Riparian Migratory Bird Habitat on the Upper San Pedro River

ABOUT THE CEC

The Upper San Pedro River Study has been initiated by the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) under the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation, also known as the "side agreement" to the North American Free Trade Act, entered into between Canada, Mexico and the United States in January, 1994. The CEC, which is equally funded by Canada, Mexico and the United States, is based in Montreal, Canada.

The Council is the governing body of the CEC, composed of US EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Mexican Secretary Julia Carabias, Canadian environment Minister Christine Stewart and their representatives. The Secretariat provides technical, administrative and operational support to the Council, as well as to committees and groups established by the Council. The Secretariat's professional staff is recruited in all three countries. The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) is composed of 15 individuals representing a wide cross-section of the North American public who advise the Council on any matter within the scope of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER

Communities living along the shared watersheds of the U.S. - Mexico border face one of the most pressing challenges of the next century -- water scarcity. In addition to providing sustenance for a broad range of economic and human activities, water is essential to sustaining many of the ecological functions that in turn support a healthy economy and environment.

Economic and ecological values converge dramatically along the Upper San Pedro River. Originating in Sonora, Mexico, the San Pedro River runs north into Arizona where the river, and the aquifer that helps supply it, nourish a diverse and growing community of ranchers, farmers, urban dwellers and military base residents. The San Pedro watershed is also home to perhaps the largest surviving expanse of Southwestern broadleaf riparian forest, serving as an important corridor for millions of migratory birds. The riparian area along the San Pedro is a lifeline for a great variety of birds that winter in Mexico and breed during the summer months in the United States and Canada.

The CEC Council highlighted the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area in the 1996 session of Council in Toronto, Canada by recognizing the site as an "Important Bird Area". The identification of important bird areas supports efforts undertaken by the CEC to implement the project "Cooperation in the Conservation of North American Birds"

Federal, state and local governments have launched a number of initiatives to preserve the unique and fragile San Pedro riverine ecosystem. In 1988, the U.S. Congress established the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area to protect the riparian habitat, its wildlife and the scientific, educational and recreational resources of the San Pedro. In 1996, the American Bird Conservancy and the Bureau of Land Management designated the conservation area as a "Globally Important Bird Area". Today, a number of initiatives are under consideration at the local, state and national level.

THE UPPER SAN PEDRO RIVER STUDY

On May 26, 1997 the Secretariat of the CEC informed the Council of its intention to prepare a report for Council on the Upper San Pedro River. Given the breadth and complexity of ongoing initiatives to protect and enhance the San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area, the Secretariat focused its efforts on establishing a small, interdisciplinary team of experts to assist in

• describing the most salient ecological features and values of the Upper San Pedro watershed, surface and groundwater hydrologic characteristics, including transboundary connections, and presenting the social and economic context and patterns dependent upon the hydrologic endowment as well as the legal and institutional framework
• identifying the linkages between hydrologic conditions and the riparian habitat characteristics and values, including a summary of existing research on transboundary flow and groundwater characteristics and trend analysis
• analyzing the economics of water use for all sectors and identifying legal and institutional opportunities for enhanced conservation strategies, and
• describing potentially efficacious conservation and sustainable development initiatives, including bi-national cooperation.

The Study will proceed in two phases. First, a team of six experts will develop a status report and evaluation concerning the matters listed above. In phase two, the Secretariat will convene a panel to consider the expert report and develop policy recommendations, as appropriate. The Secretariat will then assemble a final report for Council, which shall make the report public within 60 days unless the Council decides otherwise. Public participation is essential to the successful outcome of this initiative and the Secretariat welcomes any comments, questions or other relevant input to the study.

Ultimately the study is intended to promote cooperative efforts to recognize and protect habitats of special continental importance; to catalyze and call attention to existing efforts to protect such resources and to educate a broader public of North Americans about the importance of the sustainable management of valued transboundary resources.

For additional information please contact: Rachel Vincent, Communications and Public Outreach Coordinator, 393 St.-Jacques, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Y 1N9 (514-350-4300). rvincent@ccemtl.org

Upper San Pedro Expert Team

Dr. John Bredehoeft has over thirty years of experience at the U.S. Geological Survey in both research and high-level management. In the early 1980s, he served as the Regional Hydrologist for eight Western states. He participated in numerous national advisory committees for the National Research Council, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, and is the former editor of the international scientific journal Ground Water. He is also the founder and a principal at HYDRODYNAMICS, a consulting group in California.

Dr. Ronald Lacewell has a doctorate in Agricultural Economics and is a professor at Texas A&M University. As Chairman of the Environmental Issues/Sustainability Team of the System Agricultural Program, he has organised teams to address environmental issues along the Rio Grande and other watershed regions. Dr. Lacewell has served as a consultant to the EPA, U.S.D.A and the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress. He has published extensively in academic journals on topics such as the effects of changing economic and groundwater conditions and the economics of irrigation.

Dr. Jeff Price is an ornithologist with a doctorate in Avian Ecology. A native of Arizona, he is currently a Principle at Carte Aves Consultants, located in Boulder. Colorado and Director of the United States Important Bird Areas Program. He is a regular contributor to academic journals and on-line magazines in relation to birds and their habitats. Dr. Price co-created the award winning CD-ROM Peterson Multimedia Guides: North American Birds, and recently authored a book entitled the Summer Atlas of North American Birds.

Dr. Hector Aries Rojo is an expert in watershed management with a Doctorate from the University of Arizona. He is a Professor at the University of Mexico and at the Colegio de Postgraduados, and has published extensively on natural resources inventories, particularly in relation to the Upper San Pedro. Dr. Arias is currently a director at the Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de los Recursos Naturales de Sonora.

Dr. Julie Stromberg is a Professor of Botany at Arizona State University, Tempe. She is an expert in plant ecology, with an emphasis on riparian ecosystems in the American West. Dr. Stromberg has published extensively on issues of vegetation and hydrology. including a case study on the San Pedro River. She has served on the Arizona Riparian Council and as Governor Appointee to the Arizona Water Protection Fund Board.

Greg Thomas, J.D. has over twenty-five years of experience as a public policy expert, professor and counselor in the conservation of natural resources spanning a broad range of expertise and institutions. He has worked as legal counsel to the U.S. Department of Energy, and was a Fulbright Professor of Law and an advisor to the National Environmental Ministry in China. He is the founder and President of the Natural Heritage Institute, a nonprofit natural resources advocacy organisation in San Francisco, California.

Contact: Dana Kokubun.President
Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation
PO Box 1101, Kailua Hawaii 96734
(808) 263-9397

September 9, 1997

Kawai Nui Marsh:

An opportunity for cultural and environmental education

The largest remaining freshwater marsh in Hawaii at 750-plus acres, Kawai Nui marsh, located on the windward side of the island of Oahu, was once the site of a large settlement of ancient Hawaiians, and a significant habitat for Hawaiian waterbirds. Although it's now invaded by alien grasses, eucalyptus trees, and water hyacinth, the wetland was at one time actively managed as a fishpond, ringed by terraced fields of taro, the starchy tuber Hawaiians use to make poi. The Hawaiians called it "aina momona" -- the fat land.

The Hawaiian fishpond and taro agricultural complex existed at Kawai Nui for several centuries. A large body of Hawaiian legends, chants, stories and song exist about Kawai Nui places and people, testament to the historical stature of this site to the Hawaiian people. Kamehameha the Great himself is said to have labored at the ancient fishponds and taken fish to refresh his warriors before the conquest of Oahu and the eventual unification of the Hawaiian islands under a single monarch.

Kawai Nui could provide a historical context for teaching about Hawaiian culture and the environment. Over the last 20 years, there has been a renewed interest in the native Hawaiian people's interaction with the environment: How did they rate as stewards? How did they sustain themselves and the land?

KAWAI NUI HAS UNIQUE CULTURAL RESOURCES

So important was Kawai Nui to the ancient Hawaiians, that three major heiau, or temples, were erected to honor their gods. The most massive of these rock structures, Ulupo heiau, is actively cared for by a local Hawaiian Civic Club. The Kailua Professional and Businesswomen's Association is the caretaker of neighboring Pahukini heiau. The third heiau, Holomakani, is on private property and has been nearly destroyed by time, ungulates, and off-road vehicles. Holomakani heiau has been adopted by the Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation which plans to restore it with volunteer labor.

THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF COMMUNITY CONCERN FOR KAWAI NUI

Volunteers provided the impetus for securing protective status for the wetland in the mid-70's. Alarmed by developer's attempts in the 1950's and 60's to put everything from residences to a floating shopping center in the marsh, concerned citizens from the Lani-Kailua Outdoor Circle formed an ad hoc committee to protect Kawai Nui. Eventually, a blueprint for preservation of the marsh -- the Citizen's Directional Plan -- emerged from community input facilitated by the committee. In 1983, the committee was incorporated as the Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation. The Foundation's efforts led to a state-sponsored conceptual plan, and a Master Plan in 1994, as well as nomination for listing on the National Register for Historic Places, not only as a single site, but as a district. The marsh is zoned under the most protective city & county and state designations, and large buffer areas around the marsh have been acquired by the state from private landowners.

Now entering its fifteenth year, the Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation has achieved protective status for the marsh, and is moving its Citizen's Directional Plan forward towards restoration of the damaged ecosystem, and initiation of interpretive and educational programs.

Recently, the Hawaii Audubon Society, the Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation and other groups successfully lobbied the state legislature for an $855,000 appropriation which qualifies Kawai Nui to receive $3.675 million more in federal funds for ecological restoration under the 1983 Water Resources Development Act. Combined with state appropriations from previous years, the total money available for restoration of endangered waterbird habitat, predator control operations and fencing, and alien weed removal will be $6.6 million.

RESTORATION OF KAWAI NUI WETLANDS WILL BRING BIRDS & VISITORS

Kawai Nui marsh is located only 11 miles from downtown Honolulu on the island of O'ahu, but a relatively small number visit there. The four endangered endemic waterbird species: the Hawaiian Stilt, Coot, Duck and Gallinule, are to be found in greater number in smaller wetlands nearby than in the much larger Kawai Nui marsh, which lacks the proper habitat conditions. The state/federal wetlands restoration project will undoubtedly draw the birds back to Kawai Nui, and the new-look wetlands, visible from the highway into nearby Kailua town, a popular visitor destination, will lure visitors and residents alike. No other freshwater wetland of this size is situated so close to Honolulu.

Construction of the waterbird ponds and predator fencing is scheduled to begin in winter of 1998, but the Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation has already begun re-introducing people to this significant natural and cultural center. With volunteers, they have built a small loop trail on the northeastern edge of the marsh up to a hillside where large basaltic boulders protrude from the landscape, affording panoramic view of the watershed. From there, the trail winds down a gentle slope until it touches the edge of the marsh, where one can actually walk upon a floating mat of introduced and native vegetation. It is a sensation not unlike treading upon a waterbed. Discussions about the use of the loop trail for environmental and cultural education are ongoing. A parcel of state-owned conservation land adjacent to the trail is a potential location for a cultural/environmenta1 education center, from which tours could be staged.

OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR A EDUCATIONAL JOINT VENTURE AT KAWAI NUI

The private, non-profit Hawaii Nature Center provides day programs for thousands of Hawaii elementary school children annually. Their philosophy of environmental education is centered upon providing hands-on experiences and they are looking for a windward Oahu site to run their third grade wetlands program, starting in 1999. They currently use a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuge on Pearl Harbor on the leeward side of the island for this program, but would like to expand service to include windward area schools.

The Windward YMCA is interested in providing a cultural educational experience for elementary school students, as part of their regular after-school program. The YMCA is conveniently situated literally next door to Ulupo heiau and the marsh. According to their executive director, an off-site facility with interpretive material (currently limited to signage at Ulupo) and programs combining field and classroom instruction would be an appealing option.

THE FOUNDATION KEEPS THE COMMUNITY ACTIVELY INTERESTED
IN KAWAI NUI

The Kawai Nui Heritage Foundation has organized a series of natural and cultural history tours within the watershed this month. Noted educator and native Hawaiian kupuna (elder) Kawao Durante led the first tour on the cultural history of the Kailua ahupua'a on September 7th. Other monthly topical tours will follow about geology, archaeology, plant and aquatic life, 20th century development issues, and of course, birds (led by Hawaii Audubon birder Robert Pyle). The sixth-month tour series will be videotaped to be used for volunteer decent training, and repeated in March. At this time, the tours are available to members of the Foundation, the Kailua Hawaiian Civic Club, and the group, 'Aha hui malama i ka Lokahi' (Hawaiians for the preservation of native ecosystems). However, the tours will be opened to the general public next fall.

Local residents, students, and others are encouraged to take an active hand in caring for the marsh. This summer, the Foundation celebrated the removal a million pounds of roadside garbage taken from Quarry Road which follows the eastern edge of the marsh. A city dump, now being closed, sits upslope from the marsh and has attracted roadside dumping, a problem that required quarterly attention from Foundation volunteers. Other community members attend the monthly trail maintenance workdays at Na Pohaku o Hauwahine. Beginning next month, volunteers will also be able to participate in the restoration of the Holomakani heiau site.

We normally think of Audubon as having one form of membership. The basic cost is $20. and the most visible premium is Audubon Magazine.

The marketplace has been telling us for some time that this one-size-fits-all membership is not meeting the needs of many parts of Audubon. There are thousands of people who currently support an Audubon activity, but are excluded from NAS membership because they have not also paid their $20 to receive the Magazine. As we expand and decentralize Audubon's programs, this problem will increase. For example:

• Many Audubon chapters have some form of "Chapter Only" membership category. No one knows how many.
• Various Audubon sanctuaries and education centers have "Friends Of..." groups to support the local program, some with substantial memberships. The Aullwood Center in Dayton and the Schlitz Center in Milwaukee are perhaps the largest.
• Several program areas have developed, or want to develop, support groups for very targeted purposes. These include the Living Oceans program, the Everglades Campaign, and the Refuge Campaign (Audubon Refuge Keepers).

Audubon will soon face additional membership challenges as we work more closely with the various "independent" Audubon Societies. For example: NAS is currently in active discussions with Maine Audubon Society to potentially merge our operations in some fashion to develop a unified Audubon State Office in Maine. Maine Audubon has about 6,000 members. National Audubon has about 5,000 members in Maine. There is probably less than a 50% overlap in these memberships. We will need creative thinking in how we define membership in order to bring the Audubon family together in Maine, and in several other states with similar separate memberships.

Each of these non-NAS membership groups is quite unique with a very targeted purpose. The common thread is that all of these people care about and are supporting an Audubon activity that is critical to our mission. Audubon's real constituency support base is therefore much larger than the 570,000 + "members" that we report. We don't know how many people actually support Audubon because we don't have any information about most of the supporters who are not traditional members.

It is time to re-examine our definition of "membership." Is it possible to have more than one category of membership so that more of these supporters could be considered as NAS members?

This proposal is based on the assumption that a bigger membership base will further the Audubon mission, if we can afford to service those members. A larger membership adds more clout to the voice of Audubon in every arena. Also membership is like a pyramid. The goal is to move people up the pyramid to be better informed, to give more money, and to be more active in more programs. The broader the base of the pyramid, the more people will move up to higher levels of the pyramid.

Our membership pyramid currently has only one entrance. It requires at least $20 for the Magazine to get in. In the future, we may need a definition of membership that is more customer friendly. We may need many entrances to the membership pyramid to include more of the people who want to help Audubon in ways that are most meaningful to them.

There are numerous complex issues associated with creating various categories of membership. There are even more complicated issues in broadening our definition of membership to include whole groups of people currently associated with other organizations or programs. A task force will be needed to examine these issues and to make recommendations to the Board. I propose that a task force be established to make recommendations to the Board about the potential for new categories of membership.

Texas State Office Lessons Learned

Catriona Glazebrook, Executive Director

It is now eight months since I have been the Executive Director for Texas Audubon Society. The time has flown by - it seems more like eight weeks. The past eight months have been filled with a wide range of experiences, some of them filled with joy and success and some of them filled with conflict and loss. But through it all has been an incredible commitment - a commitment to Audubon. A commitment held by the many volunteers that are a vital part of the organization as well as staff and Board members.

Lesson I: I have learned first hand that Audubon is a "messy" organization that is comprised of a large number of parts and levels from National to regional to state to local - to sanctuary staff to volunteers to central office staff to independent chapters and affiliates. From these layers and from this independence comes a tremendous creativity and strength as well as opportunities for misunderstanding and a lack of focus.

Lesson II: I have also learned that the incredible potential which arises from the new state structure can be and will be realized in Texas. There is so much opportunity - so much to be accomplished - the time could not be riper for a renewed interest and involvement in Audubon. I feel privileged to be able to serve Audubon in this state at this time.

Lesson III: I have also learned that the painful/restorative "reorganization" that started at the National level several years ago must happen at the state level with the opening of state offices. There are very few beginnings without shifting roles and growing pains. Before sanctuary staff, central office staff, chapters and members can work together - we must first understand each others challenges and goals and shift our focus towards supporting our new organization. Since this is my first experience in assisting to shape a "reorganization" - I have much more to learn.

Lesson IV: I have learned that no matter how impossible a challenge may seem - that the concerted efforts of committed people working together can and will create beneficial results.

Lesson V: I have learned that I have a lot of patience and that I need more.

Lesson VI: I have also learned not to underestimate the Audubon volunteers - their willingness to devote their time and energies to this organization is remarkable. I have worked with volunteers for many years - but none as committed to their work as Audubon volunteers - in large part this is due to their vested interest in the organization. An organization that is moving closer to - will be more accountable to - these individuals.

Lesson VII: I have learned that Audubon's renewed commitment to the grassroots of the organization is not just "hollow words" but is followed by action - beginning with the strategic plan - to the opening of state offices - to the hard decisions that have been made in favor of the chapters and people in communities in Texas and the US.

Lesson VIII : One of the greatest gifts of the past eight months has been learning from the people involved with Audubon..

I have learned from: John Flicker's confidence in and empowerment of his staff - Glenn Olson's encouraging statements that "hit home" with real understanding and support at some of the lowest points of experience - Jesse Grantham's almost intuitive understanding of people and good advice - Ruth Russell's warmly generous way of listening to others - Eric Draper's sensitivity to volunteers, staff and Board members and policy insights - John Whitmire's doggedness about investing himself and the rest of the Texas Auduboners onto a "high road" - Lynne Aldrich's clear thinking and support - Mike and Rose Farmer's gracious gift of their time and help in launching the state office - Dan Taylor's overall wisdom and marketing savvy - John Schoen's love of the land - Susan Lewis's thoughtfulness and follow through - Gina Maraboto's investment in the many tasks involved in her work from banking to typing bylaws - Steve Sedam's sense of humor - Donal O'Brien's consideration for others which helps to set the tone for this organization (I could go on - there are many more).
Audubon has managed to attract some remarkable people. People that I continue to look forward to learning from in the future.

Lesson IX: I have learned that this is the hardest job I have ever had.

Lesson X: I have learned that I have a lot more to learn - about birds, about Audubon, about conservation, about Texas, about my staff, about the chapters and volunteers, about being the Executive Director of this organization and facing the challenges that lay before me. I came to this job to help move a mountain, to transform Texan's outlook - to create a "culture of conservation" - and to grow in the process.

I got what I came for - I hope that I can live up to the challenges that lie before me - I know that there are people in Audubon that can help me do so.

North Dakota State Office Lessons Learned

Genevieve Thompson, Executive Director

A. Introduction The National Audubon Society - North Dakota State Office (NAS-ND) was opened on 1 July 1997. Unlike many of its counterpart offices, NAS-ND was started without any pre-existing structural organization. There is not yet an active council in the state, and the overall number of chapter members is low.

Therefore, some of the "lessons learned" may be germane to small offices. I have focused primarily on the logistical aspects of office start-up, in the hopes that time saved here enables new executive directors to get to the more important programmatic aspects that much sooner. It should be noted that for all things related to running an office, Debbie Bauer (888-562-1679) is an excellent help and resource.

As an overall comment, I had the great good fortune of being hired immediately before an NAS Board of Directors/State Exec. Directors Meeting. This gave me an excellent "jump-start", as well as an opportunity to meet everyone and connect names and faces. This is an extraordinarily supportive and committed group of people, and making the contacts before opening the office was very helpful. To the extent that timing permits, I would recommend new hiring to coincide w/Board Meetings.

B. Office Location and Size:

1. I have opted to locate in the heart of the downtown area, which has worked well.
2. I have a lease in an older office building, and at present am in a 2-room office. My lease is flexible, in that I can move anywhere within the building. This way I am saving money on rent now, and when I need more space with more employees, it will be easy to move up.

B. Office Rent/Lease Agreement:

1. All leases must be signed in NY by Jim Cunningham. He insists on two caveats in the lease: (i) the lessee must have the right to sublease (it might be best to get the exact language from Jim); and (ii) National Audubon Society does not pay lease (damage) deposits.
2. Joan Adams works with Jim, and can provide assistance if he is not available.
3. Rents are paid directly from the NY office. There is a time delay until a new state office is "in the loop", (mine was 3 weeks) so I wrote a personal check that the landlord tore up when the rent was received from NY. Paul Dempsey writes these checks; Maritza Rosario is also helpful in tracking things.

D. Bank Account:

1. Local bank accounts are set up to pay for local bills, such as utilities, phone, etc. There are a few things to be aware of, to minimize frustration:

(i) You can't initiate the bank account until you have the office address/phone number, etc., and yet it would be very convenient to have it in place to pay for telephone installation, etc. It makes for numerous personal reimbursements.

(ii) Carole McNamara must be a co-signatory on the bank cards so have them sent to NY as soon as possible. The longer this account takes to function, the more personal reimbursements are necessary.

(iii) Paul Dempsey "cuts" the check for the account, and it may facilitate field operations if Carole and Paul could coordinate bank cards and check issuance, so that they arrive back at the bank together.

You definitely want the account functioning by the time the bills come in on the first day of the second month you are in the office.

2. It pays to canvas local banks to find one that offers an account specifically tailored for non-profit organizations. I pay no "business banking" fees, and only have to pay a small per-check-fee if I write over a minimum number of checks in any one month. It is also an interest bearing account.

E. Computer Equipment:

1. Computer equipment is handled by Emil Novelo (212-979-;085) who sent me my already-programmed IBM Thinkpad in commendably short order. That was invaluable, since the computer allows you to be on cc-mail, and therefore in contact w/ everyone else in the organization. Call Emil as one of the very first steps!
2. The printers available through NY are relatively expensive, so check your budgetary requirements before delving into this. I have a laser printer from another life that will more than suffice until I'm ready for alternative arrangements.

F. Office Equipment:

1. Ken Hamilton in the NY office (212) 979-3178 is a great guide as far as what to get and what not to get.
2. Fax Machine: Ken recommends Brother/Sharp, with a price range of: about $300-$350.
3. Phone: Buy a decent one (Lucent; AT&T) with 2 lines and conferencing capability plus speaker; get a digital answering machine.
4. Copier: I have taken to "test driving" copiers from different vendors in the area (for free)... putting off the inevitable purchase. Debbie believes that we should not skimp on this machine, and that it should be able to duplex (which puts it in the next "tax bracket" as far as cost"), I'm still testing...
5. Phone Lines: (i) Be sure you have at least 2; possibly 3. (ii) Check to see if there is a significant cost savings to having an independent person, rather than the phone company, install the line.

G. Office Furniture:

1. I believe that NY estimates about $700 be spent for the Exec. Director's office... desk, chair, credenza, file. I went for used furniture, and ended up w/ a classic old wood monster for a very reasonable price, way "under budget". I've also been able to save on chairs and the office manager's desk (who doesn't yet exist in my office - I've been thinking about getting a mannequin) by buying them used.
2. As I understand it, the invoices/reimbursements for office furniture (and major office equipment) are sent directly to the NY office for payment.

H. Unresolved Issues:

I still have not tracked down the following:

1. Where to get the logo-art (i.e., for the door of the office). Debbie Bauer has a "camera-ready stat" to have stationary printed. In the interim, I downloaded the NAS logo from the net and it prints out w/ ea. letter I write.

I. Programmatic:

Obviously, every state office will be unique in their programmatic issues. One unifying phenomenon is the support and encouragement received from NAS. John, Donal, Frank, Dan Beard, Glenn, Susan...and others, together w/ other Executive Directors - when people say they'll help you where and when they can, they mean it.

Alaska State Office Lessons Learned

John Schoen, Executive Director

The Alaska State Office has been open now for five months. This followed transition from the Alaska-Hawaii Regional Office after a year without a director. Immediately upon starting the job in Alaska, there were high demands on my time to work on state conservation issues. This demand was caused by two factors: (1) Alaska is a national interest lands state with many high profile political issues facing our conservation units, and (2) I had a 20-year history of working on conservation issues in Alaska. After a year of low profile following Dave Cline's retirement, there was an expectation that Audubon would again address important Alaska issues. I stepped into the job and began to address several of these issues. However, this did reduce my opportunity to take stock of some of the programmatic issues. I had to fit these into a very demanding and busy issues agenda. This required some delicate balancing and soul-searching. It was easy and fun for me to deal with issues (my strength), but there was also much to be done in developing our program.

One of the important things I did in program development was to communicate regularly with each of our chapter presidents (only four chapters). I visited each chapter within four months, and we held an Audubon Council meeting at the end of the fourth month. Although we had a draft strategic plan, I substantially revised that plan to bring more focus to our program and establish a process for setting our priorities. I asked chapter offices to review this, and we discussed it thoroughly at our Council meeting. This was a very important process and resulted in significant buy-in from the chapters. I also listened. There were many discussions and complaints about dealings with National Audubon and the New York office. I heard chapter members out and recommended that the Alaska office be their primary point of contact. This was very important. I believe that chapter offices now have a responsive name and face to go to with their issues and problems.

California State Office Lessons Learned

Dan Taylor, Executive Director

This is the first full year we have operated as Audubon-California. It has given us a baseline from which we can more accurately predict our future performance. We are very pleased with how the message of Audubon-California is being heard and received. But important lessons have been learned, both through our successes and our failures. Here are some of the realities we have learned this year:

Think big: inspire and create, but at a pace that is sustainable. Audubon state programs must be seen as unique and valuable in the system that already includes local chapters and a national organization. However, it is easy to move too quickly in offering commitments for future staffing and funding. There is no shortage of opportunities that confront Audubon state programs. The challenge is choosing the ones that promote strategic growth rather than diminish limited assets.

It takes time for the message of Audubon reorganization to be understood by the public. We get it, our most closely associated partners know it, but the rank and file membership does not get it yet. It may take another two or more years before Audubon is clearly seen as a strong California organization.

The Audubon membership file for California appears soft. Anecdotally we observe results from our direct mail efforts that fit an organization that is subscription based, not membership based. We are working hard to bridge the difference by stepping up our communications efforts. It is important to the major elements of our corporate communications, such as the magazine, to promote the awareness of the membership to the new Audubon.

Communications with the grassroots and the staff is critical. The only way we can build and sustain dynamic programs is through an actively engaged and motivated partnership at both the staff and chapter levels. Information is central to getting people engaged. Leadership is critical in keeping people motivated. Nominal performance by either staff or chapters will not produce an extraordinary state program.

The data tracking activities of Audubon have been less than excellent and need improvement. We understand that the new system using Oaktree is going to significantly upgrade our performance in this area. State programs will be measurably aided when we have real time access to accurate donor and member records.

Minnesota State Office Lessons Learned

Don Arnosti

When I joined Audubon staff six years ago, I was shocked to earn that there was no effective way for me to get in touch with Minnesota members and track their interests and activities. We set out to build upon a simple database that my predecessor had begun. We now track information on more than 5500 of the 13,000 Minnesota members through this database.

While the new on-line system provides accurate membership status and recent donor history, I believe it does not replace the need for a more detailed local database.

• Information tracked includes:
• preferred salutation, contact addresses and numbers
• donor history " chapter offices and responsibilities
• activist information: issues of interest, legislative districts, personal contacts
• council activities

All members in the database receive free our quarterly "Audubon Agenda" newsletter and two annual mailed solicitations.

No less than every two years, we purge our database to remove "inactive" members - people who have had no identifiable interaction with our office for five years or more: no donations, not involved in chapter or council, not registered as an activist.

Nebraska State Office Lessons Learned

Dave Sands

The Audubon Nebraska state office has a short history, since it recently opened on February 1, 1997. Four months isn't a lot of time to make obvious mistakes, but there are a couple of clear lessons that I've learned which might be instructive to future state offices.

The first lesson involved timing. If a state director is also a lobbyist as I am, don't open the office at the beginning of a legislative session. In my case, the time required for legislative duties delayed progress in other important areas. For example, it was difficult to find the time for interviewing and hiring an administrative assistant, which in turn delayed the search for a development director. A newsletter is also behind schedule. These certainly are not critical mistakes, but it does remind one that timing is everything. While my unique situation may not often be repeated, some thought should be given in each new office about the timing that will facilitate a strong start, instead of hindering it.

The second lesson involved a missed opportunity for fundraising. When we started our office, I did manage to generate quite a bit of good publicity, which resulted in some very positive unsolicited feedback from members. If I could have followed the announcement with a fundraising appeal, the enthusiasm over the new office might have resulted in a significant financial boost right at the start. It also would have given us a quick foundation for a fundraising database. As it now stands, I won't be able to make our first fundraising appeal until October, nine months after opening. The lesson is, there should be a pre-planned fundraising appeal timed to go out shortly after the announcement of a new office, regardless of the time of year. If necessary, the NAS should facilitate these initial appeals. It simply makes sense to strike when the iron is hot.

New York State Office Lessons Learned

Dave Miller, Executive Director

As of July 1997, National Audubon Society of New York State's field office will be one year old. In that first Year important lessons were learned. The most critical aspect of our effort is to create a seamless Audubon. To do this, one must continue to work at it day in and day out. Even under our program where the chapter delegates to the State Council helped write and later approved our Case Statement and plan and where all policy resolutions are reviewed by the Council before Field office action, a true partnership calls for continuous cultivation of this relationship. Field office staff must never take a partnership for granted. Even the most simple approaches to an issue can be misinterpreted without clear and on-going communication.

The second aspect of this lesson is volunteer leadership is always changing, and with that change, on-going education must take place on the workings of Audubon in a state like New York. In order to facilitate this need, field offices must resist individual programs from drifting too far from core mission or structure of Audubon efforts. The more connected anyone feels to the greater whole of Audubon in the State, the less likely that effort will splinter off in its own direction.

Finally, the goal of staying focused is a difficult challenge with all the conservation issues before us. However, if the field office has faith in the democratic process of the grassroots, has mechanisms for strong leadership development, and judges its work on its core mission and conservation biology, it can be done.

Pennsylvania State Office Lessons Learned

Cindy Dunn, Executive Director

On the question of whether to put a state director in place before or after the money has been committed...

In Pennsylvania's case, it would have been difficult to commit the funding before hiring the director. That may be different in other states where an influential board member is leading the charge and has time to coordinate all of the donor and foundation visits which would be necessary to do this.

I do think it would be more ideal to fund a state office for its first year in total rather than requiring the director to raise half the first year. I think this for the following reasons:

1. It is critical to pay attention to the grassroots and get everyone engaged in discussion with the state director. This will SAVE time down the road, and the organization will be more effective in a shorter amount of time with this strong backing. Energy won't need to be expended later to put out brush fires.

2. Needing to raise the money right away doesn't allow enough time for a measured "cultivation" of major donors (or Foundations). I was appalled to receive my major donor list. It was much smaller than I would ha\re imagined. It is unrealistic to expect major donors to provide a significant portion of the Packard match the first year. The cultivation and building of the list will take years.

3. Hiring a Director of Development is HARD. I'm fortunate to have received so much assistance from the New York Development and Human Resources offices on this endeavor, and it is still difficult to identify the right person and make a selection. We should assume this will take a while for new state offices.

4. The biggest challenge is covering all of the bases. A new state office must:

A. Become financially self sustaining FAST.

B. Have a visible program impact whether it's on policy, education, bird conservation or whatever. You must do SOMETHING with an impact that will get the Audubon name in the forefront. I'm fortunate to have 2 program staff in this office. It must be a real challenge for the state directors without program staff! Maybe we can find way to help state directors more easily leverage the existing national programs within their states.

C. Establish the office, new staff, equipment, budget, and all of the administrative structure. This stuff isn't glamorous, but it takes time.

D. Meet all of the requests from national programs - i.e. programs need the state activists for a given campaign or program, contact state delegation about an issue, etc., etc.

Although this effort would challenge even the best time manager, I think it is great that state directors are trusted to build their offices in the way that makes sense to them. This recognizes the differences between states. A one size fits all approach would not work here!

The quarterly meeting of state directors and regional V.P.s is very helpful. It creates the support network needed.

Great Lakes Regional Office Lessons Learned

Steve Sedam, Regional Vice President

* A substantive funding base is needed before launching an office. Otherwise, a state director with many, many new responsibilities (some of which they are not trained for or equipped with) will have to spend an overwhelming proportion of their time on funding without the time to devote to program, chapter strengthening, board development and other essential ingredients of a successful state operation.

* More advanced development research and access is critical to creating successful self-sustaining state programs. In most parts of the nation, with the exclusion of some east and west coast states, Audubon's development effort has been inadequate to provide the background research information needed to launch a successful funding effort for a state program. More research and better access to donors is essential.

* There is a definite, clear advantage of having chapter leaders who have gone through the process of establishing and interacting with a state office speak directly, face-to-face with other chapter leaders in states that are on the verge of creating their own state program.

* The initial uneasiness over state offices has largely subsided and is now being replaced by an energized urgency for state programs.

* States without state offices are not getting the quality of service they deserve. Demands on field staff responsible for providing those services are so numerous that quality performance on a consistent basis is compromised. Too often, the need for and request of services outstrips the capacity of staff to deliver those services.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Office Lessons Learned

Walt Pomeroy, Regional Vice President

I obviously haven't been running a new office, but helping to start them. My thoughts are from that perspective.

I have found that it takes a lot more time to start an office than first thought. The lead time of working out details with chapters and council(s) in a particular state take at least a year unless there is an overwhelming reason for it to start quicker. Within that year, I think an existing NAS staff person should plan on about 10 - 15% of their time helping the chapters and Council go through a strategic plan, build support and understanding within chapters and begin to search for potential funding. Some states might need more time. We should let it drag out, however, not past two years in my opinion.

The search for a State Office Director seems to take 1 - 3 months once everything is in order, with the shorter time period for someone within the Audubon family (with a chapter, on NAS staff or with an affiliate). The search for a Development Director takes an equal amount of time by the Director once hired and on the job. Advertising for either position should be budgeted at $2,000 - $ 2,500 per position. Involving a search and interview committee of 4-6 chapter/council leaders from the state is necessary. It drags on the search time, but is necessary.

It is critical to get unified support from the chapters and council(s) before finalizing the state strategic plan if at all possible. Otherwise, lingering problems will continue to confuse the establishment of the new office.

Starting a new office from "scratch" without a facility of NAS staff on site (e.g. ND and NE) will take longer for them to get their feet on the ground. We should adequately plan for time and $$ for that start. Starting an office within an existing facility (e.g. CA, NY or PA) is quicker.

All councils and chapters are not yet convinced that a state office is a solution for them. We can't push them. We also need to clearly think through what continuing services NAS will provide to them and how. The Strategic Plan says we will continue that help and assistance. With the loss of the majority of Regional Offices in the past year, the answer to these questions is fuzzy, especially after this fiscal year. We need to think it through.

As chapters/councils think through the establishment of a state office, getting the Director of an existing State Office to a meeting is very important. Hearing the story first hand from a State Office Director really helps. We should try to match up that individual very carefully so their state story is similar to the state working to start an office.

I hope these thoughts help you put together your summary - a tough yet necessary job!

At meeting of New England leaders held in NYS, with attendance from CT, VT and ME, [please recall that we have no chapters in MA RI,and NH], with both staff and chapter/council leaders present, the following suggestions were made at a session on "what is a chapter". Discussion focused on certification. [The main discussion at this meeting dealt with continuation of the region]

Suggestions: all agreed that recertification provided an outline for self-appraisal, but that requirements should be more flexible, to allow for differences in chapters but "keep minimum requirements"; comments included "valuable tool", "lets chapters know what is expected", "helps evaluation and planning", "maintains standards", "keep flexible to make up for weak areas", "flexibility in what chapter does". Examples of the latter were "quarterly newsletter instead of 6x per year,", "definition of conservation and conservation chair", "list prior years activities and accomplishments", "educational programs in addition to / or in place of Audubon Adventures". Other suggestions were for the certification form to have goals to be adopted by chapters , i.e. - we will do X,y,z, - , identification of "what a healthy chapter is", -that 5 key items be; communication, a current mission statement, goals and objectives every year, annual self evaluation, and an annual chapter budget incorporating the goals, and also, that the certification form come out earlier. As you may see, this was a brainstorming session, some of the ideas may be better than others, some may be impractical for the NAS recertifier, but still useful for the chapter. I think I have listed all the "inputs", and attempted to screen out redundancies.

As a matter of interest, the group wants to continue the region,- no surprise at all!, wants to do a full regional conference in 1999, possibly in NY, with a hired coordinator, and wants to invite all the 'historic' independents to this conference( Ct, Mass, N.H.,R.I., and even our neighbor NJAS;- note not NY AS which is seen as ?!?)

Resolution

National Audubon Society

Environmental Litigation Policies & Procedures

Tucson, AZ September 11, 1997

WHEREAS the mission of the National Audubon Society is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity;

WHEREAS litigation is a legitimate and important tool that Audubon uses to carry out its mission;

WHEREAS Federal and State governments have enacted many laws to protect the environment, but in certain instances, Audubon may decide it is necessary to initiate or join in litigation to ensure that these laws are enforced;

WHEREAS Audubon should initiate or join in litigation after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, other potential methods of Audubon achieving its goals, and potential financial costs and other risks; and,

WHEREAS the Board of Directors believes the decision to engage in litigation should only be made after thorough consultation with affected chapters, state organizations, and other elements of the organization, and any litigation should promote and enhance the overall conservation activities of the organization;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the National Audubon Society adopts the "Environmental Litigation Policies and Procedures" dated September 5, 1997 and recommends that decisions to engage in litigation should be recommended by the President and approved by the Litigation Review Committee after careful and thorough consideration of the potential implications and alternatives to litigation. and that in some special instances, it may be appropriate for the Board itself to approve litigation requests.

Board of Directors, September 14, 1997

Litigation Request Form

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

I. The National Audubon Society ("Audubon") Litigation Program.

A. Introduction.

Litigation is one of the numerous tools that Audubon uses to carry out its mission to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. Federal and State governments have enacted many laws to protect the environment, but in certain instances, Audubon may decide it is necessary to to initiate or join in litigation to ensure that these laws are enforced. Audubon also participates in legal proceedings before the courts and administrative agencies to ensure that policies and regulatory decisions are based on sound science and reflect due regard for environmental values. Finally, Audubon uses litigation as a creative tool for establishing new legal precedents for the benefit of wildlife and the environment generally.

B. The Costs and Risks of Litigation.

Audubon initiates or joins in litigation only after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, other potential methods of Audubon achieving its goals, and potential financial costs and other risks. Litigation can sometimes be very expensive, even when Audubon relies on in-house counsel or receives pro bono legal assistance. Substantial financial obligations over many years can be incurred in expert witness fees, costs of transcripts, travel costs, photocopying, and so on. If Audubon loses the litigation it may be liable for costs associated with the litigation. A court may require the posting of a large bond as a condition for injunctive relief. And in some cases there is a risk that Audubon will be subject to a counter suit. Unfortunately, the total cost of litigating a case is often extremely hard to predict at the outset.

Each year Audubon includes a modest amount of money in the budget to support the direct costs of litigation. At the beginning of each fiscal year, a substantial portion of the litigation fund is already dedicated to specific matters. Accordingly, Audubon must be highly selective in determining which cases it decides to take on. If a proposed litigation matter will likely entail major expenditures over a number of years, a specific funding plan to support the litigation must be developed before Audubon can commit to involvement.

Because of these potential costs and risks, the Board of Directors has determined that decisions to engage in litigation should be recommended by the President and approved by a Litigation Review Committee after careful and thorough consideration. In some instances, it may also be appropriate for the Board itself to approve a litigation request.

C. Legal Representation of Audubon.

Audubon has staff attorneys who may be called upon to undertake representation for the Society in environmental cases. Audubon also relies on pro bono legal assistance from attorneys in the private bar as well as attorneys employed by public interest law firms and other conservation organizations. On occasion, Audubon has retained private counsel on a fee basis. This practice is disfavored because of the high cost and also because competent counsel generally are available to prosecute legal actions on the Society's behalf on a pro bono basis.

D. Relationship of Litigation to Other Audubon Activities.

The Board of Directors believes that the decision to engage in litigation should only be made after thorough consultation with affected chapters, state organizations, and other elements of the organization. In addition, any litigation should promote and enhance the overall conservation activities of the organization. Other things being equal, highest priority shall be placed on litigation that serves the objectives of high priority campaigns or protects sanctuaries under Audubon's protection. Any environmental lawsuit in which Audubon becomes involved must be directly related to Audubon's mission and serve the public interest.

When a chapter, state organization or department requests that Audubon become involved in litigation, it is expected that all staff and members will provide adequate support to make the litigation effort a success. Litigation matters often raise complex scientific or resource policy issues that require close involvement by Audubon staff expert in those particular issues. Issues debated in the courts can quickly change into issues requiring lobbying or other work before Congress or administrative agencies; close coordination is required to ensure that Audubon effectively marshal its different tools to make its work on a particular issue a success.

E. Involvement in Litigation Brought By Other Groups.

Audubon frequently receives requests from other organizations to participate in litigation that they have initiated. Audubon does not participate in litigation simply to lend its name and reputation. There are substantial risks to the Society in becoming involved in litigation over which we do not exercise effective control. Furthermore, simply adding Audubon's name to a complaint is very unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome. While joining as a passive partner in litigation initiated by others may generate short-term good will, in the long-term it tends to detract from the reputation of Audubon as a leader of the conservation movement.

Audubon also receives requests from Audubon chapters and individual members to participate in litigation in which they have an interest. As independent non-profit organizations, the chapters are at complete liberty to litigate in their own names with or without Audubon’s approval or participation. Any request for assistance from a member of the Audubon family will receive the most careful consideration. However, the basic criteria for becoming involved in litigation are the same regardless of the source of the request.

F. The Purpose of the Litigation Approval Process.

The Audubon case approval process is designed to ensure that Audubon only initiates litigation on the basis of timely and complete information and a thorough assessment of the need to become involved in the litigation. The process is designed not only to secure necessary authorization from the Board of Directors to initiate litigation, but also to ensure adequate consultation with Audubon staff, chapters, and members that have an interest in the matter. The approval process protects Audubon from participation in unnecessary litigation and helps to avoid the potentially embarrassing situation of Audubon taking different legal positions in separate cases. Finally, the process is intended to ensure that a thorough assessment of Audubon's financial exposure is conducted before the organization enters into litigation.

II. The Litigation Approval Process.

A. When Case Approval is Required.

Approval is required in connection any proposed litigation matter, including but not limited to the following:

1. A letter to an agency stating an intention to sue, whether sent pursuant to one or another of the various state or federal statutes requiring advance notice of such an intent or for some other reason in the absence of a statutory notice-of-intent requirement.
2. Initiation of or intervention in an agency or administrative proceeding.
3. A petition to review agency action where no prior approval of the case has been obtained.
4. A motion for leave to participate in a lawsuit or in an agency or administrative proceeding on an amicus curiae basis.
5. Any action by an Audubon staff member which, in the opinion of that staff member, commits the Audubon to any of the actions described or cited above, or any other form of environmental litigation.

B. Initiating Involvement in Litigation and Case Approval Requests

To initiate the litigation request process, an Audubon staff member must complete the litigation request form and prepare an accompanying narrative statement. (See National Audubon Society Environmental Litigation Request Form.) The completed form should be submitted to the Senior Vice President for Public Policy in Washington, D.C. The Senior Vice President for Public Policy will undertake the appropriate consultation with chapters, state organizations, Audubon staff in Washington, D.C. and the field, and transmit the form along with his/her recommendation to the President in New York. The President will then consider the request and forward the litigation request along with his/her recommendation to the Litigation Review Committee. In some instances, the President may recommend that the final decision about entering into litigation be made by the full Board of Directors.

C. Litigation Review Committee.

Audubon’s Litigation Review Committee has three members of Audubon’s Board of Directors who are appointed by the Chairman of the Board. Except as provided in section E, an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Litigation Review Committee is necessary to authorize Audubon's participation in a new litigation matter. The Chairman of the Board shall annually designate a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson of the Litigation Review Committee.

Members of the Litigation Review Committee are expected to review and act on all case approval requests referred to their attention within 7 days of receipt unless a shorter time is specified. The affirmative vote of a majority of the Committee is the minimum necessary to authorize participation in litigation. Committee members will record their votes on a form provided for that purpose attached to the case approval request and return the completed form. The Chairperson may at any time arrange a conference call to allow the Committee members to discuss a particular litigation request. Any member of the Committee may petition the Chairperson to call for a conference.

D. Standards and Procedures.

All case approval requests will be determined according to the following criteria: (1) significance of the case in terms of Audubon's conservation priorities; (2) likelihood of success; (3) the degree to which the suit might establish an important precedent; (4) the political and other potential consequences of bringing or joining in the suit; (5) availability of required legal and other staff; (6) availability of necessary financial resources, (7) whether the litigation is essential to the mission of the Society; (8) whether there are other means of achieving Audubon’s goals; and, (9) such other criteria as the Board and Litigation Review Committee shall determine to be appropriate.

E. Emergency Case Approval.

In an emergency situation requiring committee action in less than seven days, or if time does not permit preparation of a written litigation request, the Chairperson of the Litigation Review Committee may authorize the initiation of litigation after receiving a recommendation from the President, or in his or her absence, the Senior Vice President for Public Policy. In the event the Chairperson is not available to participate in the case approval process, the functions of the Chairperson of the Committee shall be served by the Vice-Chairperson. Shortened time periods for consideration of a case approval request are not favored and will be avoided whenever possible. In all cases where these emergency procedures are employed, Committee members will be informed of the Chairperson's or Vice-Chairperson's action and explain the reason for invoking the emergency procedures.

F. Reports to the Committee.

The Senior Vice President for Public Policy shall make quarterly reports to the Board regarding all cases approved and major developments in ongoing cases.

Approved by National Audubon Society

Board of Directors, September 14, 1997

National Audubon Society

Environmental Litigation Request Form

Any Audubon staff member who seeks approval for the Society to initiate litigation must complete the attached litigation request form and forward it to the Senior Vice President for Public Policy in Washington, D.C. (To determine the types of litigation matters requiring approval, see the Audubon Litigation Policies and Procedures Memorandum.) If an Audubon chapter or an Audubon member is asking the organization to initiate litigation, they should contact the appropriate State Director or Regional Vice President who will decide whether to submit a litigation request form.

The most important part of a request for litigation approval is a narrative statement describing the proposed case. The narrative statement must be attached to the new matter form. Other documents -- such as a draft complaint, or correspondence or memos, if available -- are helpful and may also be enclosed, but these other documents are not a substitute for the narrative statement.

The narrative statement should generally contain the following information:

a) A statement of the issues, including a description of the resource at issue, the regulatory and political background, and the environmental harm sought to be avoided.

b) A statement of the present situation, including the status of the project or problem, and the nature of decisions which may harm the environment or prejudice the case.

c) A statement of the ultimate goal of the litigation and whether or not other means to achieve Audubon’s goals have been or could have been undertaken.

d) A description of Audubon's interest and involvement in the matter and of any potential overlap or conflict with other conservation groups interested in the same issue.

e) If the statement is being prepared by an Audubon chapter or another conservation group, a statement of why National Audubon Society participation is necessary or desirable.

f) A statement of the applicable law and the specific legal claims upon which the proposed lawsuit will be based. If possible, state what the opponents are likely to argue in their favor.

g) A statement as to whether a counter suit or intervention has been threatened or is likely.

h) A statement of the likely cost of the litigation, and an explanation of how the financial obligations will be met.

i) A statement describing the opposing party(ies) and other persons or organizations interested in the litigation, and whether they have a relationship with Audubon, and if so, a statement describing that relationship.

The litigation request form will be reviewed and evaluated by Senior Vice President for Public Policy and the President in consultation with other staff. The request will be submitted to the President for his/her consideration. If the requests meet Audubon's case-approval criteria, the President will forward the request along with a recommendation to the Litigation Review Committee for approval. In some instances, the President may recommend that the final decision about entering into litigation be made be the full Board of Directors.

National Audubon Society

Environmental Litigation Request Form

(electronic version - please expand space where needed)

Date:

Subject of Proposed Litigation:

ATTORNEY:

Attorney in charge

Address

Telephone

NAS Staff [ ] Public Int. Firm [ ] Volunteer [ ] Fee [ ]

Other attorneys:

FORUM:

PLAINTIFFS:

National Audubon Society [ ]

Others (list)

DEFENDANTS:

OTHER POTENTIALLY OPPOSING PARTIES:

WITNESSES:

TYPES OF EXPERT WITNESSES REQUIRED:

EXPERT WITNESSES:

Name

Address

Telephone

Area of Expertise

PROBABLE FEES AND EXPENSES:

Attorneys fees

Expenses

Witness fees

TOTAL:

Describe how funds are to be raised and agreement among the parties concerning the sharing of cost:

PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL HARM:

Secondary considerations:

GOALS OF THE LITIGATION:

RELATIONSHIP TO AUDUBON CONSERVATION PRIORITIES:

LEGAL THEORIES/CAUSES OF ACTION:

(Attach copy of draft complaint, if available.)

Statutes or common law theories to be relied upon:

Preliminary relief contemplated?

Comment of lead attorney on bond requirement:

LIKELIHOOD OF COUNTERSUIT:

INTERVENTION:

(Attach copy of filed complaint.)

Status of case:

Reason for intervention:

Intervening parties:

APPROVAL TYPICALLY TAKES SEVERAL WEEKS. IF APPROVAL

IS NEEDED EARLIER, EXPLAIN BELOW WHEN APPROVAL IS

NEEDED AND REASONS FOR SEEKING EXPEDITED APPROVAL:

ATTACH FACTUAL AND LEGAL NARRATIVE TO THIS FORM AND SEND TO:

Daniel P. Beard
National Audubon Society
1901 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 861-2242
Fax: (202) 861-4290

Resolution

National Audubon Society

Fast Track Legislation

Tucson, AZ September 14, 1997

WHEREAS, the National Audubon Society is aware of the speed at which globalization of economies is occurring through the mechanisms of trade and investment agreements, and of the impacts of increased trade among nations on the global environment.

WHEREAS, trade without environmental safeguards places great strain on the environment by discouraging the development and enforcement of pollution controls and other environmental standards, by jeopardizing existing environmental standards by allowing trade challenges to domestic laws and regulations, and by escalating use of renewable and non-renewable natural resources.

WHEREAS, low or unenforced environmental standards not only harm the environment and jeopardize public health, but also affect the global competitiveness of U.S. products subject to our higher standards.

WHEREAS, we believe that U.S. trade policy has not fulfilled the high expectations of environmental protection represented by the North American Free Trade Agreement and its environmental side accords. Four years after NAFTA went into effect, little has been done to clean up the U.S.-Mexico border region, or to ensure that strong and effective environmental laws are in place as required by NAFTA's environmental side agreements.

WHEREAS, U.S. trade policy has not adequately addressed environmental issues in key trade fora such as the World Trade Organization, the negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the OECD, in the institutions created by NAFTA such as the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and in the hemispheric negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

WHEREAS, in the next few weeks Congress will be debating legislation granting the Executive Branch access to fast track procedures for the negotiation of future trade agreements.

WHEREAS, the debate over fast track legislation will set the tone of U.S. trade policy and determine its relation to environmental protection

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Audubon Society urges the Administration to demonstrate a greater commitment to trade and environment issues by: pushing for greater public accountability by the World Trade Organization; including environmental issues in the negotiations of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; showing a greater commitment to the work of the NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation; and substantially participating in an upcoming meeting on trade and environment issues to be hosted by the government of Costa Rica in April 1998.

WE FURTHER RESOLVE that to earn Audubon's support, fast track legislation must include basic environmental objectives that ensure both trade liberalization and environmental protection, including: a requirement that the environmental agencies be consulted regarding ongoing trade negotiations; a requirement that trade agreements include procedures that will lead to greater enforcement of environmental laws; and a requirement that trade agreements make progress towards greater openness and more equitable and democratic proceedings than are included in past agreements.

WE FURTHER RESOLVE that fast track legislation must specify which agreements and negotiations will receive the benefits of the fast track procedures.

Draft (9/10/97)

AUDUBON BIRD CONSERVATION

Audubon's roots in bird conservation are deep and lasting. In launching an ambitious, but achievable plan for bird conservation, we recommit ourselves to building a deeper and wider understanding of the powerful links between people and birds. We also recommit ourselves to the use of birds as indicators of ecosystem health. We believe that by identifying a set of specific and action-based steps for bird conservation, and through a range of efforts -- from education to citizen science, from model land management to community based action -- we will benefit the natural world as a whole. We will measure our progress regularly, reallocate our resources appropriately, and refocus our attention productively, all to effective, science-based stewardship of birds and their habitats.

Audubon's Strategic Plan targets the Western Hemisphere as the geographical region of primary influence. We recognize that effective bird conservation must start with the biology of species and their habitats, transcending artificial political boundaries. Thus, we are concerned about the resident birds of North America and of Latin America, and also about the migrant species that divide the seasons among our geographical neighbors.

GOAL

Stabilize and then increase the sizes of troubled bird populations in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.

AUDUBON BIRD CONSERVATION

STRATEGIES/PROGRAM ELEMENTS

1. BUILD CHAPTER CAPACITIES AND STATE PROGRAMS AS AUDUBON'S PRIMARY GRASSROOTS DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR BIRD CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND CAMPAIGNS.

• In each state and chapter territory, develop and implement science-based bird conservation plans that establish consensus-based priorities and measurable goals to revitalize bird populations and to protect critical habitats.
• Promote public awareness of (1) the aesthetic values of birds as enhancements to the quality of life, (2) the economic values of bird as sources of revenue for local communities, and (3) the flagship values of birds as indicators of healthy environments.

2. ESTABLISH BIRDSOURCE AS THE LEADERSHIP NATIONAL DATA CENTER ON THE STATUS AND TRENDS OF BIRD POPULATIONS TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS WITH BIRD POPULATIONS.

• Anticipate and enable timely and effective responses to the most important bird conservation issues.
• Establish baselines for achieving measurable conservation goals, and evaluate progress of bird conservation efforts.
• Engage citizen scientists to monitor the health of bird populations and to lead the conservation of the birds that they count.

3. UNDERTAKE HIGHLY TARGETED PROJECTS TO PROTECT TOP PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES.

• Define Important Bird Areas (IBAs) as a leading bird conservation initiative of new state offices, starting with identification of IBAs and continuing with systematic elimination of threats to these places as good places for birds to rest, breed, and feed.
• Use the science-based WatchLists (National and State), in addition to the Endangered Species List, to focus public attention on bird species in trouble and to serve as the priority agenda with measurable goals for conservation action.
• Collaborate with scientists to identify causes of declines and with constituents of Partners In Flight to eliminate major threats to local populations of WatchList species and their habitats.
• Respond forcefully to threats to and violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (such as poisoning of eagles and shooting of pelicans), while seeking full implementation of treaty obligations for the benefit of bird populations and their habitats.
• Eliminate major threats to local bird populations, including limits to pesticides, chemicals used in fertilizers, excessive predation, and the unregulated or unsustainable harvesting of food sources, such as Horseshoe Crabs.

4. BUILD BROAD-BASED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS THAT DIRECTLY BENEFIT CONTINENTAL BIRD POPULATIONS AND THEIR HABITATS.

Audubon Places:

• Protect and rebuild "Audubon Places" (Everglades, Platte River, Rio Grande Valley), each with explicit bird conservation goals and themes .
• Evaluate and help implement "Partners In Flight: Physiographic Region Bird Conservation Plans."

Audubon Habitats:

• Define and help implement best management practices of model bird conservation practices on public and private lands.
• Build community-based programs that enhance backyards and local parks as good places for birds.
• Rebuild and restore degraded landscapes and wetlands to healthy habitats.

Audubon Campaigns:

• Implement chapter nominated campaigns (Refuges, Wetlands, Populations and Habitat, Forests), each with explicit bird conservation goals and themes.
• Expand the Living Oceans' program as a leading international effort to "Save Our Seabirds"

Audubon Advocacy:

• Advocate for sound, progressive bird conservation policies at local, state, federal, and international levels.
• Promote legislation at the local, state and federal level of the United States to accomplish the goals of the bird conservation plans.
• Advocate public policy solutions to arrest the decline of species, including enactment of new authorities, regulatory actions, or increased funding.
• Address through international partnerships, agreements, and conferences priority conservation issues in Canada, Latin America, and the world's oceans.

5. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BOTH ADULTS AND CHILDREN, INTERESTED IN BIRDS TO POSITIVELY IMPACT BIRD POPULATIONS ON A LONG-TERM BASIS IN FUTURE GENERATIONS.

• Develop education programs and vehicles (e.g., Audubon Adventures, Audubon Habitats, Audubon Books, television, and publications) that will give people a better understanding of the important relationships between birds and their habitats.
• Give people the information and tools that they need to help troubled bird populations (need examples).

GLOSSARY

1. Bird Conservation: The range of activities whose aim is to protect, restore, and enhance healthy, naturally occurring and self-sustaining populations of birds, as through direct action, habitat protection, research, management, education, public policy, etc.

2. Bird Populations: Any more-or-less geographically self-contained group of birds; in conservation, generally refers more broadly to the total numbers of a species (or, sometimes, a geographically distinct group).

3. BirdSource: A cooperative project, led by National Audubon Society and the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, to create an interactive database, accessible on the Internet, that tracks bird populations across North America, including their spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, and trends. Will allow birders to input field data and receive "real-time" feedback.

4. Christmas Bird Counts: The longest continuous, annual, early-winter, all-volunteer census of bird populations in the Americas, sponsored by the National Audubon Society. There were ??? counts with ??? participants in 1996. Each count conducted in one calendar day during a two-week period centered around Christmas, over a circle 15 miles in diameter.

5. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: A leading U.S. bird-study institution, founded [by A.A. Allen?] in ???. Programs include the Bioacoustics Laboratory, Birds in Forested Landscapes (a study of bird-habitat relationships) and, with Audubon, Project FeederWatch and BirdSource.

6. Conservation Management Plan: A set of goals, objectives, and specific recommendations and actions whose aim is to protect, restore, or enhance a given species, group of species, or population of birds.

7. Critical Habitats: Particular habitats, habitat types, or sites that are essential to sustaining viable populations of birds. In endangered species policy, this refers to a distinctive area designated for the recovery of an endangered or threatened species; more generally, it may include Important Bird Areas for one or a group of species, or larger ecosystems essential for birds, such as riparian corridors.

8. Endangered Species List: A list of species, issued by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), whose populations are sufficiently low or in jeopardy as to warrant status as "threatened" or "endangered." The ESA requires the federal government to issue a recovery plan and to designate critical habitat for listed species.

9. Important Bird Areas (IBAs) : Areas (usually, but not always, discrete sites) that are essential for supporting significant bird populations, and whose conservation is therefore a high priority. IBAs are selected with input from local volunteers based on a set of standardized criteria. Audubon sponsors state-level IBA Programs through its field offices.

10. Partners In Flight: The collective endeavors of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and business groups to promote cooperative bird conservation. Major PIF projects have included the WatchList, IBAs, and International Migratory Bird Day. Audubon is a partner in PIF.

11. Project FeederWatch: An all-volunteer research project, begun by Cornell Lab of Ornithology and now sponsored jointly with Audubon, to collect and analyze data on winter bird populations at backyard bird feeders, from the observations of citizen feeder-watchers.

12. Pyramid Of Bird Appreciation: The concept, as embodied in the Audubon Strategic Plan, that with a start in bird appreciation, citizens will inevitably become interested in, and ultimately advocates for, bird and nature conservation.

13. Science-Based Stewardship of birds and their habitats: The concept that by studying and carefully identifying the factors associated with bird mortality and threats to their populations, we can best implement land-based or other strategies that will protect, restore, or enhance bird populations.

14. Troubled Bird Populations: Populations (or species) of birds whose numbers are declining over the long term, whose ranges are shrinking, and/or that face clear direct or indirect threats (such as habitat fragmentation or predation).

15. Watch List: A listing of bird species whose populations are declining or in jeopardy, but which are not federally listed as threatened or endangered. Created by Partners In Flight and published in 1996 by Audubon, the WatchList uses a series of measures, or criteria, for ranking birds by conservation priority, including trend data, abundance, size of range, imminence of threats, etc.

Letter from John Flicker, President, NAS

Arctic Goose Report - Executive Summary

Audubon Resolution

NAS Board Discussion

October 17, 1997

TOO MANY SNOW GEESE THREATEN WILDLIFE HABITAT

At our recent meeting in Tucson, the NAS Board of Directors approved unanimously a resolution to protect wildlife habitat and ecosystems in the subarctic currently under threat from damage by burgeoning populations of Lesser Snow Goose. Specifically the Board voted to support the science-based recommendations of the Arctic Goose task force to reduce the mid-continent population of the Lesser Snow Goose through expanded hunting. Audubon's concern in this situation is in line with the Society's mission to protect birds, wildlife, and their habitat, using the best tools available.

As a result of land-use practices in the south-central United States, the Snow Goose population that winters in that area is exploding. The immense flocks of geese then migrate north each spring, eating virtually all the plants in their Arctic breeding grounds and causing widespread devastation to habitat that otherwise would be mostly pristine tundra west of Hudson Bay in Canada.

Ironically, the problem of too many snow geese is one of our own making. Efforts to protect and enhance populations of waterfowl have worked too well for Snow Geese. The mid-continent population (breeding west of Hudson Bay, and wintering on the southern Great Plains and western Gulf Coast) has grown by almost 300% since the 1960s, and is now estimated at over three million. Land-use and wildlife-management practices have led to unnatural levels of survival of Snow Geese on their U.S. wintering grounds. Their burgeoning numbers are now in the process of destroying their own Arctic breeding habitat.

The Snow Goose population nesting west of Hudson Bay, Canada, has reached incredible densities (sometimes with as many as 3,000 nests packed into one square kilometer of tundra). The geese are now eating everything in sight. Because they grub out plants by the roots, large numbers of them can literally destroy the tundra. To quote Robert F. Rockwell, Kenneth F. Abraham, and Robert L. Jeffries [Winter 1997 issue of the Living Bird Quarterly) "Scientists are concerned that the increasing numbers of geese may soon lead to an ecological catastrophe as these voracious feeders turn the delicate arctic habitat they inhabit into a barren wasteland."

If we do nothing about the situation, the geese will spread across much of the Arctic, devastating huge areas of tundra, and then millions of them will suffer malnourishment, disease, and starvation, leading to a population crash. But by that time, they will have destroyed the habitat for many other species. Studies show that once degraded, this habitat will take decades, at least, to recover. Populations of many other bird species will be hurt by the resulting loss of habitat. These are among the tundra and marsh species that are likely to suffer local starvation and population decline because of the current habitat destruction:

Northern Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Oldsquaw
Yellow Rail
Semipalmated Plover
American Golden-Plover
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Dunlin
Stilt Sandpiper
Red-necked Phalarope
Parasitic JaegerArctic Tern
Short-eared Owl
American Pipit
Savannah Sparrow
American Tree Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
Hoary Redpoll

Also possibly affected will be many other bird species such as Short-billed Dowitcher, Hudsonian Godwit, and Smith's Longspur, as well as many tundra plants, butterflies, and other organisms.

The problem is urgent. Long-term solutions may involve changes in land-use practices in the southern and central United States, but more immediate steps are essential. Audubon thus endorses the recommendations of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, an international team of scientists studying the problem.

The Board resolution commits the National Audubon Society to work closely with federal, state and Canadian agencies to define the most effective mix of short term and long term solutions to the Snow Goose population problem. By acting now, we hope to reduce the loss of critical habitat and to protect the many bird species and other wildlife that depend on this habitat.

Please direct any questions you may have about the Snow Goose issue by email to: Vincent Muehter or Internet: vmuehter@audubon.com.

John Flicker

President

Arctic Ecosystems in Peril:
Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In some Arctic areas, over-abundance of several populations of Arctic-nesting geese in North America is causing extensive damage to habitats used by these geese and other wildlife. Mid-continent white goose populations are expanding at an average rate of 5% per year. Most of the major mid-continent white goose nesting colonies are being impacted and the damage is expanding annually. The prime causes of these population increases are human-induced changes to the agricultural landscape and changes in refuge provision during wintering and staging periods that lead to high winter survival and recruitment. The birds have effectively been released from winter carrying capacity restraints that sustained populations at lower levels before agriculture changed the North American landscape.

Over-grazing and over-grubbing by geese causes changes in soil salinity and moisture levels that lead to severe environmental degradation of the affected Arctic landscapes, conditions that will alter plant community structure and succession and prohibit the original plant communities from being restored. Large portions of the Arctic ecosystem are threatened with irreversible ecological degradation. Plant communities associated with goose breeding habitat are finite in area and distribution and will likely be permanently lost unless there is effective human-induced intervention to reduce the size of certain goose populations.

The Working Group recommends that the Canadian Wildlife Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assign full-time coordinators to oversee implementation and evaluation of effective strategies to reduce mid-continent white geese to about half their current population. This major program could be advanced under an Arctic Goose Management Initiative overseen by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture. A crucial component of the initiative is the development and delivery of an effective communications strategy to inform the public at-large of the problems caused by over-abundant mid-continent white goose populations. The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group should be retained as expert consultants and reviewers of the progress of the Initiative.

Population modeling, using mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose data, indicates that the most effective interventions should be focused on reducing adult survival as it is the main demographic parameter driving population growth rates. The Working Group adopted the principle that any interventions should respect the birds as valuable components of the environment in general and as game animals and food. Population reduction methods that did not allow geese that were killed to be used as food were rejected. Interventions to reduce recruitment can only be effective if delivered on a massive scale that is not seen to be practical or cost effective. Reduction in adult survival is the most important demographic component to be addressed on breeding, staging and wintering areas.

The Working Group recommends that the goal of the Arctic Goose Management Initiative be to reduce mid-continent white goose numbers by 5 - 15% each year. Several control methods are described in the report, all of which can remove adult geese from the population and all of which should be considered in some places at some times. Most of them have been used in the past by hunters but were regulated against to provide the birds extra protection during an earlier era when the management goal was to increase populations. All of them involve the participation of traditional hunters who we view as being a highly motivated, well-equipped and economical labor force with an already widely-demonstrated commitment to waterfowl conservation.

We urge that the following practices be implemented by the fall of 1997 in time for the 1997/1998 mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose hunting season: 1) legalize the use of electronic calling devices for snow goose hunting; 2) legalize baiting in special snow goose population reduction seasons, and; 3) provide additional snow goose hunting in and around state, provincial and federal refuges.

Additionally, we urge the Federal agencies to extend the harvest of snow geese for southern hunters beyond the current restrictions (March 10) in the Migratory Bird Treaty. This should be done as soon as possible - we would hope within a year of the delivery of this report. Northern native residents already have the right to harvest geese for the remainder of the year as prescribed by the Canadian Constitution. Native Canadians should be contacted and recruited, as soon as possible, to seek their participation in the management of mid-continent white geese.

This report includes an outline for an evaluation strategy which should be further developed and implemented as soon as possible. However, changes in regulations controlling white goose harvest should not be held up until an evaluation program is fully in place. It is important for managers to gain experience with the implementation of the Arctic Goose Management Initiative and there will undoubtedly be a time lag between promulgation of new regulations and the effective involvement of hunters who have limited experience with some of the new tools and time frames for hunting. There is virtually no risk of a management error causing over-harvest of mid-continent white geese within the next several years, even if all the above practices were implemented within the very near future. At the same time, it is important that the numbers of mid-continent white geese be reduced, as soon as possible, to a level that can be sustained by their Arctic habitats.

SNOW GOOSE RESOLUTION

(Final Form as printed in the Minutes of the Meeting)

IT APPEARS THAT great danger to an Arctic ecosystem exists as a result of increases in a single population of Snow Goose, that this danger threatens the existence of numerous other species of birds and other wildlife, and that this situation can be linked directly to the effects of large-scale human modification of the landscape on the goose's migratory and wintering grounds. The National Audubon Society's Board of Directors adopts the following resolution:

WHEREAS, an exponentially growing population of Lesser Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens) breeding along the border of Hudson Bay and migrating through midcontinental North America is overgrazing and over-grubbing its breeding habitat, causing changes in vegetation and soil salinity and threatening large portions of the Arctic ecosystem with potentially irreversible ecological degradation; and

WHEREAS, plant species grubbed and eaten by the rapidly growing Snow Goose population in the Arctic are being destroyed to an unprecedented extent, and are being replaced over vast areas by unpalatable, salt-tolerant species; and

WHEREAS, extensive scientific research on the effects of Snow Geese, including long-term exclosure experiments, suggests that their alteration of the biotic environment, especially plant community composition and structure, and the abiotic environment, especially soil chemistry, may be irreversible; and

WHEREAS, long term studies show that populations of many bird species that depend on tundra habitat are declining precipitously as a result of the growing Snow Goose population. These declining populations include Watchlist species such as Hudsonian Godwit and Smith's Longspur, other rare species such as Yellow Rail, American Golden Plover, and Stilt Sandpiper, a host of more widespread species with substantial numbers potentially at risk; and

WHEREAS, the rapid increase in mid-continent Snow Goose populations is primarily a result of human modifications of habitat on the wintering grounds, along the migratory routes, and in the staging areas; and

WHEREAS, the habitat modifications promoting population growth of Snow Geese include modern and large-scale agricultural practices throughout the non-breeding range, and these conditions are likely to persist for many decades; and

WHEREAS, scientific evidence indicates that a continued growth of the mid-continent Snow Goose populations threatens the integrity of important wildlife habitat, including managed refuges, waterfowl wintering grounds, and key migratory resting and staging areas in the United States; and

WHEREAS, density dependent population control mechanisms will not self-regulate exponential population explosion of Snow Geese because of the species' demonstrated ability and willingness to extend both nesting and foraging ranges continually into new areas as the existing breeding grounds become degraded; and

WHEREAS, the mortality of adult geese is viewed as the driving demographic variable by which humans can hope most effectively to reduce the total population, its rate of growth, and its effects on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the 1997 report entitled, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group has been published by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture (AGTV) Management Board and Working Group (under the auspices of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), has received adequate peer review, and concludes with a series of specific recommendations to reduce Snow Goose numbers.

BE IT RESOLVED that The Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society endorses the science-based recommendations of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group as necessary steps for reducing mid-continent Snow Goose numbers "to a level of about 50% of current numbers by the year 2005" (1997, Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, p.118).

Discussion:

FRANK GILL - these will be difficult decisions - management vs. protection. This will put us on public record on the hunting side in this case. HARDY ESHBAUGH - it may look like we are addressing a Snow Goose problem (true) but it also affects other bird species who have been displaced. HELEN ENGLE - does this resolution affect only the mid-continental population? Answer - Yes. BEN OLEWINE - should we mention the other affected species? JOHN FITZPATRICK - omission of some species in a resolution might be worse than mentioning none. BEN - how about showing the WatchList birds that are affected? HARDY - we can't overstate the case either - not all data is in. REID HUGHES - this issue will be divisive. I would like to table this, but I have to leave and won't be present for the vote. DAVID DOMINICK - we know. We talked about having John Flicker put a letter out discussing the management vs. protection ideas and why NAS is going this way. The working group needs our response this month because of the time line to change hunting regulations. NORM SHAPIRO - language in the resolution should be crystal clear and simple to avoid misunderstanding. DONAL O'BRIEN - we must make sure we have a clear understanding of who we are debating and what their positions are. GENEVIEVE THOMPSON (represented NAS on the working group fact-finding tour) - Humane Society was on the tour; they bought in to the scope of the problem but don't know what solutions will work. Canadian Minister of Natural Resources also bought in on the scope. DAVE PARDOE - major threats to habitat from other sources would not be divisive. This threat is real and we should support. BERNIE YOKEL - there is urgency here and I trust the science. It splits into political and science problems. If we work actively to get the good science news out we will be all right. JOHN WHITMIRE - I support the resolution on the basis of science. We need details on why agricultural practices are the culprits. The land abuse case will help. I'm curious as to whether corporate agriculture and pesticides and the movement away from family farms are factors. HARDY - nobody disputes the data. Solutions are the question. FRANK GILL - the FWS will provide us with reports. They and Canada want our support to avoid a public relations disaster. CHARLES BRAGG - so far I have seen an expanded hunting season as the only remedy for goose over-population. What other remedies are in the working group recommendations? We don't want to be in the same situation as the BLM in California that responded to a desert tortoise crisis merely by killing the ravens that were killing tortoises. FRANK GILL - we need a fast start and the expanded hunting season is the first step; long term we need to reduce adult survivorship using hunting, refuge management, and changing rice farming methods that artificially encourage wintering Snow Geese; these issues are discussion items in the working group recommendations. OAKES AMES - how do we get the word out to explain this? DONAL - after much discussion we feel it is our responsibility to address this issue. We cannot hide it, we need to inform the public and let them know what we are doing. JOHN FLICKER - we live in managed landscapes and this is one of the results. We have to deal with it. We have to explain it. HARDY - salicornia (the invasive plant that comes in after the geese have over-browsed) is for a century; the salt flats of the Bahamas are the only place where I have ever seen a comparable spreading of it. JOHN WHITMIRE - we cannot avoid this issue or issues like it. KENN KAUFMAN - this requires action soon; a lot of it is public relations; the magazine will do a lot to spread the message. JACK DEMPSEY - the Chapter Networker is a good vehicle too. NORM SHAPIRO - can we adopt the draft resolution in principle and then strengthen the language for public consumption? DAVID DOMINICK - yes.

Resolution passed unanimously as an action item.