10 



this reason, an aggressive, comprehensive approach, such as that 

 provided by H.R. 4481, is now needed. 



From our perspective, the introduction of H.R. 4481 is timely. 

 The service recently embarked on an ecosystem approach to fish 

 and wildlife conservation and approved a new action plan for fish- 

 ery resources and aquatic ecosystems. These efforts focus on build- 

 ing partnerships with other management entities and with private 

 interests to better leverage our collective abilities to help meet ever 

 increasing fish and wildlife resource challenges. Without strong 

 partnerships, the effectiveness of independent restoration initia- 

 tives will continue to be limited. 



The cosponsors of H.R. 4481 recognize this and emphasize a 

 grassroots approach to aquatic ecosystem restoration. The bill sup- 

 ports local tribal and State aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts by 

 providing technical expertise and funding to such entities to 

 achieve effective restoration where it is most needed and will be 

 most beneficial. The bill also requires coordination among existing 

 Federal programs and policies relating to aquatic ecosystem res- 

 toration. 



I might say after a year at my job I myself do not yet have a 

 clear picture of those policies and programs and therefore see a 

 great benefit for H.R. 4481 in that vein. 



Another important aspect of this legislation is its comprehensive 

 and integrated framework for directing long-term national aquatic 

 ecosystem restoration activities. The focal point of this legislation 

 is the development of a national aquatic ecosystem restoration 

 strategy. We believe that a coordinated strategy is needed and we 

 welcome the opportunity to lead efforts to develop and implement 

 it. 



H.R. 4481 creates a national council to review and select restora- 

 tion projects for funding that are consistent with and supportive of 

 the strategy. The service believes that this is a reasonable ap- 

 proach to project selection. A local or regional approach would have 

 the benefit of improved responsiveness to local needs. However, 

 such an approach would also require establishing parallel review 

 systems that might create inconsistencies in application of the 

 strategy. Instead, the incentives in 4(c)(2) of the proposed legisla- 

 tion for restoration projects to include local cooperators and cost- 

 sharing would effectively ensure responsiveness to local needs. 



In response to the Committee's questions about the strengths 

 and weaknesses of the bill, H.R. 4481 would provide an excellent 

 foundation for restoring our Nation's aquatic ecosystems. The 

 strengths of the bill are its recognition of the importance of our 

 aquatic ecosystems and the peril they face, the development of a 

 national strategy for guiding restoration activities, the emphasis on 

 grassroots support, and direct funding of restoration projects that 

 will benefit the ecosystems that provide direct employment benefits 

 to the local economy, and to the comprehensive review and coordi- 

 nation of Federal programs and policies. 



The bill could be improved in a few areas. It requires a planning 

 process that could delay implementation of restoration projects 

 until 1996 or beyond. Also, the bill leaves it to the task force to cre- 

 ate a system of funding support. 



