National Fish and Wildlife Foundation reauthorization : hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, on reauthorizing the National Fish and Wildlife Foundat online

Appropriations Committees, and the agencies themselves in hopes that they will bring about a
better understanding of the chronic funding shortfalls that exist for many fish and wildlife
programs Though I am uncertain of the credit we can claim, the budget of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has increased 79 percent since 1986 (the first year we published an assessment).
The USDA-Forest Service's Wildlife and Fisheries Program has increased 171 percent since
publication of the assessment. A major focus of our efforts today is on the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) which desperately needs assistance.

Another function of the Foundation's Fisheries and WUdUfe Assessment is to turn successfiJ
prototype projects into mainstream programs within the agencies. Because we fund hundreds of
projects every year, we are in a good position to see what does and does not work. A number of



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



49



NFWF Testimony - Page 7

feel it is important to raise this issue for your attention.

Second, the Foundation's Board was originally blessed with the appointment of a state Fish and
Game director as one of the "educated and experienced" Board positions. This practice was
abandoned a few years ago, and this is unfortunate. Because we do so many projects with states
as partners, and because we have an over arching goal of building partnerships between the public
and private sectors, it is very valuable for us to have the benefit of a state director's input. As
the Board is expanded, I hope Secretary Babbitt again considers appointing a state director to our
Board.

Finally, since you asked what would let the Foundation function more effectively, I will provide
one more item, again unrelated to your draft legislation: more money. We beheve that we have
only scratched the surface of what the non-federal sector can and will contribute to fish, wildlife
and plant conservation. As our past funding demonstrates, the Foundation can leverage the private
sector's commitment if we in turn are provided with the necessary federal matching funds to use
as the incentive. Currently, we find there are far more willing and able participants than we have
federal matches to provide. We simply need a greater matching capacity to expand our
partnerships. Moreover, given the fiscal pressures that are being applied to all agencies,
particularly the land management agencies, the ability to catalyze partnerships, cost-share, and
maximize the buying power of limited federal fiinds is more critical than ever.

We are very pleased with Secretary Babbitt's proposed increase to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's budget. This will allow us to do more than ever before to benefit the programs of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and fish, wildlife and plant conservation generally. We would also
like to see other agencies provide a line item for the Foundation. While we are currently engaged
in cooperative programs with 14 different agencies of the federal government, we have only
received funds from the Fish and Wildlife Service and AID budgets. I would like to see other
agencies, specifically the Bureau of Reclamation, BLM, USDA-Forest Service, Army Corps of
Engineers, and NMFS, recognize the benefits that we can offer and go to bat for us, just as
Assistant Secretary Frampton has done today.

In closing, I firmly believe that the Foundation is one of the most quietly successful programs
ever created and funded by the U.S. Congress. We have worked to ensure that your money and
the money of our cooperators is targeted directly to on-the-ground conservation projects and not
just to fund another generic environmental program. We have no press arm nor direct mail
operation to get the word out about what we do. As a result, we count on our projects and our
day-to-day performance to speak for themselves.

But as I said when I began, we are the product of this Committee. We look forward to continuing
our relationship, and in getting to know the new members on the Committee. I thank the
Committee for the opportunity to testify and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Exhibits: A Federal Appropriations and Grant Commitments, 1986-1993

B Project Grantees, 1986-1993

C Project Grant Summaries, 1986-1993

D 1992 Annual Report

E Partners in Flight Newsletter

File: WTTe«94.MM2



50



Exhibit A



NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
Federal Appropriations and Grant Commitments, 1986-1993

Comparison of President's Budget and actural appropriations, FY 1987- 1993



Fiscal
Year


Authorized
Appropriation


President's
Request


Interior/FWS
Actual Approp.


Other
Approp.


1986










1987


IM/lOyrs


$0


$250,000




1988


5M/yr





500,000




1989


SM/yr





5,000,000


$2,000,000


1990


5M/yr





4,961,300




1991


15M/yr


3,000,000


4,931,200


500,000


1992


20M/yr


3,000,000


4,863,000


â– ^


1993


25M/yr


5,000,000


4,958,000


750,000


1994


25M/yT


$7,500,000


7





$25.463.500



$3.250.000



Total appropriated funds



$28.713.500



NFWF Grant Commitments, 1986-1993



Fiscal
Year


Federal Match
Committed


Challenge Funds
Raised


Total Grants
Committed


1986


$96,486


$1,400,336


$1,552,500


1987


19,000


556,578


776,164


1988


2,549,681


2,647,792


5,563,426


1989


4,909,343


13,408,769


19,185,930


1990


2,130,108


4,378,724


6,670,878


1991


6,231,812


11,083,387


17,699,245


1992


6,064,090


12,200,531


19,328,554


1993


6,010,096


13,105,274


19,662,063


1994









$28.010.616



$58.781.391



$90.438.760



Note 1: Foundation initiated its grants program in 1986. Projects and the associated funding distributions
are assigned to the year projects were authorized by NFWF's Board of Directors. Project grant
commitments in this report differ from level of appropriations received and audited financial statements
due to AICPA quidelines for reporting project liabihties, lag time between receipt of appropriations,
and change in project commitments.

Note 2: For the years 1984-1989, NFWF used calendar year as fiscal year. FY 1990 represents a
nine month year due to change in fiscal year.

Note 3: Total of $2,000,000 in FY89 AID funds dedicated for funding the NAWMP Canada First
Step projects; and a total of $1,250,000 appropriated through AID for FY91 and FY93 for neotropical
migratory bud conservation projects.



Filr FdiiApp2..kl



51



#



Exhibit B



National Fish and WUdlife Foundation

PROJECT GRAMTEES
(1986 July 1993)



Federai/lntentaUAgtmcies (8)

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission'
Canadian Wildlife Service'
fntenor, Department of the'

Bureau of Land Managemenf

National Park Service*

US Fish and Wildlife Service ^^'
NOAA- National Marine Fisheries Service'
Navy, Department of the
Pacific Stales Marine Fisheries Commission'
USDA- Forest Service'

State/Provincial Agencies (58)

Alabama DepartmerU of Conservation
Alberta Forests, Lands and Wildlife
Arizona Game and Fish
Arkansas Game and Fish'
California Resources Agency*
Colorado Department of Wildlife
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Illinois Department of Conservation'
Indiana Department of Conservation
Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources'
Louisiana DepartmerU of Wildlife and Fish
Louisiana Sea Grant
Maine Department of Inland Fish and

Wildlife
Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant Program
Maryland Department of Natural Resources*
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Michigan Sea Graru Extension
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources*
Mississippi Wildlife Conservation
Missouri Department of Conservation*
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parits'
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Nevada Department of Wildlife*
New Hampshire Game and Fish Department
New Jersey DepartmerU of Environmental

Protection'
New York DepartmerU of Erwironmentat

Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission*
Ohio Department of Natural Resources*
Oklahoma DepartmerU of Wildlife
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department*
Pennsylvania Game Commission*
Province of Alberta*
Province of British Columbia
Province ofManUoba
Province of New Brunswick*



Provirtce of Nova Scotia'

Provi nee of Onta no*

Province of Prince Edward Island*

Province of Quebec'

Province of Saskatchewan'

Rhode Island Dept of Environmental

Ma nagemeru*
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine

Resources*
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency*
Texas Parks and Wildlife'
Utah Division of Wildlife'
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
Virginia Game and Inland Fish*
Washington Department of Wildlife
West Virginia Department of Natural

Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources*
Wyoming Game and Fish Department*

Private Organizations (206)

Alaska Bird Treatment Center

American Birding Association*

American Fisheries Society*

American Farmland Trust

American Forest Foundation

American OmUhologist's Union*

Anglers United*

Arkansas Audubon Society

Asociacion Nacwnalpara la Conservacion

de la Naturaleza (ANCON)'
Audubon de Costa Rica
Audubon Society of New Hampshire*
Bat Conservation International
Beaverkill River Landowners
BiUfisb Foundation
Bodega Marine Laboratory
Boise River Observatory
Bombay Hook Natural History Assn.
Cabinet Resource Group
Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Irtstitute
California Academy of Sciences
California Waterfowl Association*
California Wildlife Foundation
Cape May Bird Observatory
CatskiU Fly Fishing Center
Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies
Center for Coastal Studies*
Center for Marine Conservation*
Center for Plant Conservation*
Center for Wildlife Information
Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
Centra Ecologico de Sonora
Charles River Watershed Association
Cheney Junior High School
Chesapeake Bay Foundation*



Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage

Chtcksaw-Shtlloh RC&WCouncU. Inc

Christina School District

Citizens CommUteefor Urban Fishing

Coastal Plains Institute

Coastal Resources Center

Colorado Bird Observatory'

Colorado Conservation Foundation'

Colorado Wildlife Federation

Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts

Conservation Federation of Missouri

Conservation Fund, The'

Conservation International'

Conservation Law Foundation

ConserVentures

Copper River Institute

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology*

Council on the Environment of New York

City
Defenders of Wildlife*
DELTA Environmental Land Trust'
Delta Waterfowl Foundation*
Delta Wildlife Foundation*
Denver Audubon Society'
Desoto Natural History Assn
Devil's Lake Wetland Management District
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.'
Ducks Unlimited Canada*
Ducks Unlimited Mexico (DUMAC)'
ECOTRUST
Environmental Careers Organization (CHIP

Fund)
Environmental Concern, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund*
Environmental Education Ctr, Thunderhird

CYMCA)
Erwironmental Law InstUule
EnvironmerUors Project
Explore Project
Falcon Press*
FishAmerica

Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn
Fnends of Bombay Hook, Inc.
Friends of Connie Hagar, Inc.
Full Circle Productions
Futu re Fishermen Foundation
Georgia Conservancy, The
Georgia Tech Foundation
George Miksch Sutton Ai/ian Research

Center*
Grand Canyon Trust
Grand Island VisUors Bureau
Growth Management InstUute
Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association'
Hollywood Promotions
Houston Audubon Society



52



Hudson River Foundation

Idaho fish and Wtldiife Foundation

Illinois .\atural History Suruey

Institute /or Bird Populations'

Interagency Grxzzly Bear Committee'

International Crane Foundation

I ntemaiioruii Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies (lAFWA)*
International Wetlands Research Bureau

(IWRB)
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation*
Isis Fund (Walden Woods Project)
Island Institute
Island Press'

I UCN-Species Survival Commission
lUCN- International Bear Specialist Group'
Izaak Walton League'
Land Trust Alliance'
Long Island Sound Taskforce*
Long Live the Kings
Long Point Bird Observatory*
Lowerfames River Association
Maine Canbou Project Inc
Management Institute for Environment and

Business (MEB)'
Manomet Bird Observatory*
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Mediation Institute
Minnesota Action Group
Minnesota Valley Interpretive Association
Minnesota Waterfowl Association
Mississippi Wildlife Federation
Missouri Botanical Garden*
Montana Land Reliance
Mote Marine Laboratory
Muscatatuck Natural History Association
NCASI. Paper Industry Counal*
NatiOTuil Association of Service and

Conservation Corps
National Audubon Society*
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
National Council of Catholic Women
National Fishing Week
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Wild Turkey Federation*
National Wildlife Federation*
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Native American Fish and Wildlife Society
Nature Conservancy, The^*
Nevada Cattleman's Association
New Engla nd Wild Flower Society*
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
New Mexico Natu ral History Museum
North A tlantic Salmon Fund
Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative'
1000 Friends of Florida
Oppix & Hider
Oregon Trout

Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation
Organization for Tropical Studies
Pacific Rivers Council*
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
Pan-Educational Institute



Peregrine Fund'

Pheasants Forever

Point Reyes Bird Observatory

Pratt Museum

Programme for Belize

Project Wild'

Pronatura Chiapas

Quail Unlimited

Quebec- Labrador Foundation'

Rachel Carbon Council, Inc

Rainforest Alliance*

RARE Center for Tropical Bird Conservation*

Redwood Coast Ertvironmental Law Center

Resources for the Future

Responsive Management

Rincon Institute

Roberts Rtnehart, Inc

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation*

Ruffed Grouse Society

Saco River Salmon Club*

Sand County Foundation

Santa Ana Botanical Garden

Sea Turtle Research Center

Seney Natural History Association

Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute

Smithsonian Institution'

Society for Caribbean Ornithology

Soil & Water Conservation Society

Sport Fishing Institute*

Student Conservation Association*

Tamarac Natu ral History Association

Tennessee Conservation League'

Teton Science School

Teton Valley Land Trust

Texas Center for Policy Studies

The 300 Committee

Tropical Science Center

Trout Unlimited

Trust for New Hampshire lands

Vermont Institute of Natural Science

WaterWatch of Oregon

WETA, Channel 26

Welder Wildlife Foundation

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies
Western Foundation for Raptor

Conservation'
Western Hemi^here Sborebird Reserve

Network (WHSRN)
Western Network
Wetlands for the Americas
Wildfowl Foundation
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council
Wildlife ManagemerU Institute'
Wildlife Preservation Trust International
Wildlife Research Institute*
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association'
Wolf Fund, The

World Society for Protection of Animals
World Wildlife Fund-US'
Wyoming Outdoor Council
Wyoming Wildlife Federation



Zoo Atlanta

Colleges and Vrnversities (3V

Alberta, University of

Arkansas, University of*

British Columbia, University of

California, University of*

Central Oklahoma, University of Colorado

State University
Cornell University'
Florida, University of*
Frosthurg State University'
George Mason University
Georgia Southern Unwersity
Georgia Tech
Humboldt State Unwersity
Idaho State University
Idaho, University of*
Illinois, University of
Indiana University*
Iowa State Unwersity*
Kansas, University of
Louisiana State University
Maryland, Unwersity of
Massachusetts, University of*
Michigan, University of*
Michoacan University (Mexico)
Mississippi State University
Missouri, University of*
Montana, University oj*
Moscow (Russia) University
New Mexico, University of
New York, State Unwersity of
North Carolina State University
Pennsylvania, University of

Virginut, University of

Virginia Polytechnic Instuute

Washington, University of

Wisconsin, Unwersity of*

Wyoming, University of*

Yale UnwersUy'

T<^ai Number of Grantees: 310

* These organizations have received multiple
grants

^/ NFWF has funded more than 75 field
of/ices, refuges, and research centers of
the US Fish and Wildlife Service

^ Projects funded in cooperation with The
Nature Conservancy include their Mexico
Progam and the following State Chapters:
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah. Vermont, and
Virginia.



I



53



Exhibit C



SUMMARY OF GRAPHS, 1986-1993

The Foundation's grants program has grown dramatically from 15 grants in 1986 to 191 in
1993 - a 12-fold increase in seven years. Values of these grant commitments rose even more
dramatically from $491,822 in 1986 (not including value of Cedar Island donation) to
$19,662,063 in 1993 ~ a 40-fold increase in seven years.

For the period 1986-1992, the ratio of non-federal funds raised to federal matching funds
committed has averaged 2.03:1. In 1993, the 191 grants awarded averaged $2.10 - for every
dollar of federal matching and/or interest funds committed by the Foundation, an average of
$2. 10 was raised from non-federal sources by the Foundation and its grantees, for a total of
$3.10 committed to on-the-ground conservation.' This average represents only the challenge
funds directly received by 5ie Foundation, and does not account for the additional leverage
obtained by the individual grantees as a direct or indirect result of the Foundation's challenge
grant.

In 1993, the Foundation awarded grants to 126 different conservation organizations. In total,
the Foundation has awarded grants to eight federal agencies, 58 state and provincial agencies,
37 colleges and universities, and 206 private conservation organizations - a total of 309
conservation partners.

The number and fund distribution of projects by initiative are displayed in Figure 3. The
Foundation's initiatives are developed through long-range planning efforts in order to focus the
organization's grant giving more effectively. For the years 1988-1991, wetland projects in
support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan were a primary focus and
accounted for 72 percent of Foundation matching fund commitments. Beginning in 1992, the
Foundation introduced its Fisheries, Neotropical Migratory Bird, and Conservation Education
initiatives. The Foundation's focus on this broader array of initiatives is reflected in the grant
distribution for 1992 and 1993. While the Foundation remains active in wetlands, continuing
to commit roughly 26 percent of grant funds, grants to fisheries and neotropical migratory birds
have grown significantly to represent approximately 21 percent of the Foundation's grant
commitments respectively.

FUe: WTGnit93.8uin



'Ratio is calculated from dividing total non-federal hinds raised by the federal matching funds and interest funds
committed. Miscellaneous federal funds are not included in the equation.



54



FIGURE 1

NATIONAL nSH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Distribution of Revenues and Expenses, FY 1992



NGOs 14%
State 4%



Federal Match 35%




Foundations 16%

Corporations 1 %

Individuals 1 1 %

Other* 9%
Contributed Services 1 %



Distribution of Revenues
Total = $12.41 million



Education 11%
F&W Assessment 3%



Neotropical Birds 21%

Fisheries 9%




Wedands/NAWMP 29%



Fundraising 2 %
G«S^ 2%



Wildlife & Habitat 23%



Distribution of Expenses
Total = $14.27 million



* Includes stamp & print, interest, dividends,
misc. federal funds, federal duck stamp, and
contributed services.



55




en

00



â– o



Pu.



O o"



pajBt^nq sj03foj<£



56




m




â– o




OS




c




OS




c«












(N








ON








ON
















as




X




as




1)








••a




*


Im


^




o


cd






as


0)


yrr




^


>-


YA






03


-o






O


h.




as


c«


m




oo

ON


u.


"cS




' '




o








O.






o








l«












oo




o




oo




lU




ON




Z




'â– ^












â– 




oo




05
<1)


>"


ON








^~'




<u


e






J=


u






00


(if






PU




^






u


00
ON




c
'■•-1


2
u

3

1






(J


J=






3


«=






•T3


S



s« "O



p9Wnnrao3 sprnij



57



o

H
<

Q

^ rrl 00

W £ 0^
pcj ^ -

^ Q .2






O



o



o




p91jirarao3 spunj



59




60



Board of DmEcroRS



Advisory Committee



John L. Morris, Chairman
Springfield. Missouri