12 



waste of public funds. The natural recovery of damaged ecosystems 

 proceeds at its own pace. If we are wise, we will attempt to time 

 our restoration programs within natural processes of recovery rath- 

 er than attempting to impose technological solutions. In the 

 Mattole watershed, we have guessed that we are engaged in an un- 

 dertaking that will demand the attention of residents and land- 

 owners for another 20 to 30 years. 



So we have to ask ourselves how we can cost-effectively fill the 

 requirements for intimate ever-changing detailed observation com- 

 bined with the need to maintain a high level of commitment over 

 a period of time which may be longer than the life of the current 

 generation. I have been able to imagine no other solution to this 

 problem than to rely on the people who are already immersed in 

 the ecosystems with which we are concerned — the residents and 

 landowners of watersheds. 



Further, we need to encourage the development of nonprofit 

 inhabitory entities which assume as their goal the restoration of 

 watersheds to historical levels of health and productivity. This is 

 not to exclude the patterns of vested interest that exist in every 

 natural area, but to provide these same interests with an 

 overarching vision which provides for our collective needs. 



The goals of H.R. 4481, as I understand them, are twofold: To es- 

 tablish a national strategy for aquatic ecosystem recovery and to 

 provide fiscal support where it will do the most good at the level 

 of the active watershed community. Two generic problems arise in 

 the implementation of these goals. One is the tendency for Federal 

 strategies to be top-heavy; and the other is the fact that Federal 

 funds tend to become heavily politicized as they move toward their 

 intended goals. Too often I have had the distressing experience of 

 seeing appropriately targeted legislation diverted from its intent 

 before reaching its desired constituency. 



Should the Fish and Wildlife Foundation remain the vehicle for 

 distributing aquatic restoration funds, the bill before us needs to 

 add strong, specific language recognizing the needs of community 

 groups which seem to be, but are not, peripheral to on-the-ground 

 projects. There needs to be ample support for the aforementioned 

 planning and for project development at the local level. Staffing for 

 volunteer coordination will pay for itself many times over. Monitor- 

 ing and evaluation must be provided for at the functional local 

 level, this is absolutely essential in my mind, as well as at the cen- 

 tralized oversight level. This provides a feedback loop that allows 

 restoration workers to evaluate and improve their own strategies 

 as the work proceeds. 



Unless we provide for educational increments at the level of local 

 primary and secondary schools, how can we hope to recruit the new 

 energies that will be required to maintain our long-term work? The 

 existence of real overhead costs at the local level needs to be recog- 

 nized. 



These comments are presented out of a conviction that we should 

 move ahead rapidly to implement the goals of H.R. 4481 to its suc- 

 cess. My concerns were developed in consultation with other people 

 in California. I can tell you there is a tremendous excitement over 

 the development of a national strategy for the restoration of aquat- 



