Good afternoon, Chairman Dicks and honorable Subcommittee members. I'm Dr. Jeff Koenings, director of the Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on the importance of implementing the state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies. I am speaking in support of an appropriation of $80 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State Wildlife Grants Program. The State Wildlife Grants Program supports the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies.

These strategies-now known as Wildlife Action Plans-are essentially battle plans for the fight to keep imperiled species from slipping into oblivion as well as to "keep common species common." They have been described by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne as "our best chance for large-scale, cost-effective conservation," and I couldn't agree more.

Developed by each state and territory, these 56 plans together represent a comprehensive national assessment of the status of our fish and wildlife resources, and what it will take to conserve our most sensitive species. While each state strategy is a unique reflection of differences in species, habitats and the threats to both, each strategy addressed the same eight identical elements required by Congress.

In Washington State, those species of concern range from the tiny Mardon skipper butterfly to the magnificent orca whale. Despite this range of diversity, there's one thing all have in common, whether they inhabit the shrub-steppe of eastern Washington or the depths of Puget Sound: they depend on habitat that is degraded, vanishing or threatened with outright collapse.

Fish and wildlife species face multiple threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation due to conversion for a multitude of other uses; diminishing water quality and quantity; and encroaching invasive species. These perils -- ominous as they are -- pale in comparison to the looming specter of global warming. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported, global warming is likely to make its most dramatic initial impact on fish and wildlife, pushing some species closer to extinction. For example, wild chinook salmon recovery -- a region-wide effort that has cost billions of dollars and taken more than a decade of work by Northwest residents -- could be further stressed by rising water temperatures and reduced stream flows, according to a recently published study by the National Academy of Sciences.

Implementation of the Wildlife Action Plans can strengthen fish and wildlife populations against the impacts of climate change. For example, no matter how you slice and dice it, fish need cool, clean water. And in the Pacific Northwest, snow pack meltwater provides much of the seasonal flow. Climate change models predict that warming will dramatically reduce the snow pack in the Cascade and Olympic mountains and extend the warm summer season without the cooling effect of snow pack meltwater. Addressing the needs of the fish now before the most dramatic effects are felt is the purpose of a comprehensive Action Plan like Washington's. We also know that intact ecosystems are crucial in naturally sequestering hydrocarbons. While it is important that the nation address this global crisis through its considerable technological and economic capabilities, it is equally important that we protect, enhance and restore these ecosystems that play a role in reducing carbon and other greenhouse gases in the environment. It is these still intact functioning ecosystems that the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies seeks to protect while restoring those essential habitats that are not.

While the habitat crisis has no easy solutions, Washington state has been fortunate in the leadership our Legislature and Governor Christine Gregoire have displayed in addressing the problem. Two recent actions demonstrate this commitment: The Legislature has proposed dedicating $100 million -- an unprecedented amount -- for land purchases for conservation purposes. Meanwhile, Governor Gregoire has set out an action plan to save Puget Sound -- one of the jewels of Washington -- from an array of environmental assaults.

A rescue effort this broad requires the involvement of citizens from all walks of life i.e., a true Puget Sound Partnership. The governor's Puget Sound Partnership brings together businesses, landowners, local governments, scientists, resource managers and non-governmental groups to restore a major marine ecosystem. Chairman Dicks has been very involved in the Partnership and continues to help guide its direction. This kind of collaboration that we call the "Washington Way," is recognized in our state as a means-- perhaps the only means -- of achieving landscape-level ecosystem improvements that enjoy wide citizen support and involvement. It's the reason federal wildlife managers were able to reach the state's first ever Safe Harbor Agreements with landowners, allowing for the recent re-introduction of endangered Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits to their native habitat.

By the same token, the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies were developed with broad public involvement. In Washington state alone, 27 organizations took part in creation of our comprehensive strategy. Nationally, the more than 5,000 organizations in the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition are working in strong support for enhanced, long-term funding for the implementation of these plans.

Once drafted, the state science-based strategies were subjected to further rigorous scientific review by the 12- member National Advisory Acceptance Team, or NAAT. This team was co-chaired by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Assistant Director for Federal Aid and a representative from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. NAAT members included six assistant Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Directors for Migratory Birds and Federal Aid from across the nation, as well as four state directors from each of the regional associations of state fish and wildlife agencies. I represented the twenty-three states of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

The Service and state directors on the NAAT assigned conservation planning experts from their agencies to conduct an intense peer review of state plans on a regional basis. The NAAT then reviewed all documents to ensure consistency on a national level before delivering their recommendation to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for final approval. In total, at least 22 experts reviewed these action plans that often exceeded 1,000 pages apiece.

As I mentioned earlier, each conservation strategy was closely reviewed to ensure it met Congressional requirements for eight essential elements, including information on 1) the distribution and abundance of priority wildlife species; 2) the extent and condition of essential wildlife habitats; 3) adverse impacts on priority species or habitats; 4) needed actions to conserve priority species and habitats; 5) monitoring of priority species and habitats as well as the effectiveness of conservation actions; 6) coordination with federal, state, tribal and local agencies; 7) public involvement opportunities; and 8) provisions for review and revision of the strategy.

Of 56 strategies submitted, 18 were returned for additional work before final acceptance. As might be expected, the element that needed the most refinement in the state plans was monitoring provisions for priority species and habitats. Monitoring activities are the most problematic for most state and territorial fish wildlife agencies because they are largely a function of fiscal capacity and political will.

I know from my existing role as co-chair of Governor Chris Gregoire's Forum on Monitoring, that monitoring monies from the state legislature are very hard to come by. So it is no secret that monitoring dollars are very hard to acquire regardless of the source and even harder to maintain over the longer term. Much like maintenance items in a budget, they are not deemed essential to projects, programs or strategies. But what we have learned is that monitoring is essential for adaptively managing for success. You mimic what works and discard what doesn't. Effective and efficient implementation depends on the feedback from monitoring data to lead the way.

Obviously, an enormous collective effort has gone into developing these strategies, in our state and across the nation. But without adequate funding to put these dynamic plans into action, that work will be in vain.

The 2007 State Wildlife Grants announced earlier this month will set the stage for putting these plans to work, but much more remains to be done. To carry this work forward, at least $80 million will be needed in the 2008 fiscal year. Ultimately, a long-term solution is needed to fund the on-going requirements of maintaining and restoring fish and wildlife and the natural ecosystems that sustain them. We are pleased that potential solutions to this need are embodied in several bills before Congress, including those related to climate change. We would encourage this committee to enable the passage of such legislation.

Because of the broad scope of the strategies, implementation costs will be significant, in comparison to funding traditionally dedicated to wildlife management activities. For example, Washington's strategy calls for coordinated species and habitat conservation planning by federal and state land management agencies; multi-agency land acquisition; on-going monitoring of priority habitats and species; better-integrated management of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems; and development of databases and mapping tools to assist local governments in growth planning. But while the cost for implementing this strategy is high; the cost of failing to act is even higher.

Without funding at a meaningful level, the product of this effort will be stakeholder frustration, rather than species conservation. Without your continued financial commitment, this effort will become a colossal failure, instead of the success story of maintaining our natural systems, keeping common species common, and pulling dozens of species back from the brink of extinction.

In closing I believe the state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies are an exciting first step. The states and territories stepped up to construct practical and pragmatic plans, sometimes at political peril, in order to focus efforts on what is doable. Achieving success will require time, but the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies put hope over history; and provide a new national unified voice for conservation. Our legacy should not be the newly recognized "nature deficient disorder" of our children, but should be the vibrant intact ecosystems for all generations to enjoy.

Thank you.