight training workshops scheduled for Fall '98 in eight states (CA, FL, IN, MD, MT, NY, OH, PA) - to present the content and design of classroom BirdWatch and BirdSource

Audubon Campaigns

• Earth Stewards Program - Audubon Refuge Keepers will work with local schools and youth groups (Girl Scouts) to visit nearby wildlife refuges.

An NSTA Position Statement

Environmental Education and the Use of Natural Resources in Science Teaching

It is increasingly evident that the quality of the biophysical and social environment is deteriorating at a rate that threatens human survival. Furthermore, an exponentially growing world population threatens even more rapid deterioration in the future. It must be recognized that science and technology will necessarily have an important role in solving these problems. It is vital, therefore, that science educators concern themselves with environmental problems. For these reasons, the National Science Teachers Association urges the following actions:

I. It is imperative that students at all levels develop an understanding of how humans relate to natural systems, and realize the importance of making wise individual and social decisions in respect to the use of natural resources and the maintenance of environmental quality.

II. Science educators have a responsibility to help students establish a firm knowledge of fundamental scientific principles in order that they might better comprehend, explain, and predict the consequences of human actions on natural systems.

III. Firsthand interaction with terrestrial, aquatic, atmospheric, and human-designed components of the environment is considered both relevant and necessary for effective science teaching and learning. With such an experiential base, science educators can help students to develop the kind of reasoned thinking that will result in responsible decision-making regarding human/ecosystem interaction.

IV. NSTA supports activities that promote increased awareness and responsible educational use of terrestrial, aquatic, atmospheric, and human-designed components of the environment.

-- Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors in April 1985

Copyright 1985 National Science Teachers Association
Questions or comments? E-mail handbook@lzsta.org

An NSTA Position Statement

Informal Science Education

Preamble:

NSTA recognizes and encourages the development of sustained links between the informal institutions and schools. Informal science education generally refers to programs and experiences developed outside the classroom by institutions and organizations that include:

• children's and natural history museums, science-technology centers, planetaria, zoos and aquaria, botanical gardens and arboreta, parks, nature centers and environmental education centers, and scientific research laboratories
• media, involving print, film, broadcast, and electronic forms
• community-based organizations and projects, including youth organizations and community outreach services

A growing body of research documents the power of informal learning experiences to spark curiosity and engage interest in the sciences during school years and throughout a Lifetime. Informal science education institutions have a long history of providing staff development for teachers and enrichment experiences for students and the public. Informal science education accommodates different learning styles and effectively serves the complete spectrum of learners: gifted, challenged, nontraditional, and second language learners.

Declaration:

NSTA strongly supports and advocates informal science education because we share a common mission and vision articulated by the National Science Education Standards:

• Informal science education complements, supplements, deepens, and enhances classroom science studies. It increases the amount of time participants can be engaged in a project or topic. It can be the proving ground for curriculum materials.
• The impact of informal experiences extends to the affective, cognitive, and social realms by presenting the opportunity for mentors, professionals, and citizens to share time, friendship, effort, creativity, and expertise with youngsters and adult learners.
• Informal science education allows for different learning styles and multiple intelligences and offers supplementary alternatives to science study for nontraditional and second language learners. It offers unique opportunities through field trips, field studies, overnight experiences, and special programs.
• Informal science learning experiences offer teachers a powerful means to enhance both professional and personal development in science content knowledge and accessibility to unique resources
• Informal science education institutions, through their exhibits and programs, provide an effective means for parents and other care providers to share moments of intellectual curiosity and time with their children.
• Informal science institutions give teachers and students direct access to scientists and other career role models in the sciences, as well as to opportunities for authentic science study.
• informal science educators bring an emphasis on creativity and enrichment strategies to their teaching through the need to attract their noncompulsory audiences.
• NSTA advocates that local corporations, foundations, and institutions fund and support informal science education in their communities.
• Informal science education is often the only means for continuing science learning in the general public beyond the school years.

-- Adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors in January, 1998

Tbilisi Declaration (l977)

The world's first intergovernmental conference on environmental education was organized by the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in cooperation with the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) and was convened in Tbilisi Georgia (USSR)) from October 14-26, 1977.

Delegates from 66 member states and observers from two nonmember states participated. Representatives and observers from eight U.N. agencies and programs also participated. Three other intergovernmental organizations and 20 international nongovernmental organizations also were represented. In all, 265 delegates and 65 representatives and observers took part in the conference

The Tbilisi Declaration was adopted by acclamation at the close of the intergovernmental conference. The declaration noted the unanimous accord in the important role of environmental education in the preservation and improvement of the world's environment, as well as in the sound and balanced development of the world's communities.

The Role, Objectives, and Characteristics of Environmental Education

The Tbilisi Declaration together with two of the recommendations of the Conference constitutes the framework, principles, and guidelines for environmental education at all levels -- local, national, regional and international -- and for all age groups both inside and outside the formal school system.

I. The Conference recommends the adoption of certain criteria which will help to guide efforts to develop environmental education at the national, regional, and global levels:

• Whereas it is a fact that biological and physical features constitute the natural basis of the human environment, its ethical, social, cultural and economic dimensions also play their part in determining the lines of approach and the instruments whereby people may understand and make better use of natural resources in satisfying their needs.
• Environmental education is the result of the reorientation and dovetailing of different disciplines and educational experiences which facilitate an integrated perception of the problems of the environment, enabling more rational actions capable of meeting social needs to be taken.
• A basic aim of environmental education is to succeed in making individuals and communities understand the complete nature of the natural and the built environments resulting from the interaction of their biological, physical, social, economic, and cultural aspects, and acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, and practical skills to participate in a responsible and effective way in anticipating and solving environmental problems, and in the management of the quality of the environment.
• A further basic aim of environmental education is clearly to show the economic, political, and ecological interdependence of the modern world, in which decisions and actions by different countries can have international repercussions. Environmental education should, in this regard, help to develop a sense of responsibility and solidarity among countries and regions as the foundation for a new international order which will guarantee the conservation and improvement of the environment.
• Special attention should be paid to understanding the complex relations between socio-economic development and the improvement of the environment.
• For this purpose, environmental education should provide the necessary knowledge for interpretation of the complex phenomena that shape the environment, encourage those ethical, economic, and esthetic values which, constituting the basis of self-discipline, will further the development of conduct compatible with the preservation and improvement of the environment. It should also provide a wide range of practical skills required in the devising and application of effective solutions to environmental problems.
• To carry out these tasks, environmental education should bring about a closer link between educational processes and real life, building its activities around the environmental problems that are faced by particular communities and focusing analysis on these by means of an interdisciplinary, comprehensive approach which will permit a proper understanding of environmental problems.
• Environmental education should cater to all ages and socio-professional groups in the population. It should be addressed to (a) the general nonspecialist public of young people and adults whose daily conduct has a decisive influence on the preservation and improvement of the environment; (b) to particular social groups whose professional activities affect the quality of the environment; and (c) to scientists and technicians whose specialized research and work will lay the foundations of knowledge on which education, training, and efficient management of the environment should be based.
• To achieve the effective development of environmental education, full advantage must be taken of all public and private facilities available to society for the education of the population: the formal education system, different forms of nonformal education, and the mass media.
• To make an effective contribution towards improving the environment, educational action must be linked with legislation, policies, measures of control, and the decisions that governments may adopt in relation to the human environment.

II. The Conference endorses the following goals, objectives, and guiding principles for environmental education:

The goals of environmental education are:

• to foster clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social, political, and ecological interdependence in urban and rural areas;
• to provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the environment;
• to create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups, and society as a whole towards the environment.

The categories of environmental education objectives are:

Awareness -- to help social groups and individuals acquire an awareness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems.

Knowledge -- to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of experience in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and its associated problems.

Attitudes -- to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of values and feelings of concern for the environment and the motivation for actively participating in environmental improvement and protection.

Skills -- to help social groups and individuals acquire the skills for identifying and solving environmental problems.

Participation -- to provide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in working toward resolution of environmental problems.

Guiding principles -- environmental education should

• consider the environment in its totality -- natural and built, technological and social (economic, political, cultural-historical, ethical, esthetic);
• be a continuous lifelong process, beginning at the preschool level and continuing through all formal and nonformal stages;
• be interdisciplinary in its approach, drawing on the specific content of each discipline in making possible a holistic and balanced perspective;
• examine major environmental issues from local, national, regional, and international points of view so that students receive insights into environmental conditions in other geographical areas;
• focus on current and potential environmental situations while taking into account the historical perspective;
• promote the value and necessity of local, national, and international cooperation in the prevention and solution of environmental problems;
• explicitly consider environmental aspects in plans for development and growth;
• enable learners to have a role in planning their learning experiences and provide an opportunity for making decisions and accepting their consequences;
• relate environmental sensitivity, knowledge, problem-solving skills, and values clarification to every age, but with special emphasis on environmental sensitivity to the learner's own community in early years;
• help learners discover the symptoms and real causes of environmental problems;
• emphasize the complexity of environmental problems and thus the need to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills;
• utilize diverse learning environments and a broad array of educational approaches to teaching, learning about and from the environment with due stress on practical activities and first-hand experience.

Cowbirds and Conservation

Summary of Conference entitled
Research and Management of the Brown-headed Cowbird
in Western and Eastern Landscapes

Organized by PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
23-25 October 1997, Sacramento, California

INTRODUCTION

Ornithologists, ecologists, and land managers presented their most recent work on cowbird parasitism. Over 75 presenters covered a broad array of important topics, including the management of cowbird and host populations, ecological correlates of habitat types and parasitism, and the evolution of host-parasite interactions.

Vincent Muehter and Jesse Grantham attended on behalf of Audubon to: (1) Obtain the most current evidence on the extent, if any, to which cowbirds harm bird populations in North America, especially those in riparian habitats; and (2) To ensure that Audubon policies regarding cowbird control are based on sound science.

IMPACT OF COWBIRD PARASITISM

Cowbird populations are declining across the continent. Despite recent range extensions into Florida and some local areas of increase, the Breeding Bird Survey shows that cowbirds declined about 1% per year between 1966-1996. This dispels the widely held notion by the public, and even scientific community, that cowbirds are increasing.

Rates of nest parasitism vary locally: when rates are high, parasitism may harm local populations of some species. The extent of parasitism varies with local land-use practices, habitat, and with the abundance, breeding behavior and conservation status of different host species. Some of the variation in parasitism rates is due to unknown factors.

Examples:

Black-capped Vireo and Golden-cheeked Warbler: 90% of nests parasitized in open canyon woodlands on Fort Hood, Texas (Eckrich et al.).

Bell's Vireo and Yellow-breasted Chat: 80-90% of nests parasitized in desert riparian habitat in the lower Colorado River valley (Averill et al.).

Lazuli Buntings: 50% of nests parasitized in shrubland prairie habitat in western Montana (Greene and Muehter).

Host species often renest and are able to make-up reproductive success lost to parasitism. Contrary to previous notions, there is often little net loss in host reproductive success over an entire breeding season.

Examples:

Mandarte Island, British Columbia: 56% of Song Sparrows nests were parasitized, yet there was only a 5% reduction nest success over the entire breeding season when compared to a control site (Smith, pers. comm.).

Sacramento River watershed: 83% of Lazuli Bunting nests were parasitized, yet these nests were no less successful than nonparasitized nests (Nur et al.).

Southwest Colorado: 36% of Yellow Warbler nests were parasitized, but parasitized nests were as successful as nonparasitized nests (Ortega et al.).

Hosts with short breeding periods and those that begin the season raising cowbirds may not have enough time to renest.

Cowbird parasitism probably is not responsible for the continent-wide declines of many North American songbird species. Conservationists and the public tend to overestimate the significance of parasitism as a major cause of declining songbird populations. A recent study failed to show population-level effects of cowbird parasitism on host species and refuted key predictions about impact of parasitism. This research was based on the reasonable premises that (1) host populations should decrease in areas where cowbirds are increasing, and increase in areas where cowbirds decreasing (Breeding Bird Survey data); and (2) heavily parasitized hosts should decrease while less commonly used hosts should increase or maintain stable populations (Ontario Nest Record data) (Mitchell and Rothstein).

Rates of parasitism depend on the proximity of cowbird feeding sites to host breeding sites. Cowbirds search for hosts near woodland edges and feed in agricultural/residential spots like grazing yards, grain silos, pack stations and home bird feeders. The closer such cowbird foraging areas are to host breeding habitats, the more likely hosts will suffer cowbird parasitism (Halterman and Laymon, Tewksbury et al.).

Rates of parasitism sometimes correlate poorly with numbers of cowbirds counted in an area. Managers should differentiate between data showing cowbird numbers and distributions (as is obtained through point-counts) and data showing actual rates of parasitism (as is obtained through nesting ecology studies) (Geupel et al., Halterman and Laymon).

ISSUES OF COWBIRD MANAGEMENT

Cowbirds are managed through lethal control -- trapping and killing of adults, removal of cowbird eggs from host nests, and the shooting of cowbirds at roosting sites. Trapping is seen as the most efficient tool for removing large numbers of cowbirds.

Cowbird control is controversial. Land managers promote control, but most scientists support control only to restore local populations of high priority species (sensu [sic] Threatened and Endangered species). Scientists suggest there is little evidence that cowbirds have population-level impacts on hosts. Further, they point out that control has limited impact on reducing parasitism on a broad geographic scale. Traps must be located where cowbirds congregate, like in feeding areas, and trapping appears to reduce parasitism mostly near such trap locations. The farther hosts are from the traps, the less likely they will benefit from control.

Cowbird control is expensive. Examples:

Bell's Vireo: over $665K/yr. (partially funded by permanent endowment. 225 traps/yr, ~3,000 cowbirds killed/trap).

Kirtland's Warbler: $90K/yr. (funded by USFWS).

Black-capped Vireo: $45K/yr. funding source unknown).

Cowbird control programs have proceeded without a general framework, with little coordination between programs, or between the land management and scientific communities. There has been little attempt to regularly measure progress and financial costs since control programs began three decades ago. Many agencies have been involved in control initiatives -- USFWS (permitting and funding), USDA (trapping and killing), BRD (research), BLM (habitat management), Bureau of Reclamation (funding). The absence of a central authority has fueled "red-tape" and made assessments of costs and long-term effectiveness difficult (Hahn).

Cowbird control can reduce rates of parasitism on a local-scale. Examples:

Golden-cheeked Warbler and Black-capped Vireo: rate of parasitized nests down from 90% in 1987 to 22% in 1996 (Eckrich et al.).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: rate of parasitized nests down from 64% in 1993 to 11% in 1996, and host nest success increased from 20% to 61% during same period (Enos et al.).

Black-capped Vireo: rate of parasitized nests reduced from 90% in 1987 to <25% in 1996, and host nest success increased from 3. 0% to >40% during same period (Weinberg et al.)

No research has tested the effectiveness of large-scale control on the wintering grounds, where cowbirds congregate in large roosts. However, most scientists suggest that winter control is unnecessary since it could harm non-target species that flock with cowbirds, and there is little evidence that cowbirds have population-level impacts on hosts. A few scientists and land managers suggest that winter control is an option that should be tested for its long-term effectiveness at reducing parasitism continent-wide, provided that such an undertaking is coordinated by an overarching body.

Cowbird control programs on Endangered Species have had some success in meeting their ultimate goal: increasing local host populations. In the Least Bell's Vireo, populations increased following cowbird control and efforts to improve breeding habitat. In the Kirtland's Warbler, cowbird control and habitat restoration combined to bring populations in Michigan back from 200 breeding pairs in 1972 to about 400 breeding pairs in 1998 (Mike DeCapita, USFWS, pers. comm.). However, four years of cowbird control have not helped restore Willow Flycatcher populations in California, suggesting that habitat, not cowbirds, is the key limiting factor (Rothstein pers. comm.).

Scientists suggest that cowbird control is a short-term solution that ignores the real problem of habitat degradation as a result of agriculture, grazing and development. They cite studies showing limited geographical reach of control and those showing no long-term benefit without indefinite support. Scientists caution against diverting limited human and financial resources to cowbirds and neglecting the root causes of why species are at-risk. Scientists, however, support limited control to help restore local populations of Threatened or Endangered species.

Scientists advocate protection and restoration of host breeding habitat, and improvements in grazing and agricultural practices.

Cowbird control initiatives should answer three practical questions: (1) Does control fix the root causes driving high rates of parasitism? (2) Do the benefits outweigh the inevitable long-term financial costs? (3) Is control an effective "stop-gap" measure to keep an endangered species viable until root problems can be corrected?

COWBIRD HABITAT PREFERENCES

Cowbirds occur most often in agricultural/residential landscapes near open woodlands. Cowbirds frequent woodland edges created when deforestation leads to a mosaic of trees and open brush/grassland. In the west, cowbirds strongly prefer riparian deciduous woodlands near agricultural/residential landscapes.

Cowbirds rarely occur near continuous forests, deciduous or coniferous.

Large, contiguous forests sustain lower rates of parasitism than fragmented forests. This is because cowbirds (1) scan for hosts at forest edges, rarely in forest interiors; and (2) fragmented forests have proportionally more edge than contiguous forests, creating small woodlots that are easy for cowbirds to penetrate.

In mixed landscapes, cowbirds are more common at woodland edges than in prairies, grasslands and shrubsteppes. Cowbirds can be common in treeless, grassland habitats and actually reach their peak abundance in such habitats in the northern Great Plains. However, recent data suggests that grassland habitats tend to have fewer accepting host species than forests, so parasitism rates tend to be lower than in forests. Grassland habitats also lack perch sites that female cowbirds use to scan for nesting hosts. (Peer et al., Van der Haegen and Walker) .

AUDUBON SCIENCE CONTACT

Vincent Muehter, email: vmuehter@audubon.org, phone: 212-1979-3150; fax: 212-1473-1633

AUDUBON SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

In addition to top academic credentials, each expert below has a practical, science-based, perspective on how and when to manage cowbirds, and on the need to and effectiveness of controlling cowbirds.

Steve Rothstein, University of California, Santa Barbara phone: (805) 893-2532, email: rothstei@lifesci.ucsb.edu

Jamie Smith, University of British Columbia phone: (604) 822-3363, email: smith@zoology.ubc.ca

Scott Robinson, Illinois Natural History Survey phone: (217) 333-6857, email: scottr@mail.inhs.uiuc.edu