48 



NFWF Testimony - Page 6 



our grant programs have become phenomenal successes; we use the Needs Assessment to tell 

 people about them. For example, based on the success of the of the Bring Back the Natives 

 cooperative program between the Foundation, Forest Service and BLM, we have used the Needs 

 Assessment documents to recommend that this program be accelerated in both agencies. Other 

 Foundation projects that have evolved into institutionalized federal programs include the North 

 American Waterfowl Management Plan, gap analysis, the FWS's Upper Level Management 

 Development Program and Partners in Flight. 



In short, because of the Foundation's history of low overhead, prudent and aggressive fiscal 

 management, and commitment to innovative conservation strategies and problem solving, more 

 and more people are recognizing what we can and will do. 



Despite our successes, there are still issues facing the Foundation that must be addressed. First 

 and foremost, we must be reauthorized in calendar year 1993. We are extremely grateful to the 

 Chairman and the Ranking member for drafting the bill to reauthorize the National Fish and 

 Wildlife Foundation. We strongly support the provisions of this draft bill. The bill would make 

 some changes to the Foundation's mandate that are very important and beneficial. For the 

 Committee's benefit, I will describe some of the important elements of the bill from my 

 perspective. 



Under the bill, the Foundation would be reauthorized through FY 1998 at an authorized ceiling of 

 $25 million annually. This is our current authorization level, and represents about the limit of 

 what we could handle with current staffmg. In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 Administration (NOAA) would join the Fish and Wildlife Service as a specified agency for 

 cooperative projects. We currently engage in projects with NOAA, in particular the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service and the Marine Sanctuary Program. Our Needs Assessment program has 

 analyzed the budgets and needs of the NMFS since 1990, and our grants program has become 

 increasingly active in making grants to reverse the population declines of many marine fish 

 species. By including NOAA in our legislative mandate, you will help solidify this relationship 

 and allow us to more aggressively pursue joint projects, bringing additional resources to the most 

 woefully underfunded agency and program -- NMFS and the Sanctuary program of NOAA - in 

 the entire spectrum of the natural resource agencies. 



Another change proposed in the draft bill would expand the number of Board of Directors from 9 

 to 15 individuals, and expand the number of Board members who must be "educated and 

 experienced in the principles of fish and wildlife management" from 3 to 4. I strongly support 

 this change. Because all operating funds for the Foundation must be raised from private 

 sources, an aggressive and dedicated Board is extremely important. Any funds that the Board 

 does not raise must be raised by staff. In recent years, because my staff and I have been so 

 focused on raising our operating budget, we have not been able to help our partners raise their 

 matches as much as we would like, and we are forced to divert limited resources away from 

 implementing our challenge grant program. 



I would like to make two comments about our Board that are not addressed in the pending 

 legislation, nor need they be. First, I hope that the Committee understands the importance of 

 having a non-partisan Board. It hurts the effectiveness of the Foundation if there is a perception 

 that we are dominated by one political party or another. We have been successful as an 

 organization because we are seen as honest brokers and consensus builders. It is important that 

 this continue. While it is the Secretary, and not Congress that appoints our Board, I nonetheless 



