[Senate Hearing 109-439]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-439
TO DISCUSS HOW FARM BILL PROGRAMS CAN BETTER SUPPORT SPECIES
CONSERVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 26, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-639 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
Martha Scott Poindexter, Majority Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Majority Chief Counsel
Steven Meeks, Majority Legislative Director
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
To Discuss How Farm Bill Programs Can Better Support Species
Conservation................................................... 01
----------
Teusday, July 26, 2005
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization, Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry........................... 01
Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. from Colorado.......................... 07
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S Senator from Arkansas............... 21
----------
WITNESSES
Cummins, James L., Executive Director, Mississippi Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, Stoneville, Mississippi................... 11
Foster, Kent J., Executive Director, Idaho Association of Soil
Conservation Districts, Boise, Idaho........................... 18
Knight, Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................. 03
Manning, Steve, Project Manager, Leon River Restoration Project,
Gatesville, Texas.............................................. 14
Searchinger, Timothy D., Co-Director, Center for Conservation
Incentives, Environmental Defense, Washington, DC.............. 15
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Cummins, James L............................................. 43
Foster, Kent J............................................... 82
Knight, Bruce I.............................................. 38
Manning, Steve............................................... 61
Searchinger, Timothy D....................................... 69
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Cochran, Hon. Thad........................................... 90
Testimony of Frank Casey, Ph.D., Director, Conservation
Economics Program Defenders of Wildlife.................... 92
Letter to Mr. Bruce Knight from the Environmnetal Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP).................................. 106
Questions and Answers:
Crapo, Hon. Mike............................................. 112
IASSCD's..................................................... 116
HEARING TO DISCUSS HOW FARM BILL PROGRAMS CAN BETTER SUPPORT SPECIES
CONSERVATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural
Revitalization, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m., in
room SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present or submitting a statement: Senators Crapo, Lincoln,
and Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL
REVITALIZATION, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
Senator Crapo. This hearing will come to order. This is the
oversight hearing on how farm bill programs enhance species
conservation.
I am starting a few minutes early because I want to get my
opening statement in and let Mr. Knight have an opportunity to
make his testimony before all sorts of trouble starts
happening. Let me tell you what is going on.
On the Senate floor, they have scheduled five stacked votes
starting at 10:30, is that right--10:15. And on top of that,
the Finance Committee on which I sit is having a markup and I
am going to have to cast a vote at the Finance Committee at
10:20. So what that means--you are all probably trying to
figure out what that means. So am I.
What that probably means is we will start here and run
until approximately 10:20, at which time there will probably be
a vote underway on the Senate floor and a vote underway in the
Finance Committee and I will have to recess to go do those
votes. The question then will be whether we recess for
approximately an hour or an hour-and-a-half, and I apologize to
the other witnesses that that may be what happens.
It is possible, however, that we may be able to get one of
the other Senators--I think Senator Blanche Lincoln was
intending to be here, and if she is here, she and I may be able
to kind of do tandem votes, meaning that one of us will stay
here and preside while the other votes and we will go back and
forth for those five votes. Now, if that works, we can keep the
hearing going. If not, I apologize. We will have to shut down
while the Senate votes for five votes, and five votes takes
about an hour to get done.
So I will just give you the advance warning that we may
have our whole morning kind of jumbled up, and if that fouls up
people's flight plans and so forth, we certainly understand and
we will work with you the best we can.
With that, I am going to give my opening statement here
very quickly and then, assuming no other Senators are here by
the time I am done, Mr. Knight, we are going to go right to
you.
It has been just over 3 years now since the President
signed the farm bill into law, and at that time, the President
noted the importance of the conservation title. He said it
helps producers meet newer and higher environmental standards
and enhances their ability to protect wetlands, water quality,
and wildlife habitat. The President was right, and today we
begin to consider new accomplishments to which this program can
aspire.
The 2002 farm bill is one of the most important
environmental laws that we have ever enacted--that, frankly,
Congress has ever enacted, and I often state that the farm bill
generally, whichever one it is we are working on, is one of the
most pro-environmental bills that Congress ever deals with. Its
conservation programs result in real environmental benefits.
The success of these voluntary contractual programs in
addressing environmental concerns is also testimony to both
farmers and ranchers. Those who make their living off the land
have long been good stewards of those resources.
We spend significant money on farm bill programs and we
obtain notable results. The conservation programs in the farm
bill are supported by a wide variety of public and private
interests. The farm bill is a pillar in American conservation.
There is another important environmental law, the
Endangered Species Act, which is also a pillar of American
conservation, but that approaches our goals differently. The
Endangered Species Act primarily seeks to stop harmful
activities toward species, as the farm bill conservation
programs promote benefits for species. The Endangered Species
Act has been torn by conflict. The farm bill has been widely
supported.
Because we need both protection of species and promotion of
their recovery, we are today considering how the farm bill and
the Endangered Species Act have worked well together and how
they can work better together in the future. We want to learn
how success stories come about and what can be done to promote
them.
We will hear from two panels. First, the NRCS Chief, Bruce
Knight, will share with us the views of the administration, and
then we will hear from four witnesses representing landowner,
environmental, and wildlife interests.
I want to remind the members of the panels that we have a
5-minute limit on your testimony. That is not because we don't
want to hear from you. It is because we want to have
opportunity and time for interaction and questions and answers.
We do read your written testimony very carefully, but we
encourage you to try to be sure to summarize your testimony in
the 5 minutes allotted. If you do start running over, I will
just kind of tap the gavel to remind you to watch the clock. I
find that most people, like myself, cannot get everything they
want to say said in 5 minutes, and I apologize to you for that,
but we will give you opportunity to expand on your points and
so forth in questions.
With that, Mr. Knight, would you please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Knight. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the role of farm bill
programs in the conservation of wildlife habitat.
The topic of today's hearing really goes to the heart of
cooperative conservation and illustrates the importance of what
farmers and ranchers do on private lands. Because more than 70
percent of federally listed species depend on private lands,
farm bill conservation programs can and do make a real
difference for those species.
In 2002, President Bush signed into law the most
conservation-oriented farm bill in history. In total, the
legislation enacted by the President provided a $17 billion
increase in conservation funding over a 10-year period. In
addition, direction was provided to assist agricultural
producers to meet the regulatory challenges they face.
Our administration has taken these provisions very
seriously and has bolstered them even further in practice. For
example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
procedures direct NRCS State Conservationists to boost the
ranking for projects that assist compliance with environmental
regulations, such as ESA.
In addition, one of the four national priorities for EQIP
focus on wildlife by seeking the promotion of at-risk species
habitat recovery. This national conservation priority is used
by NRCS to allocate additional funding to States in targeted
areas and to develop new habitat for the future.
I would note that the EQIP program has funded over $3
billion of conservation work on private lands since fiscal year
2002, with more than $1 billion authorized for next year.
Couple these funds with the additional half-billion dollars
dedicated through other conservation programs, such as the Farm
and Ranchlands Protection Program and the Conservation Security
Program this year, and it becomes clear that wildlife habitat
is receiving major benefits.
With respect to wetlands, President Bush announced an
initiative on Earth Day 2004 that will go beyond the Federal
policy of no net loss and set a new goal to restore and protect
at least three million acres of wetlands over 5 years. The
Wetlands Reserve Program is playing a significant role in
meeting this goal and is on course to protect more than two
million acres of wetlands.
In addition, this year, we have sought out partners for the
new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program. These partnership
proposals will restore and protect habitat for migratory birds
and other wetland and wildlife. Under this initiative, NRCS is
matching resources and leveraging the efforts of State and
local governments to provide even greater assistance to
landowners, and included in this funding is a minimum of
$500,000 for partnership proposals that address Bog Turtle
habitat in the Eastern United States and a minimum of $500,000
to assist with Ivory-billed woodpecker habitat in Arkansas. We
believe that excellent opportunities exist for developing
bottomland hardwood wetlands that will provide long-term
benefits for this magical species.
Mr. Chairman, turning to a few Western issues, habitat
conservation for the Greater sage grouse serves as a prime
illustration of the role of farm bill programs in conservation
planning and assistance. NRCS estimates that in fiscal year
2004, more than 80,000 acres of sage grouse habitat benefited
directly from private lands conservation efforts, with more
than one million acres experiencing a secondary benefit. As a
result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a decision not
to list the greater sage grouse, partially in response to gains
made on private lands, and emphasized the importance of the
ongoing and future conservation efforts to long-term health of
the species. Just 2 weeks ago, Secretary Johanns also announced
an additional $5 million for sage grouse special projects in 11
Western States, which doubles USDA's commitment over fiscal
year 2004.
USDA has also provided $2.8 million this year in the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program for salmon habitat
restoration. Through this effort, NRCS helps landowners with
projects that restore habitat for both pacific and Atlantic
salmon. We are pleased with the gains being made to improve
salmon habitat and believe that NRCS can continue to build on
this success in the future.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I want to note another
bright prospect on the horizon for species habitat. The Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 authorized a Healthy Forests
Reserve Program to make payments to private forest landowners
who agree to protect acreage and promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species. This Act contains innovative
provisions relating to safe harbor or similar assurances to
landowners who enroll and provide a net conservation benefit
for listed, candidate, and other species. Work on establishing
programmatic rules and procedures for this program is well
underway.
Mr. Chairman, my statement has highlighted just a few of
the many programs available to private landowners and provides
a sense of the kind of species targeted and the work that
private landowners are accomplishing. I thank the subcommittee
and will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Knight.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found in the
appendix on page 38.]
Senator Crapo. Your agency, like all agencies, is required
to comply with the ESA consultation. Could you elaborate on
that role, and frankly, I am looking for you to provide any
ideas you might have for streamlining the process in
relationship to farm bill programs.
Mr. Knight. There is a great deal of potential for further
streamlining. At present, our consultation tends to evolve
around a State-to-State relationship and effort and a larger,
more comprehensive procedure could speed the process and make
considerable savings in our administrative costs, and I believe
Fish and Wildlife or NOAA's costs, as well.
At present, the best examples we have got out there lie in
the State of Oregon and in the State of Montana, where we have
had a good relationship built over time. But it is so key upon
those individual relationships in the State that we need a
larger, overarching consultation process to ensure that it
works smoothly nationwide.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I appreciate these kinds of
inputs that we get from folks who have to go through the
process. We have been working now for a number of years to try
to streamline the consultation process and make it work better
and any kind of input that you can provide will be very, very
appreciated.
In your testimony toward the end there, you mentioned that
you are working on procedures for the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act that would relate to a safe harbor or similar
assurances under the ESA to landowners. Could you share with us
some of the key elements that you think that you would like to
implement in those procedures?
Mr. Knight. We just have wrapped up our internal work and
are now engaged in that process with Fish and Wildlife to try
to work out how to effectively be able to provide that safe
harbor. It is one of the most exciting aspects of this program
and one that we routinely hear from individual producers with
any of our programs about a need for some manner of safe harbor
protection.
As you know, in many areas of the country, it is a major
hurdle for a producer to place conservation practices on the
ground if there is a concern that it may involve an endangered
species that may have an impact on that producer's operation,
the farm or ranch, long-term. So the safe harbor is a very
intriguing concept and one that we look forward to working with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife in putting in place under the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program.
Senator Crapo. All right. I think I am just going to have
time for one more question. I have mentioned, as I said in my
opening comments, I have bragged about the farm bill and its
conservation benefits for years and have often talked in terms
of justifying the new commitment, the dramatically increased
commitment to conservation that we put in the conservation
title of the farm bill the last time. I have talked about the
fact that this is one of the ways that we can have the best
impact on our environment.
In today's hearing, we are kind of taking this concept one
step further, which is to not just talk about the impact of the
conservation programs under the farm bill on the environment in
general, but specifically their impact on species recovery in
coordination with the Endangered Species Act. It seems to me
that if a landowner qualifies under a farm program,
conservation program, for some type of support and the
conservation project which the landowner is then implementing
also has benefits for a species and can be actually coordinated
with or an improvement to or a support of a recovery program,
that that is a win-win situation.
Do you see any way that this development, or utilizing and
thinking about conservation programs under the farm bill in
this way would divert the farm bill programs from their
intended purposes?
Mr. Knight. I would not see that as a diversion at all but
see that win-win as highly desirable and in keeping with the
general direction that we received in the 2002 farm bill to
assist individual landowners--farmers, ranchers, rural
landowners--in coming into compliance with any of the myriad of
rules and regulations that come at them from Federal, State, or
local efforts. And so this would be very consistent with the
directive that we are giving in the farm bill.
Senator Crapo. All right. We are at the point now--I have a
little bit of an update, which I am not sure is good news or
what, but the vote on the floor is now not expected to start
until 10:30. I still have to leave to run over to the Finance
Committee to cast a critical vote on pension reform markup and
Senator Lincoln has been delayed. I am not sure right now
whether she will come here first or go to the floor first to
vote, and so what I am going to have to do is to recess this
hearing, and Mr. Knight, I am not going to make you stick
around, although I think you may expect to get a bunch of
questions, if you would please be willing to respond in writing
to questions.
Mr. Knight. Certainly.
Senator Crapo. And so we will cut you loose as soon as we
recess the hearing. For the other witnesses, I really
apologize. I know that this is probably screwing up, for the
witnesses as well as others attending here, it is probably
really screwing up your schedules and your plans. It is doing
the same thing to the later part of my day, as well.
So the best I can say to you is if you can adjust your
schedules and hang in here with us, I would appreciate it
because we do want to try to come back and start this hearing
up again and get the rest of the testimony in. If you have got
a flight or if you have other commitments that you just can't
hang around for, we understand and we would appreciate you
letting us know so that we can coordinate with you. We do have
your written testimony, and I would also encourage any of the
witnesses who can't stick around, if there are any, to be
willing to respond in writing to questions if members of the
committee have questions to send to you.
What I intend to do right now--well, maybe we will be able
to keep going. Senator Salazar, I may be willing to turn the
chair over to you. I have to run and cast a vote in the Finance
Committee, and then, as you know, in about 15 minutes, there
are going to be votes starting over on the Senate floor. But if
you would be willing to keep the hearing going until you have
to go over and vote, I would appreciate that. Could you do
that?
Senator Salazar. Absolutely. For the distinguished
chairman, I would be delighted to do so.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. Then what I will do is
I will not recess the hearing at this point and we will
continue. If I am not back, Senator Salazar, before you have to
head out and vote, if you would just put the committee into
recess, then we will get back and keep it going as quickly as
we can. That way, we will have fewer delays.
Now, it may turn out that when we do end up having to go
over and vote that if we aren't finished by that time, which we
probably won't be, there may be a sizable delay right then,
because once they start these votes, they will run them in
about ten- to 15-minute segments and it just gives us barely
enough time not to be able to run back here and get anything
done before we have to go back for another vote.
We will go as far as we can, and then I apologize, but we
will probably have to recess still at some point, and then if
you can hang around, we will keep you posted through
information as best we can.
Senator Salazar, we have just finished the first--if you
want to ask questions of Mr. Knight, I almost cut him loose,
but he is still here----
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo [continuing]. And then if you could go to the
second panel when you are done with him.
Senator Salazar. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. I will make an opening statement and I
will try to take care of the committee in your absence, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Knight, for
being here, and I very much am looking forward to this hearing
as we look at the Endangered Species Act and this initiative
that Senator Crapo has undertaken.
I would like to hear from you what it is that you think we
ought to be doing with the Endangered Species Act, what kind of
changes you think that we ought to be considering, if any at
all, and I will give you this preview with respect to my
interest in this issue.
For years, I have seen the Endangered Species Act attacked
by people who want to make some very dramatic changes to the
Endangered Species Act. I also, on the other hand, have seen
people come together in my own State of Colorado to develop
what have been very effective programs at recovering endangered
species. We have done that on the Colorado River system with
the group that has been working on the recovery of the four
endangered fish in the Colorado River system. It has been a
group that has brought together water users, the agricultural
community, and the environmental community, as well, and a
program that by the measures of all those who participate in
that program says that program has been successful.
In the last 10 years or so, I had the opportunity to work
on that program as well as working on a program on the South
Platte River on the recovery efforts on the South Platte, and
again there working with a consortium of the Federal agencies,
the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado, and water users
and the environmental community. Progress is being made with
respect to how we can deal with the recovery of the species and
at the same time make sure that what we are doing is protecting
water users and water rights in Colorado and throughout the
system.
So as this box gets opened up to look inside the Endangered
Species Act and what kinds of changes might be considered, I
would be very interested in knowing what your thoughts are in
that regard. But I think perhaps at this point in the hearing,
since you have not yet, I think, had the opportunity to give
the opening statement to the members of the committee--you
already have done that?
Mr. Knight. Yes.
Senator Salazar. OK. Why don't you just then take that as a
question and we will go from there.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Senator. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service is part of the Department of Agriculture.
We are the nation's private lands conservation agency and we
have basically four major principles that we end up trying to
assist private landowners with--soil erosion, from whence we
came as the Soil Conservation Society; water quality; wildlife
habitat, especially as it pertains to conservation of species
and habitat for those species; and then air quality.
As such, when we start looking at what is the agency's role
with the intersection of the Endangered Species Act, we really
view ourselves as an enabler of cooperative, collaborative
conservation action on the ground. What we are trying to do is
ensure that the tools are there. It may be the assistance
through cost share through our various programs, Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, those sorts of things. It may be
the assistance of technical assistance, of having a Federal
agency without a regulatory bend at the table trying to provide
assistance to find that win-win.
And what we do is we seek out those collaborative actions
wherever they may occur around the country, it may be with bog
turtle or eel grass or salmon recovery or sage grouse, to find
those areas in the community where folks are coming together
and need the assistance, either financially or technically, to
provide that assistance.
There are certainly areas that we see as we work with our
other agencies in the Federal family where the degree to which
we can streamline consultation processes or we can streamline
the efforts to make sure that a broader basket of our basic
conservation services are recognized as being good for wildlife
and assisting in this, the more rapidly we are going to be able
to put conservation on the ground.
One of the key things to keep in mind is that the speed
with which we can respond to conservation requests are very
important, because we are dealing with a living, breathing
ecosystem where the seasonality of being able to get in the
field is very important. You can't do a lot of conservation
work in the winter months in the Northern tier of States, and
so there is a real need to be able to act expeditiously when
that collaboration comes together and be able to put
conservation on the ground in the spring and the summer when we
can be the most effective.
So the seasonality of what we deal with that Mother Nature
imposes is much more important for us than the timelines that
you may run into as you interact with other agencies, be they
State or Federal in nature.
Senator Salazar. I appreciate those comments. Let me take
you back to your first point on the collaborative conservation
programs out in the field. When you look back at the 2002 farm
bill from the point of view of USDA and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, describe for me, for my benefit and for
those who are listening here today, what it is--what kinds of
tools were given to USDA to engage in those collaborative
services and how can they work.
Mr. Knight. The most significant item that folks talk about
is the fairly significant influx of funds, nearly $17 billion
in additional funding over the 10-year span starting with 2002,
and we are well along the way in being able to put additional
conservation on the ground.
We also received several new funding authorities. The one
that has garnered the most attention--we announced the accepted
contract's yesterday--is called the Conservation Security
Program, and under CSP, we are rewarding leading-edge
conservationists for their efforts and encouraging them to do
even more. We are finding a great deal of benefits on wildlife
coming in through this new Conservation Security Program.
The other new authority that we received was the Grasslands
Reserve Program, targeted at protecting these endangered and
fragile grasslands that we have been losing--tall-grass, short-
grass, mid-grass prairies--that we are losing either to
development or conversion to cropland. That program has been
wildly popular. We have now reached the funding cap on it and
are going to have to suspend being able to accept further
enrollments in it. But that has been very important and it has
been very key in our ability to respond in a voluntary manner
to sage grouse concerns.
The program that has perhaps the greatest impact on
wildlife that has had a lot of attention, that we are very
proud of, is the Wetlands Reserve program. That has program
been very instrumental in achieving the President's goals for
the creation, enhancement, or restoration of an additional
three million acres of wetlands. Two years ago on Earth Day,
the President announced that we had actually achieved no net
loss of wetlands due to agricultural conversions and we are now
on our way to achieving a net gain of wetlands and laid out
that very ambitious goal.
So overall, it has been a couple of programs with new
authorities and additional funds, and then a real focus on
working lands conservation to be able to ensure that we find
that right combination of conservation along with economic
vitality for the farmers and ranchers that we serve.
Senator Salazar. Can you, Chief Knight, for my benefit, if
you were to quantify the progress we have been able to make
under the money that has been provided and the tools that have
been given, can you give me an overview of that? You mentioned
the three million acres with respect to wetlands that have been
protected, but we also put a lot of money and given you
authorities in the other programs that you mentioned. If you
were to describe the world of conservation undertaken by USDA
and how it fits into the protection of habitat, how many acres
are we talking about nationally? Are those the kinds of figures
that you have?
Mr. Knight. I may need to respond to the record for you on
those, but the acres that we have covered with conservation
planning and basic underlying work would be in the tens of
millions of acres that have been covered, which means less soil
erosion, which in turn is less sediment in the rivers and
streams, making them more fishable and swimmable, and our
assistance has the same impact on the nutrient management side
of things.
One of the other major areas of priority for us has been
helping livestock operations come into compliance with EPA's
CAFO/AFO rules, the comfined Animal Feeding Operations. We have
written, I think, last year about 12,000 comprehensive nutrient
management plans which will help ensure that those nutrients,
that waste, stays out of the rivers and streams. But I can
elaborate further in the record for you in that effort.
I would note that one of the important authorities that was
directed in the Farm Bill was a new measurement and assessment
effort called CEAP, Conservation Effects Assessment Project,
and we are just now starting to launch the wildlife
measurements. We are trying to move beyond the basic outcome
measures, you know: How many miles of streams have we buffered?
How much habitat have we restored? And get to: What are the
outcomes? What are the nutrient loadings avoided? What have we
done to help the individual species?--in a much more
comprehensive manner that tallies up all the programs. We have
been working very closely with the other Federal agencies in
trying to build this comprehensive effects assessment project
and be able to have something that will greatly assist you all
as you move forward with authorization of the 2007 farm bill.
Senator Salazar. What is the timing, Chief, for the
completion of that assessment?
Mr. Knight. I have staff briefing me again this afternoon
on that. It is always frustratingly slow and I have to admit, I
am very nervous about having this sort of work far enough along
for us all to be able to make rational decisions for the 2007
farm bill. But we will at least have interim results and have
the template that will allow this to function well over the
next 10 years.
Senator Salazar. When will that happen?
Mr. Knight. I am hoping to have materials that you will be
able to have as an interim report in 2006. But it is still a
tough pull for us right now.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask one more question here before
turning the meeting over to the chairman. The second point you
talked about was streamlining the process and you were getting
into some discussion about the seasonality and the sensitivity
of the seasons and the importance of making those investments
when they ought to be made. When you talk about streamlining
the process here insofar as USDA is concerned, what kinds of
concepts are you exploring, are you thinking about as you look
forward over the next couple of years?
Mr. Knight. We recently had a leadership retreat between
Fish and Wildlife leaders and the Natural Resources
Conservation leadership. We have done similar things with the
agencies within the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
and FSA, to try to look at how, working cooperatively, we can
speed up the process as much as we can on each of these things.
In the case of our work with Fish and Wildlife, what is
very key is being able to get to a programmatic consultation
that will allow us to move much more rapidly on our individual
implementation of practices. What we are trying to avoid is
when, in the case of EQIP, where we are putting in place around
25,000 to 35,000 contracts a year nationwide, having to do
individual contract consultation but rather moving to a
programmatic consultation that would say, in this geographic
area or in this State, this set of practices are generally
understood to be of benefit to salmon recovery or benefit to
sage grouse recovery and, therefore, we wouldn't have to go
through a detailed programmatic consultation on those
individual contracts and contract administration. By doing
that, we will be able to shorten our turnaround time for
implementation of each of those contracts.
As an agency, we are also moving our contract
administration earlier into the year to try to catch our
customers when they want to do most of their farm planning,
which is November, December, and January for the subsequent
year, try to make our contract administration and decisions in
that timeframe so that they are set to go in the spring rather
than end up with a process that may push a final decision into
June or July, in which case you almost have to wait a full year
before you get into contract implementation.
Senator Salazar. I would appreciate, Chief Knight, if you
would keep us apprised of your assessment and the progress on
the assessment because I know it will be important certainly to
me, and I imagine to all the members of this committee, as
well.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, and we will elaborate further on the
record for you.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much.
Senator Crapo [presiding]. Do you have any other questions?
Senator Salazar. No, I am done with Mr. Knight.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you. Mr. Knight, we will
excuse you and move to the next panel so that we can hopefully
get as far as we can on it before we have to leave for votes.
While Mr. Knight is leaving and the other panel is coming
up, I will introduce them, and they are still saying the vote
may or may not be at 10:30. It might be closer to 10:45 now, so
we will just keep going.
Our first panelist will be Mr. James Cummins, Executive
Director of the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Second would be Mr. Steve Manning, the Project Manager of the
Leon River Restoration Project in Texas. Third is Mr. Tim
Searchinger, Co-Director of the Center for Conservation
Incentives of Environmental Defense. And then fourth is Mr.
Kent Foster, Executive Director of the Idaho Association of
Soil Conservation Districts.
We appreciate all of you coming, and again, I would like to
remind each of you to try to pay attention to that clock so we
can get as many of you through as we can before we have to
break, and then we will try to decide where we are when we find
out when they actually call the vote.
Please proceed, Mr. Cummins.
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. CUMMINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI
FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Cummins. Chairman Crapo, Senator Salazar, I certainly
appreciate the opportunity, Ranking Member Lincoln, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today. It is very
humbling to be in a room where our nation's most significant
conservation programs have began.
I am James Cummins, Executive Director of the Mississippi
Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Two of our most significant
accomplishments include working with Senator Cochran to develop
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and working with
Congress to develop the Healthy Forest Reserve Program.
The Endangered Species Act has been very effective in
preventing extinction. However, its recovery rate is only 1
percent. Today more than ever, it is medicine's goal to get you
out of the hospital, not keep you in it. We need to view
species the same way. Unfortunately, 70 to 80 percent of our
nation's listed species are found on private land and eight of
the top ten States of listed species are in the South.
In 1973, Congress found that incentives are needed for
species and Congress, specifically the Agriculture Committee,
has passed two incentive programs for species, WHIP and the
Healthy Forest Reserve. Other programs certainly have broader
goals.
So why do we need incentives like land use payments and
practice cost share payments for species, and will the current
cost share rates work? Land use payments come in the form of
per acre fees, rental payments, and easement payments. Both
land use payments and cost share payments can be funded through
direct payments, tax credits, and/or tax deductions. To work,
the value must be close to market value to offset lost revenue
from the land.
Cost share rates of 50 or 75 percent work when there are
public and private benefits. For example, a private benefit is
timber. A public benefit is timber left standing to benefit,
for, say, example, the ivory bill. If private benefits are
large, the incentive would not need to be provided. Habitat for
species often does not have private benefits, so with most
species, 100 percent of the incentive will need to be provided.
We need to better utilize existing programs. Congress
should fully fund the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. Senate
Appropriations has funded a pilot, and I am certainly grateful
to Senator Cochran for that. I cannot emphasize enough the
importance of restoring forest ecosystems to recover species.
The list of the top ten States with the most degraded forests
almost mirrors that with the most listed species. There would
be no greater service you could do for Southern species than to
find incentives for forest ecosystem restoration.
WHIP is USDA's most cost-effective program, and like the
Healthy Forest Reserve, its greatest limitation is funding. We
should also discuss other mechanisms to improve it for the next
farm bill.
Recovery can be further incorporated into other programs.
Expand the definition of eligible lands, establish a continuous
sign-up in CRP for species, limit the area where recovery is
possible, utilize reenrollments to gain more benefits for
species, plant the vegetative type historically on the land,
and reauthorize the Grassland Reserve Program and do not focus
it on urban lands that are very expensive.
The tax code can certainly greatly aid species.
Conservation easements, when used properly, are a great tool,
but they preserve the status quo. We need more restoration. One
idea is to develop a two- to five-million-acres Endangered
Species Reserve Program consisting of tax credits. This habitat
restoration program could consist of a voluntary five-, 15-, or
30-year agreement being placed on the land in close proximity
to an existing species population. The landowner would receive
a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the rental rate plus 100
percent of the restoration cost. Priority would be for projects
where the species can be recovered in less than 30 years. For
species where the estimated recovery is greater than that,
priority would be given to projects where the landowner
voluntarily agrees to place a conservation easement.
A lot of times we talk about preservation versus management
and many species cannot be recovered by preservation alone.
Habitats must be managed. For example, we are doing a great job
of preserving the status quo with the red cockaded woodpecker.
Its optimum habitat is characterized by old-growth pine forests
with little or no understory. Fires caused by lightning and
those set by Native Americans burned these areas and killed the
understory. Now, mainly because of liability and the desire of
many to not create a habitat favorable for regulation,
controlled burns are infrequently used. The lack of management
has resulted in no woodpeckers on private land in the entire
State of Mississippi.
The Department of Defense is faced with a growing threat in
its ability to maintain the readiness of our armed forces. That
threat, often termed encroachment, is caused by development and
habitat loss near military installations. DOD's efforts have
resulted in our bases having some of the best habitat in the
nation. The most effective action we can take to protect these
installations is to restore and protect the land around them,
which will also recover species that may hamper the mission of
the base. This, too, can be accomplished with incentives.
We need cost-share to control invasive species, either in
the form of new legislation or as a component to an existing
program. Invasives rank as the second-greatest threat to
species, having contributed to the decline of 42 percent of our
nation's species. If we attack invasives such as kudzu,
cogongrass, and cheekgrass with the same gusto as soybean rust,
we would be making a large dent in that percent.
Assistance for chemical, mechanical, and biological control
is needed where they are impacting species.
I have other ideas involving a new program called Debt for
Conservation, safe harbor, technical assistance funding, and
carbon sequestration, but in the essence of time, I will ask
you to refer to my written remarks.
A diversity of incentives will help make species more
economically attractive. They will help remove the species of
our nation from their respective list or cause them not to be
listed. And working with private landowners and enabling them
to conserve habitat is the kind of proactive strategy that can
head off a regulatory crisis, improve species, and provide
opportunities for economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lincoln, this concludes my
remarks. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummins.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummins can be found in the
appendix on page 82.]
Senator Crapo. Mr. Manning?
STATEMENT OF STEVE MANNING, PROJECT MANAGER, LEON RIVER
RESTORATION PROJECT, GATESVILLE, TEXAS
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify here today.
Senator Crapo. Is your mike on? There should be a button
there.
Mr. Manning. Do I get my time back?
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. You bet.
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Steve
Manning. I am a fifth generation rancher from Coryell County in
Central Texas and I am going to be talking to you today about
the Leon River Restoration Project, and more specifically, the
Leon River Restoration Project Phase 1 Report issued by Texas
A&M University in September of last year.
The Leon River Restoration Project is a research brush
control program within the Leon River watershed of Hamilton and
Coryell Counties, Texas. The primary objective of the research
component is to quantify the impacts of ash juniper removal and
rangeland management on water yield and quality, wildlife
habitat, and forage production for livestock. Juniper removal
and rangeland management practices are implemented no selected
private rangelands that are within habitat for the golden-
cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo, both of which are
endangered species. The Leon River Project is significantly
unique in the success it has accomplished by bringing together
a large number of stakeholders to work effectively toward
diverse goals in a common project.
I am going to be talking today specifically about two
components of that research, the wildlife and the economics
component. I am going to talk about the wildlife component
first. And the wildlife component, because of the success we
have had in bringing together diverse interests and building up
the trust of the landowners, we were able to, as a part of this
project, to do presence/absence surveys for both endangered
species across the range of the project, which is about 700,000
acres in the two counties.
Working with over 100 landowners to date, Texas A&M was
able to put graduate students out on the ground and do surveys,
and just one of the example, in one of the some watersheds or
creeks within our project area, the Coryell Creek, about a
54,000-acre drainage, for the golden-cheek warbler, A&M found
that about 36 percent, or 19,700 acres of that one drainage was
occupied warbler habitat. For an endangered species, they are
doing quite well. Black-headed vireo ranged from about five to
7 percent, but again, a lot better numbers than we would have
thought of 10 years ago. The message there is that landowners
are doing a good job managing for wildlife and for the health
of their lands.
The economics component, the second component I want to
talk about, specifically as a part of their research identified
three types of landowners within our area and those landowners
are what we call born to the land. Like myself, those people
have been on the land for generations and have strong
connection to the land, usually agriculture.
The second group is what we call the ag group and those
were folks that went out and made some money and then bought
land and put that land into ag production and they are really
more interested in the bottom line, the dollar, how much yield
they can get off the land.
The third group, we named the reborn to the land, and these
are people that went to the city, made some money, came back,
bought some land, and they are really more interested in the
aesthetics of the land. They want to do good things with the
land and they have an interest in things that will do well and
make them good stewards of the land, and it is that last
segment that I want to talk about.
While we found NRCS to be a great partner and would not be
here if it weren't for them today, one of the things that we
found in our research is that that last segment is being
somewhat overlooked through the approaches that NRCS has been
taking because they are really a kind of a new segment of the
population and they have the least institutional knowledge
about farm bill programs or really even what farm bill programs
are or where to go to find out anything.
What we found in our research is that those traditional
landowners and those ag landowners were very comfortable and
most likely to participate in farm bill programs, but because
of the outreach and the traditional methods to communicate with
landowners, that their segment of the population is just--they
are missing out. In fact, they are more likely to select and
participate in other types of programs that are out there that
might lean more toward endangered species recovery or other
things than they are the farm bill. I really think, as someone
in the ranching community, that we are going to need to do a
better job of reaching out to those people, to identifying ways
to be more flexible and to provide multiple options for
landowners if we are going to be successful in the future. We
cannot afford to let that segment of our landowner base slip
through our fingers, if you will.
I could talk for a long time about the project, but within
the 5 minutes, I wanted to make those two points. Landowners
are doing a good job. The farm bill is key to their success and
will be key to their future success. And also, we have got to
do a better job of working with the diverse group of landowners
that I suspect that diversity is occurring not only in Texas,
but across a large number of States here. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning can be found in the
appendix on page 61.]
Senator Crapo. Mr. Searchinger?
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY D. SEARCHINGER, CO-DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
CONSERVATION INCENTIVES, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Searchinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Lincoln. I am Co-Director of something called the Center for
Conservation Incentives at Environmental Defense and our focus
is entirely on private land incentive programs to encourage
good stewardship and a major focus is, in fact, on protecting
endangered species.
What we know from working with these farm bill programs
both on the ground and at the national level is that there are
many valuable success stories. Our biologists in Texas have
worked with Mr. Manning and his colleagues and there is really
no greater success story than what Steve has been able to
achieve, and there are many other examples of that and we know,
therefore, that landowners, given the right incentives, are
very interested in doing good things for endangered species.
I would say, however, that as a whole, the farm bill
programs have not achieved their potential, and there are a
number of reasons for that and we go into that in our
testimony. I will just launch right in and give you a few
examples.
The Conservation Reserve Program retires a tenth of the
cropland in the United States. It is twice the size of the
Wildlife Refuge System in the 48 States, and it has done some
great things for a few rare species, particularly a few
grassland bird species that could very well be on the
Endangered Species List today or even extinct if it were not
for CRP. But as a whole, it hasn't achieved its potential.
Most of the land in the CRP program is probably providing
minimal wildlife habit right now, either because it has been
overwhelmed by invasive species--there have been very few
incentives for good management of that land. Most of the land
was not planted in native vegetation. Sometimes, non-native
vegetation can do a good job, but most places, it can't.
And more generally, when that land was enrolled, the
criteria for enrollment didn't focus a lot on its location. If
you want to do something good for endangered species, you have
to think very hard about where that land is in relationship to
other land that is providing habitat. You can do the greatest
habitat in the world, but if it is in the place where the
endangered species isn't going to come, it is not going to do
them a lot of good.
Or similarly, species need different kinds of habitat. They
need breeding habitat, they need birthing habitat, spawning
habitat, whatever. It doesn't help a lot to provide one kind of
habitat if the other isn't nearby.
Chief Knight talked about the efforts to protect salmon,
for example. One of the things that is going on is that as the
streams cross farm roads, there frequently are culverts in
place to let the stream flow through the farm road, but most of
those culverts were put in a long time ago when people weren't
thinking a lot about salmon and they tend to discharge a foot
or two above the stream, and it turns out salmon don't jump
very well into culverts. Well, again, if you are going to
replace the culverts so that they work, you have got to do a
series in a row. It doesn't make sense to do one here and one
there.
So part of the challenge with all these programs is
thinking in a more coordinated way, a more incentive initiative
way so that landowners can work together.
In the case of CRP, I will just make a couple of specific
recommendations which are--and I should say that we have come
to agreement with the American Farm Bureau in a number of
recommendations that we have attached to our testimony, and the
Nature Conservancy, and one of those is that there are a lot of
opportunities, we think, to target specific locations where you
can enroll land in a 200,000 or 300,000 acre chunk in the right
vegetation with the right management, perhaps using continuous
enrollment for that purpose so landowners know if they want to
enroll that land, they can really benefit a chunk of species.
And that could be done in a way that would really provide
enormous benefit in a number of places around the country.
Related to that, it is important that to get more benefit
out of CRP in the future, we not automatically reenroll all the
acres but rather have a more selective process.
With regard to EQIP--EQIP, of course, is the second-largest
program--unfortunately, only about a half of 1 percent of EQIP
dollars have gone specifically for wildlife. Since I am running
out of time, I will just say that the real challenge there is,
again, the difference between being reactive and having an
initiative that is more coordinated. Most EQIP dollars are
spent because landowners expressed an interest in something.
They come into the local county office and they say, please
fund this.
And there are huge problems with doing things for at-risk
species in that way. One is that there aren't necessarily
biologists at that county level that know what to do. Another
is a huge TA. We have a chicken-and-egg problem with technical
assistance. There aren't a lot of people to provide a lot of
these biological services. USDA is short of TA in general. If
they are going to hire people to provide those services, they
need to know that there is going to be a certain level of
spending. So they have to decide up front, for the next few
years, we are going to spend a certain amount of money to
benefit a species so they can let a contract so that private
parties can come forward and say, hey, if we go into the
business of helping deliver this program, we are going to be
compensated for that.
I will just in the last 10 seconds just mention the
Grassland Reserve Program has enormous potential, but the real
challenge there probably is an issue of easements versus
contracts. The bill that passed out of the Senate committee was
a two-million-acre easement program, and if you are thinking
about preserving grassland to benefit not just the ranching
community, but rare species over the long term, a 10-year
contract just doesn't do it. It just postpones the eventual
development. The final bill that emerged was primarily a 10-
year contract bill that won't really preserve these lands over
the long term. It doesn't, therefore, warrant the kind of level
of investment.
So thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Searchinger.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Searchinger can be found in
the appendix on page 69.]
Senator Crapo. Mr. Foster?
STATEMENT OF KENT J. FOSTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IDAHO
ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Foster. First, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Lincoln, for allowing us to testify before you here today.
Second, I wanted to thank Senator Crapo personally for his
past efforts in assisting Idaho with both the salmon and sage
grouse initiatives through the USDA NRCS, so thank you for
these efforts.
Today, Idaho's core conservation partnership is strong, and
for over 65 years, our goal has been and still is to assist
private landowners to conserve and protect their natural
resources--soil, water, air, plant, animal, and wildlife. As we
work to achieve this goal, we must not forget that humans are
also a part of the equation.
We believe the 2007 farm bill needs to support appropriate
species conservation issues. We also believe the ESA is in need
of revision to make some of the farm bill provisions more
participant-friendly.
The 2002 farm bill provided substantial increases in
financial assistance for all conservation programs. However, it
is the technical assistance that is key to getting conservation
implemented on the landscape in a technically sound and timely
manner.
To better support species conservation, we feel the 2007
farm bill needs to consider the following. If attainable, a
national programmatic biological assessment needs to be
developed. If not, it would be helpful to develop biological
assessments on a regional or large ecosystem area basis.
Currently, any conservation practice to be installed within the
salmon watershed must have consultation with NOAA Fisheries or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The consultation process can
take up to several months. In these cases, the construction
window is often missed and projects are often delayed until the
next year's construction season.
The consultation process can be very repetitive. Writing
individual biological assessments is very time consuming. I
have been told by our people in Idaho, that Idaho has never had
a biological assessment disapproved by the Fish and Wildlife
Service or NOAA Fisheries. Then how many biological assessments
have to be written before some change in the process is
warranted?
The Healthy Forest Reserve Initiative needs to be passed
and funded. The safe harbor provision needs to stay intact
through the committee process. This provision will encourage
landowners to do the right thing in addressing their natural
resources and species conservation issues.
There are too many identified species of concern for farm
bill programs to realistically and effectively address.
Available funding should focus on endangered, threatened,
candidate, or proposed species for listing.
We heard the NRCS chief use a figure of 70 percent, but I
had a figure of 75 percent of the listed species that depend on
private land for all or part of their habitat. Incentives are
needed to protect or enhance existing declining habitat.
More technical assistance funds are needed to develop
adequate and effective conservation plans and habitat
conservation plans. This funding support needs to come from
each individual farm bill program. Species issues are not
easily resolved. They are generally very complex and usually
require input from a team of interdisciplinary experts to
resolve the resource issue, sometimes even multiple interagency
input is also required.
Farm bill programs could better support species
conservation if they were more habitat- or ecosystem-driven and
not single species-driven. Balance is key to what leads to a
holistic and healthy environment. Balance must not only include
biological, but social and economic factors.
It is paramount that the government allows land users and
citizens to go forward with innovative ideas that will bridge
the gap between our finite resources and species conservation.
There is a fear of endangered species, because the law focuses
on punishing those who do not comply rather than rewarding
those who voluntarily engage in conservation efforts.
With our limited resources, we need to make a concerted
effort to find better and more cost-effective solutions. We
need to get the Federal Government out of the way and let the
States be innovative and get conservation on the ground.
By working together and using a realistic and common sense
approach, we believe the farm bill and ESA issues can
effectively be addressed. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster can be found in the
appendix on page 82.]
Senator Crapo. We thank our entire panel.
Just to let you know what is going on, the first vote of
the five started at 10:48 and so at about 11, which means I
will have about 3 minutes left, I am going to have to go.
Senator Lincoln has already gone to vote, and if she is not
back by 11, I will recess the committee and she should return
very quickly after that and start the committee up again, so
don't go anywhere when I recess.
Then what we will try to do is just rotate. I will vote at
the end of each vote and she will vote at the beginning of each
vote--what I will do is I will go vote at the end of one and
the beginning of the next one, and then she will vote at the
end of one and the beginning of the next one and so forth. That
may not really work as we get well into it, because when they
ultimately get most of the Senators over there, the votes start
happening a little faster, so we will try to do that as best we
can.
In the few minutes I have, I just want to ask a general
question to the panel, and that is I think you probably all
heard me say at the outset that this notion of utilizing the
conservation title of the farm bill to provide incentives for
endangered species recovery is a bit of a step beyond where we
have philosophically been with the farm bill in the past, but
it certainly, in my opinion, is not stepping beyond the spirit
of what we were trying to do in the farm bill.
And the question is to each of you, and please try to be as
succinct as you can, do you see any conflict in trying to move
the farm bill philosophy as we develop the next conservation
title in the farm bill into closer coordination with endangered
species recovery goals? I will just throw it out to--you don't
all have to answer, but if you have an answer on that, I would
welcome it.
Mr. Searchinger. I would say the answer is there is
certainly no conflict, and in fact, I would even go so far as
to say the statutes encourage it right now. EQIP has wildlife
as one of its goals as well as avoiding regulatory pressures as
one of its goals. Put the two together, endangered species
conflict avoidance is already in the statute.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Cummins?
Mr. Cummins. With the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
it specifically mentions threatened and endangered species, so
I think you have a precedent there. I think there is a great
opportunity, as we are constantly working to figure out how to
best use our dollars in this country, there is a great
opportunity of trying to meet TMDO requirements, to meet
endangered species requirements, and balance a lot of different
things out there. We can do a lot on one acre that we may not
can do by spreading that out.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Manning or Mr. Foster, do you want to
jump in?
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to encourage
that. I think it is important that we don't have different
programs going against each other. I think we have made a lot
of strides in trying to make them work together. I think there
are just some things that we need to tweak to reduce the amount
of time it takes so we can do even more through the two
programs.
Senator Crapo. You don't have to pile on unless you want
to, Mr. Manning.
Mr. Manning. I will just say very quickly that from a
landowner's perspective, I think that not only is it--I don't
see a conflict, but it gives the landowners the ability to get
more out of the regulatory business, and from the Fish and
Wildlife side, more from the incentive side with the farm bill
programs and have a better chance of accomplishing the goals
that we all desire.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. I am going to ask one more
question of you specifically, Mr. Manning, and then I am going
to recess it if Senator Lincoln is not back yet. But I did,
before I left, want to ask you--I want to say I am impressed
with the level of study that your partnership has conducted.
But the upshot of your work is that you have, frankly, you have
actively restored bird populations, isn't that right?
Mr. Manning. That is correct.
Senator Crapo. Could you describe, just, again, briefly,
because I just have about 60 seconds here, what you think the
core success there was that enabled you to restore bird
populations?
Mr. Manning. Well, having a core group of NGO's and
agencies working together in agreement and building out from
that, and I won't try to list those for the time constraints,
but obviously Environmental Defense is one of those. Basically,
ag and environmental entities working together and then
building out using their lines of communication to influence
the State agencies and then the Federal agencies ultimately,
and RCS and Fish and Wildlife in this case.
By doing that, we were able to bring those two agencies
together and go through the Section 7 process and get to an
opinion that allowed us to use Federal dollars and put them on
the ground in such a way that we were able to put those Federal
dollars through EQIP into wildlife habitat where before we had
not been able. And that gave us the funds and the technical
assistance that we needed to get that done.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you very much.
Again, I apologize, but I am going to recess now. I am not
sure whether Senator Lincoln is going to vote on the next vote
before she comes back or whether she is already on her way back
here. She is on her way, so she should be here very quickly.
Until she arrives, this committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln [presiding]. I am so sorry for the
interruption, but I am afraid with four stacked votes, there
are probably going to be multiple interruptions. Senator Crapo
and I have agreed to try to keep as much going as possible. We
will just kind of tag team back and forth.
I want to first say, and he is not here to hear it, and I
will repeat it as many times as I need to, a special thanks to
Chairman Crapo, who has done a tremendous job in this
subcommittee. He and I came into the House together in 1992. We
came over to the Senate together. We have served on multiple
committees together. I wasn't here earlier because I was
covering us over in the Finance Committee, where he also serves
with me. But it is really a pleasure to work with Senator Crapo
and his staff. They do a tremendous job. They are very
thoughtful about what they do and it is just a delight to share
this subcommittee with him.
As is obvious from today's hearing, I think, he always
focuses on very worthwhile hearings that focus on issues that
are very important to people. We don't hear them all the time
on the front page of the paper sometimes, but these are issues
that really affect people every day and they are very
important, conservation provisions that were included in the
2002 farm bill, their role in protecting endangered species,
but also allowing lifelong generations of family farmers to be
able to do what they really want to do.
I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family and I
know there is no greater conservationist in the world than my
father was in terms of wanting to preserve the land and to do
the best that he could to ensure that that land would be in the
family for generations to come.
So we are very appreciative that you all are here. I think,
having looked at the 2002 farm bill as playing such an
important role, I certainly supported it because of the
importance it plays in my State and my State's rural economy
and the way of life that we have there. I think some of the
more notable parts of that legislation was its historic
increase in conservation. Obviously, it is important for us to
fund that and to elevate those conservation components to the
extent that people nationally will recognize how important a
role they do play.
Conservation programs are not only an environmentally sound
practice, but they produce a wide range of economic benefits.
We have seen that in our State. I think we have all seen that
nationally. Environmentally, our conservation programs
definitely safeguard millions of acres of American topsoil from
erosion and certainly improving air quality, increasing
wildlife habitat and protecting ground and surface water
quality by reducing water runoff and sedimentation.
But economically, the benefits are also immeasurable. The
program not only increases net farm income, they preserve soil
productivity, they improve surface water quality, they reduce
damage from windblown dust and increased uses of wildlife,
which we have talked about an awful lot here today.
The dual benefits are critical to the long-term
sustainability of American agriculture and provide certainly
the much-needed bridge between an adequate farm safety net and
resources necessary to conserve our land. And again, as a
farmer's daughter, those two are essential components to the
way of life that many of us know, living and having grown up in
rural America.
As you all know certainly, our State has one of the most
diverse and natural ecosystems in the country. My neighbor, Mr.
Cummins across the river, is certainly well aware because we
have very, very similar habits and certainly very similar
homes.
We saw earlier this year through the discovery of the
ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas that when we dedicate
resources to protect our natural habitats, we can successfully
preserve them, and I think many of you all have spoken to that
in terms of not just dealing with preservation but management,
which is critical to what we want to see eventually happening
in terms of habitat and species.
It is my hope that this story, certainly the ivory-billed
woodpecker, and others like it will encourage all of those with
an interest in preserving our lands and our native species to
take a renewed look at the impact that conservation can have on
those goals. I was very, very interested to hear Mr.
Searchinger talking about the fact that with all of the
interest and involvement and investment in CRP, that it is two
times, did you say, two times the reserve program?
Mr. Searchinger. Two times the size----
Senator Lincoln. The size----
Mr. Searchinger [continuing]. Of the Wildlife Refuge System
in the 48 States.
Senator Lincoln. That is amazing to me, which is also an
indication that, again, there is a huge interest in terms of
landowners and others to be involved in this overall process.
I think we can certainly all agree that supporting greater
conservation would have a positive effect on maintaining
natural diversity and preserving wilderness for future
generations, and we want to thank you all for being willing to
be here with us today.
I also want to comment that I am really looking forward in
the next couple of weeks to working extensively with Senator
Crapo as chairman of this subcommittee in the ways that we can
go about setting forth, I think, some proactive--I noticed that
that was also a comment of more than one of you all, and that
is not to just react, but to be proactive in ways that will be
very, very productive for wildlife habitat, for conservation,
and certainly land preservation.
So with that said, you all can transmit to the chairman how
much I appreciate working with him and certainly the incredible
job that he does, and I am looking forward to that.
To the questions, I think I will start in on some
questions, because I know the chairman will be back and I will
try to, again, switch hit and head back over and do my voting
on the floor.
Mr. Searchinger, you mentioned in your testimony the
importance of encouraging conservation amongst a broad range of
landowners. What do you really think, in your opinion, is the
best or most effective method of being able to do that?
Funding, probably, for starters.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Searchinger. Certainly, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program does a lot and it is a little bit of a political
orphan, so any Senator wishing to adopt a wonderful infant but
burgeoning program, it is available for adoption.
But as a whole, I think the question was asked of Mr.
Manning, what made his program so successful, and he talked
about the cooperative nature of the work being done, that the
work was planned out, there was word of mouth, there was
adequate technical system and outreach. Every single example
that is going to be provided at the White House Conference on
Cooperative Conservation is going to have a comparable story.
So this notion of being proactive is absolutely critical, and I
will just give you one other concrete example.
Take the long-leaf pine forest there in your neck of the
woods. There are a lot of opportunities to--there are a lot of
endangered species that rely on long-leaf pine forests and a
lot of opportunities to enhance habitat for long-leaf pine
forests, and there are landowner groups very interested in
long-leaf pine and there is some economic value to producing
tall timber down the road.
But to do that right, the best way to do it, for example,
through the CRP program, would be to say we are going to make
certain specific lands eligible for enrollment in long-leaf
pine if you manage it in a particular way. And then we are
going to have a technical assistance issue. Who is going to
actually deliver that program? And then USDA needs, because it
doesn't have the staff anymore, NRCS is delivering five times
as much money in programs as it used to have. They are just so
busy. It needs to say, we know we are going to have this much
work and issue a third-party contract to maybe Mr. Manning's
group or maybe Mr. Cummins's group to help deliver that
program.
So all of these things have to come together to work right,
and so the most important thing, I would say, is having
proactive, cooperative projects and delivering all of these
programs, to the extent we can, through cooperative projects
with producer groups, local conservationists, and government.
Senator Lincoln. You mentioned, I think it was you that
mentioned the shortage of time. Perhaps that was the
grasslands, that 10 years was way too short for that type of a
program. In terms of CRP, I mean, is the length of that time
adequate in order to really get off the ground and running a
long-leaf pine program as expeditiously as we would want?
Mr. Searchinger. In the case of long-leaf pine, the good
news is that it probably becomes in the economic interest of
the landowner, once he or she has received that incentive for a
ten- or 15-year contract, to keep the timber there for 50 years
or so because that is when it matures and becomes valuable.
But certainly, I think one of the things the committee
should consider for the future is longer CRP contracts where
there is a critical need to benefit an at-risk species, because
if we are going to make a heavier investment in the kind of
planting, let us say, then we want to realize that benefit over
a longer period.
Senator Lincoln. You have also mentioned the shortage of
technical assistance through USDA. I have had a few phone calls
from my State with concerns about that, and, of course,
technical assistance both from the biological standpoint, but
also from the paperwork standpoint. Many of these programs are
complicated. There is lots of paperwork.
There was one concern that the move of EQIP from the FSA to
the NRCS, which I think it went to NRCS under application, has
actually been detrimental to the use of the program just simply
because you have had to reinvent the wheel. You have had to
move that program over to a new part of the agency, figuring
out how to go through that.
Do you see any concerns about those types of problems,
where if we continue to move these programs around, we lose the
institutional history of technical assistance, particularly in
regard to paperwork?
Mr. Searchinger. Let me answer that in a couple of ways.
Most importantly is the bottom line is that we are delivering a
lot more money with roughly the same numbers of NRCS staff, and
the administration made the decision to focus on third-party
assistance, which has some merit, but we have the chicken-egg
problem in delivering third-party assistance. No individual or
organization is going to come forward and say, I will deliver
this program--I am going to hire staff to be able to deliver
these programs unless they know they are going to have enough
work to pay the staff.
Senator Lincoln. Yes.
Mr. Searchinger. And so that means--and, of course, these
things are specialized. If you want a biologist who knows about
long-leaf pine, you need a biologist who knows about long-leaf
pine. So they need to know they have a certain amount of work,
and so to deliver these programs more effectively, there has to
be certain decisions, we are going to put a certain amount of
money in X as opposed to Y and then hire a contract to do that.
In the case of continuous enrollment with CRP, for example, it
has dropped off the cliff. This is the kind of buffer program
because NRCS is too busy to promote it.
With regard to your specific question, I think there was--
NRCS has managed EQIP from the programmatic side since it was
created, but I think there was a paperwork transition that you
referred to in going from FSA to NRCS. I don't honestly know
enough about all of that.
But I will say, again, and I am going to sound like a
broken record, typically, it is possible to streamline the
paperwork when you have worked out a kind of project, and then
you can simplify the paperwork for those who want to
participate in a particular kind of practice. So again,
paperwork is a huge issue, and particularly--landowners who are
doing something for endangered species are not helping the
bottom line, typically, and so if they are going to have to do
a heck of a lot of paperwork, they are not going to do it. So
streamlining the paperwork is critical, and again----
Senator Lincoln. Would you consider that one of the proper
incentives that you talked about?
Mr. Searchinger. Well, actually----
Senator Lincoln. Streamlining that paperwork?
Mr. Searchinger. Yes. I would agree with that, absolutely.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Cummins, I have to say I am so proud
you mentioned kudzu.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. I grew up in a community that is about
covered in it. And although its original intent may have been
noteworthy, we have found, particularly in some of our smaller
hardwood forests, national forests, it is absolutely consuming
it and there are some real concerns there. So I am just glad
you know what it is and have equal concerns.
In your testimony, you talked about active management
versus preservation. I have mentioned that, as well. It seems
to tie in with one of the major, I think, criticisms of ESA,
the Endangered Species Act, mainly that while many of the
endangered species have stabilized, few have really recovered.
Our hope is that we will see recovery of the ivory-billed
woodpecker, and that is one of the things in terms of both
conservation, active management, and preservation we hope will
all come together for us in Arkansas.
Could you talk just a little bit about that active
management and the role that it could play in any of our
discussions about improving ESA?
Mr. Cummins. Yes. First, I would like to just certainly
thank you for your leadership in Arkansas and this great
nation, as well, and really enjoy working with people like West
and others.
Senator Lincoln. Good.
Mr. Cummins. There are a lot of good people in Arkansas,
and I contribute a lot to your economy through trout fishing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cummins. In terms of how we go about looking at active
management, for example, we have a tremendous amount of
conservation easements that are through the tax code that you
in Senate Finance are looking at and it is a great opportunity
to even address active management there.
Mr. Searchinger talked about long-leaf pine. Long-leaf pine
is a great example of how we go about conducting management, by
going in, planting long-leaf, doing selective harvest. I think
there is a great opportunity with the ivory-bill, for example.
The trees we plant today, they are not going to provide the
grubs and food source for the ivory-billed woodpecker until
probably 100 years from now, but if we can go through some of
those existing stands that are adjacent or in close proximity
to the siting or the location of the siting and go in there and
inject those or girdle them, in other words, kill those trees,
a lot of that is going to be sweet gum and hackberry, which are
the two preferred species that the ivory-billed likes, and you
will end up with the situation that about two to 4 years from
there, from the time of injection or girdling, that you will
provide a lot of grubs and a lot of insects between that bark
and that cambium layer that are good for that tree, whereas if
we just went in and preserved a stand, you have got to wait
until it goes through its entire life cycle before it lives,
grows, and dies.
So I think active management is really a key. If you look
at a lot of the private lands biologists to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or a lot of the biologists that are within
RCS, we have the technical skills out there to go about doing
management, and let me--I left out the range specialists and
foresters, as well, because that is a tremendously important
component.
But the technical skills are out there that will allow us
to go in and do the management, but we have got to get over
this fact that chemicals and chain saws and management tools
are bad and how do we put those to our best use.
Senator Lincoln. I noticed one of you all mentioned carbon
credits. I am not sure who it was. But there is also an
importance, I think, there to look into and investigate the way
that we can dovetail that active management with the carbon
credits that are slowly becoming--I know for many of our
landowners have been very beneficial. We have also been able to
see where we have actually been able to save the Federal
Government dollars by putting to use those carbon credits and
also letting private industry come in and do the plantings and
make sure that, obviously with the guidance of USDA and the
others that it is being properly, but actively managing those
lands in a way that are highly productive.
Mr. Searchinger, when you were talking about the CRP
program, you were talking about that with two times that amount
of the--not the Reserve program, but the----
Mr. Searchinger. Of the Refuge System.
Senator Lincoln. --Refuge System, you said it still
provides minimal in terms of that volume, or it is certainly
less than it could. And you also mentioned that it was not
necessarily planted in native vegetation. Why is that? why
would it not be?
Mr. Searchinger. Well, when the program was first created,
it really had a surplus as much as anything, and the goal was
just to get cover on land of any type as much as possible. And
over time, there has been a greater emphasis on more
environmental benefit, but even in the more recent sign-ups,
there is just not that much of a difference in the amount of
points you get. You know, there is a selection index that gives
you points for doing different things----
Senator Lincoln. Right.
Mr. Searchinger. And there is not that much of a point
difference for planting natives versus non-natives.
Senator Lincoln. But it just seems to me like it is a no-
brainer that you would put it into native vegetation.
Mr. Searchinger. I would agree with you in the overwhelming
majority of the country. Our colleagues who are interested in
ducks in the Northern Plains believe that there can be wildlife
mixes that provide almost as much benefit that are non-native.
But in the vast majority of the country, native is the right
thing to do.
And this is where we think there are opportunities to
improve CRP in the next generation, and it really was
interesting. We went through a long series of conversations
with the American Farm Bureau and the Nature Conservancy and
one of the things that I think has emerged is a consensus by
producer groups as well as conservation groups that now is the
time to really try to maximize the environmental benefit per
acre from that program. We are no longer interested in using it
as a supply control program. We are interested in using it to--
from the Farm Bureau's perspective, I think--I don't want to
speak for them too much, but to relieve pressures, regulatory
pressures on landowners through this incentive-based program,
from our perspective, to get every possible benefit out of the
acre.
So we think that there are real opportunities and the two
immediate issues are, one, that the criteria in the future need
to meld the importance of location, native species, and
management. Management is the key issue. There is not a lot of
financial incentiveto manage the land well once it is planted.
Those need to be melded, and I think if you--we need to think,
hey, what do we need to do, for example, with CRP that could
benefit the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas? That is a
decision people should be actually consciously thinking about.
There will be a series of activities--management activities,
plantings, et cetera--and if it is done that way, we can get a
heck of a lot more benefit.
There probably are about a half-a-dozen rare species that
benefited significantly from CRP, and that is good, but it is
not enough. There should be several dozen that have gotten a
real big benefit.
Senator Lincoln. Well, without a doubt, having gone through
the Healthy Forests Initiative and working with Senator Crapo
and having experienced in Arkansas the red oak bore, which
annihilated a part of our forest, our national forest, in just
3 years, it was phenomenal. But to in retrospect look back and
see that because of the way that maybe the forest may have been
managed without diversity of species and other things, causing
all the moon and the stars to align and for something like that
to really be as devastating as it was, it has been clear to me
that management is really a critical tool.
Do any of you gentlemen have anything further to add or
want to make sure that we pay specific attention to? Mr.
Foster?
Mr. Foster. Senator Lincoln, I just wanted to add to what
Mr. Searchinger said earlier about CRP. I think we have to--I
am just speaking from out West in our drier climates out there,
but if I remember correctly, to qualify for CRP, it had to be
cropland, highly erodible, and meet some other criteria. To be
honest with you, in 1985 when the first CRP seedings were made,
I think a lot of the considerations at that time didn't have as
many ESA or wildlife thoughts put into them. CRP was put in as
inexpensive as it could be to get cover on that land, and being
cropland, landowners didn't want to put trees and shrubs on it,
not knowing how long the program might last and whether they
may be converting it back to cropland again in 15 years.
So I think Mr. Searchinger is right, we don't have some of
the shrubs and trees that we actually should have for good
habitat for some of the key species. Some of the fault is ours,
but it is also due partly to the system as to what qualifies
and what doesn't, and what is economical to do etc.
Senator Lincoln. And that brings up another point for us.
Of course, that is one of the great things with working with
Senator Crapo, is being from the South and the Delta and him
being out West, we really try to bring a huge diversity in
ensuring that these programs work for everybody.
You are exactly right. There is not a one-size-fits-all
necessarily and certainly the habitats that we want to preserve
are tremendously diverse and that is critical.
But the other thing is understanding certainly the
dependability of these programs. I know that for us, and we are
one of the larger users of the Wetland Reserve Program, we have
got more than 50 percent of our Wetland Reserve lands in
Arkansas that come up for renewal. Being able to have some
dependability on those programs is critical, too.
I want to thank you all very much for your very thoughtful
presentation and testimony. Just so you know, Mr. Chairman, I
have just been singing your praises.
Senator Crapo. Well, that is what I heard. I will have your
payment ready after the hearing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. There you go. I do want certainly this
subcommittee and these people who we will depend on an awful
lot in the coming months to help us work through the issues
that you and I have--well, we have come through Congress
together, 1992 to 1998 and here, but you have just done
tremendous work in this subcommittee and I am so proud to serve
with you and I am looking forward to the next couple of months,
where you and I can really focus in on the Endangered Species
Act and the conservation programs and really put together
something thoughtfully that will be enormously helpful to all
of those concerned. So I am grateful for your leadership. You
do a tremendous job.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. As you know----
Senator Lincoln. And I will hand you back the gavel.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo [presiding]. All right. You know the feelings
are mutual. You probably told them we sat together in the
Commerce Committee in the House and we have been working
together ever since. I think that Senator Lincoln and I have
shown that you can do bipartisan work here and get really good
things done.
Senator Lincoln. And to that extent, also, not only in
terms of bipartisanship, but as well as regional.
Senator Crapo. That is right.
Senator Lincoln. I mean, we have worked together on the
Healthy Forests and others to make sure that everybody's
concerns are being met. So I am grateful to you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Crapo. All right. Thank you.
As is obvious, we started our second vote. I don't expect
you to come back, is that correct? I will probably have just a
few minutes here, like maybe ten, and then what I am going to
do at that point, since it is getting too tight over there, is
conclude the hearing and we will send out written questions to
you for those we didn't get to ask.
One of the questions--and, by the way, I thank you for
being so patient with our problems here. I am actually very
pleased that we were able to keep the hearing going.
One of the issues that Mr. Searchinger raised in his
testimony that I would like to kind of discuss with all of you
is in the context of the CRP program and trying to focus the
qualification for CRP a little better in terms of species
recovery. Mr. Searchinger, you raised the question of whether
there should be automatic reenrollment. I don't really want to
start a fight here, but I would like to know what everyone
else's position on that issue is, because obviously, that is a
very big issue that we are dealing with right now.
Do any of the others of you have a perspective on that? Mr.
Cummins?
Mr. Cummins. Yes, sir. Especially in the South, a lot of
the lands are generating something with economic value. Some
lands in the West and in the Midwest, except when you are using
them for emergency haying and grazing, you are not generating a
lot of economic value.
I think as we start looking at this very touchy issue of
reenrollments, I think we need to look at what are the
environmental benefits? What are the threatened and endangered
species, and maybe even a special threatened and endangered
species index?
We have seen a huge issue is that of loblolly pine. There
may be opportunities that a landowner could go in and convert
that loblolly stand to long-leaf, like Mr. Searchinger
mentioned, and continue to reenroll and him or her sell that
loblolly for pulpwood, for example.
But I think there are great opportunities to gain more from
already existing lands to maximize the potential, as Mr.
Searchinger mentioned.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Manning?
Mr. Manning. Well, CRP is not my strong point. I would just
say that just from a common sense standpoint, obviously, things
have changed somewhat since 1985, I think when we first started
talking about those enrollments, and we do have a little more
consideration and concern for the ESA standpoints. Any time we
can take advantage of those programs and lessen restrictions
somewhere else across the board, we should do so.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Foster, did you want to weigh in?
Mr. Foster. Sure, might as well while I am here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Foster. I don't know. I haven't studied the
reenrollment issue, but while you were gone, we were talking a
little bit about CRP with Senator Lincoln. A lot of our land,
as you probably know, in Idaho and out West, went into CRP. It
had to be highly erodible cropland. Some of that ground should
have probably never been farmed in the first place and it was
taken out and grass with very few shrubs and trees for species
conservation benefits.
I would think those wanting to reenroll, might be provided
some incentives to do some additional things or plant some
shrubs and trees to benefit key species. We need to work
together on this rather than just reenroll them and do the same
thing. In emergency situations, they graze CRP, in drought
conditions and situations like that. If we continue to have
requirements for emergency grazing of CRP, possibly we could
have some requirements that would benefit habitat for key.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Searchinger?
Mr. Searchinger. If I could clarify, our specific position,
which we share with these other groups like the Farm Bureau, is
that if there are automatic reenrollments, they should be
highly selective, for example, where you could benefit a rare
species or a critical duck habitat.
There is also a related issue of the fact that there are 22
million acres that are expiring in 2007 and 2008, and our
recommendation there is to have a series of short extensions so
that you can even out that hump. And one reason not to
automatically reenroll everything is that there are a lot of
farmers who may be interested in enrolling land who aren't in
the program right now and there has to be some fairness to
them, as well, to be able to compete.
Senator Crapo. Those are all good points.
Mr. Foster, let me turn to you for a moment. In your
testimony, you state that the press of the Clean Water Act
business, mainly completing the TMDLs, is limiting NRCS's
ability to carry out its mandated 2002 farm bill
responsibilities. If it is struggling with the basics, then my
guess is that the NRCS isn't able to innovate to address the
ESA issues very well, either, at this point. Is that a fair
assessment on my part?
Mr. Foster. Senator, I think they are doing all they can.
They take their reponsibilities very seriously. In my other
testimony, I talked about a programmatic biological assessment,
this would help them a lot. It is just overwhelming. The farm
bill mandates that they have to do, and then in our State, as
you know, in 1995, having 8 years to deal with 962 water bodies
and cover them by TMDL is----
Senator Crapo. It is daunting.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. It is shocking. Our partnership
has leveraged everything we can between State and Federal funds
and help and I think we are keeping our heads above water, but
it is a pretty tough thing to do.The NRCS is making an effort,
but they are just overwhelmed. What we have done through some
cooperative agreements with NRCS, the Soil Conservation
Commission and Districts is leverage our funding to help in the
field and EQIP work in TMDL areas so we are kind of doubling up
on things rather than going our own seperate ways.
Senator Crapo. So they are where they can. Certainly, these
folks are doing yeoman's service and we owe them all a great
vote of thanks. I am just convinced that we are loading so much
on that we aren't necessarily able to get the focus on some of
these new ideas when we have got so much existing programmatic
requirement that is taking up all of the effort and time.
Mr. Foster. That is part of the reason, Senator, for a
programmatic biological assessment. NRCS is now grouping BAs
together where they are similar. But if we do practice after
practice, the same thing over and over, why is consultation
still necessary? The Fish and Wildlife Service can approve work
in State. NOAA Fisheries, must approve all work out of the
State, which may take several months to get approved and
returned.
Senator Crapo. Right. One other question, primarily because
I am so proud of it, I would like to hear a little bit more
about the successes that you have had with the Upper Salmon
River Watershed Project. I think it is a good example of the
kind of thing we need to be doing nationwide. Could you just
share a little bit more about that with us?
Mr. Foster. I think the USBWP has been a pretty good
effort. I have to apologize, Senator, because the information I
had from the start was to talk mainly about changes in the new
farm bill to better address some of the ESA issues and species
conservation. I haven't talked a lot about our successes and it
is not true that we haven't had successes. I think the Upper
Salmon Basin Watershed Project is a good example of a very
successful project.
The Governor established the USBWP and assigned leadership
to the Soil Conservation Commission and Districts. There has
been a lot of good cooperative work up there. BPA funds have
been used to do a lot of fishery habitat-type work with the
landowners, Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, and numerous other agencies to make habitat improvements.
They have installed fish screens so that the fish don't get
out in farmers' delivery systems and trapped and killed out on
their fields. There has been a good cooperative effort with
landowners and everyone. Some landowners have even used some of
their own water, as flush flows at certain times to make sure
fish migrations might take place. I really think in some cases,
we are getting to where we may have more habitat up there than
we have fish, but----
Senator Crapo. Well, we are going to try to figure that
out. Please take my congratulations back to all the folks there
in the watershed project because I want them to know that what
they are doing is not only helpful there, but it is giving us a
good model here nationally to look at. I am a strong believer
in collaborative efforts and this is the kind of thing where--I
can remember not too many years back when the community there
was fraught with conflict, the threat from year after year, one
aspect or another of Federal law just hammering the community
on an economic basis. Instead of reacting in the wrong way, the
community came together, developed a collaborative approach to
these issues, is working closely with all of the Federal,
State, and other agencies, and really is doing a tremendous job
there. So please take my congratulations back to them.
Mr. Foster. I will. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Searchinger, what do you think is the
right balance between land acquisition, regulation, and
incentives? And where I am going here is, isn't it time--I am
not saying that we need to stop any of our current efforts, but
isn't it time that we increased the focus on incentives?
Mr. Searchinger. Absolutely, and I think you have been a
leader on this issue. If I take the grand historical
perspective, this country has had two major focuses in
conservation. It has had the public land acquisition focus that
goes back to the late part of the 19th century and Teddy
Roosevelt. It has had the stewardship regulatory side, or the
regulatory side of things. But private land is 70 percent of
the land in the United States and it is almost inconceivable
that we have put as little focus as we have on providing
incentives to private land stewardship. It is just
extraordinary.
It has got to be one of the three pillars of conservation
and I think it is a great opportunity and the agency that can
probably do that is USDA, because the vast majority of private
landowners are farmers, ranchers, or private forest owners and
USDA has the infrastructure for working with those people and
we don't want to duplicate it.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I just have to say, I completely
agree and I hope we can get that idea well understood
throughout the communities.
You propose up to 100 percent cost sharing under EQIP for
situations in which landowners are willing to enhance their
habitat for endangered species. Tell me what kind of a priority
system you would recommend in that context for allocating the
available funding.
Mr. Searchinger. One of the reasons that EQIP hasn't done
as much for endangered species is that there have been some
mechanical problems in the ranking criteria. To give you some
example, most ranking criteria put everything in one ranking
system. So if you were going to do a manure management
proposal, you could beat out another manure management proposal
if you did a small wildlife project that really wasn't worth
much but you got points for wildlife. So you had situations
where the wildlife dollars were going to help producers who
really wanted money for manure management beat out other manure
management producers not because it was a very valuable
wildlife proposal.
Now, NRCS is going to come out with some national templates
not to mandate selection criteria, but to show mechanically how
it can be done better, and one of the goals should be to have
separate ranking criteria. So maybe only 5 percent or 10
percent of the money in a State will go into wildlife, but at
least it will be evaluated against other wildlife proposals.
So the first thing is to have separate ranking criteria so
that you can say, among the wildlife proposals, what are the
most valuable to address the real key potential regulatory
concerns that we will have? That is the first issue.
The second issue is probably to do that at the State level.
Most money now is distributed at the county level, but county
offices tend not to have a lot of biological expertise. So at
the State level, you get more intermingling of multiple
agencies and more opportunities for coordination.
And then the third thing I would say is this focus on
coordinated projects is really critical. I think, for example,
in Texas, they have set aside money at the State level for
certain kinds of wildlife projects and one of them we are
hoping this year is going to be more EQIP money that could help
Steve Manning do the kinds of things that he is doing. And what
that does is it permits a--when you ask Mr. Manning how come he
has been so successful, it is because they have so many people
working on things at the same time. They have, in fact,
developed a programmatic Section 7 consultation so they don't
have any ESA issues anymore related to that work. If we know we
are going to have a certain amount of money, we can hire the
biologists to deliver the technical assistance, and because we
have great farm leadership, I mean, that is critical, and Steve
has created the goodwill and the partnership has created the
goodwill so more landowners are interested.
So that is really the way to do it, is to say, hey,
whatever the amount of money is right, we are going to put that
money, if we can, focus it on the particular kind of effort and
the particular kind of place to benefit, in his case, two
species of birds, and I think we can do an enormous amount of
benefit if we do it that way.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. That is kind of a good segue, Mr.
Manning, into the questions I wanted to ask you.
A number of you have mentioned the need to cut paperwork
and Mr. Searchinger just mentioned your Section 7 consultation
successes. How were you able to achieve the Section 7
consultation on your brush clearing program?
Mr. Manning. Well, Senator, we actually did two Section 7s.
When we started our project, we were asked to identify some key
problems, key issues that needed to be resolved, and one of
those obviously was the disconnect at that time between NRCS
and Fish and Wildlife Service. I am sure Texas is not the only
place that exists.
We knew that if we were going to be able to tap into those
farm bill dollars, we had to get that resolved, and the
situation was NRCS, there was some level of distrust between
NRCS and the Service and so they just--there was kind of a
standoff in which the NRCS, rather than going to consultation,
just avoided any areas for technical assistance or cost share
where there may be the potential for those endangered habitats
to occur. Well, that is all real good, but they were ignoring a
huge portion of the State that desperately needed those funds
and that assistance.
And so one of the things we did with Leon River, with our
project, is we put together that core group of NGO's to find a
way to do a consultation and we did something that was kind of
outside the box. Our NGO's for that consultation were Texas
Farm Bureau, Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers, Texas Wildlife
Association, Environmental Defense, Nature Conservancy, Audubon
Texas, Central Texas Cattle Association. Then we pulled in the
State agencies that were partners and then the two Federal
agencies and we went into an informal setting, just got in a
room with everybody, rolled up our sleeves, and started talking
about what do we need to do.
We weren't in a formal setting. There was no pressure. It
was just trying to work out, basically in this case, the best
management practices, management guidelines that we could use
to do brush control and habitat management in those occupied
habitats and get everybody to agree, and we did. Over about a
4-month period, we worked all that out, got to the point where
we were in agreement, and once we did, then we got NRCS at the
State level to request a formal consultation.
Now, the only other consultation I had ever been involved
in was part of the grazing lease on Fort Hood. I saw the Army
go through a very painful four-and-a-half year consultation
between the Army and Fish and Wildlife Service.
But what we did is because we had everything worked out--
and remember, Fish and Wildlife Service was at the table in
that informal setting--we were able to develop a product that
everybody was in agreement in, the environmental community, ag
community, wildlife community, everybody was in agreement in
that product so that when NRCS did request formal consultation,
the Service cranked it out in 68 days. Nobody had ever heard of
that. That was for two counties.
Then we turned right around, because some of our State
leadership--Susan Collins, our Commissioner of Agriculture,
pretty strong in that area, wanted to take that model and do a
Statewide programmatic, and so she brought together that same
group. She actually referred to Leon River in her letter out to
the stakeholders from a Statewide effort. She convened that
first meeting in April of 2004, sat down the same basic group
of folks and went through that process again. We basically cut
the State in half because we figured out that for the four
species, they were all West of I-35. We still had to deal with
about 29 listed species, including our two birds, but also some
plants that I had never heard of before, and we worked through
all of that in about four to 5 months. And then again, we got
NRCS to go back into consultation, and again, they turned out a
Statewide programmatic consultation in about 62 days.
Now, we could probably roll at the chance and go home and
call that a success, because that was a huge accomplishment for
us, and the key to that was that core group of NGO's with some
local, up to county, up to regional, at the State level
involvement, and then let those folks leverage out and
communicate to the State and Federal agencies they were most
comfortable with.
When you can get the Farm Bureau and Environmental Defense,
and it takes a lot of association, and Cattle Raisers to get to
an agreement, there is a huge amount of energy that comes off
of that and we made good advantage of it.
Senator Crapo. This sounds to me like another tremendous
success story of how collaboration works, making sure that the
right people are at the table. I am assuming this, but I want
to make sure we get it on the record, you mentioned that at the
outset, there was a little bit of distrust between some of the
agency personnel. I suspect that may have even been true with
some of the NGO's and some of the others. But I am also
guessing that by the time you were done, those trust levels had
been significantly enhanced and people were very--they had
developed personal relationships and they had developed trust,
is that correct?
Mr. Manning. Absolutely.
Senator Crapo. That means that the next vote has started,
those buzzers you have been hearing, and so I am going to have
to wrap up pretty quickly here.
I just want to toss out one other general question here and
it has to do with collaboration. It seems to me that we have a
model of the Upper Salmon River Watershed Project. We have the
model of what you are doing there in Texas, and I could go
through another dozen different types of circumstances around
the country where we are using what I call a collaborative
effort, but basically the effort to bring people from all the
different perspectives to the table, private sector as well as
government, and have them develop the relationships and
approach the issues in a way that will help find solutions. I
am a big proponent of the notion that if we do that, the
outcome will be better for the environment and better for
economic interests.
The idea of collaboration is certainly not new, but I will
tell you, it is really hard to get traction at a legislative
level here in Washington on that kind of thing because it
involves reforming the way we approach decisionmaking. It might
involve some amendments to the Endangered Species Act, to the
farm bill, to NEPA, to some of the other process-oriented
requirements of the law, and that immediately raises the
distrust levels that we talked about earlier.
Again, I am really short on time here. I have only got just
a couple of minutes before I have to wrap up, but I would
appreciate any comments that any of you may have in terms of
how you think we might be able to politically develop the
momentum that will enable us to redirect our efforts in a more
collaborative way in terms of environmental decisionmaking. Any
thoughts on that? I know that is a big question for a couple of
minutes.
Mr. Searchinger. This is a very big question. I will want
to think about it and talk to your staff more about it. I will
give you a small answer, because I have a small amount of time.
There is a provision in the farm bill that hasn't been much
implemented called Partnerships and Cooperation, which was
designed essentially to facilitate these cooperations. It is
similar to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which
allowed States to submit plans, coordinated plans to use CRP in
collaboration with State efforts.
No matter what statutorily happens, one of the great things
to encourage people to work together is the prospect that there
is money available if they do that, and so I think that getting
behind making the Partnerships and Cooperation section actually
happen work better, it includes the authority to change rules
in order to--in fact, to simplify, effectually, paperwork in
order to accomplish a particular plan that has been
collaboratively agreed upon.
I think even at the State level, States could take
advantage of that authority and that might be something you
could encourage NRCS to more fully implement.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. I am going to have to
not let the rest of you jump in just because of time.
First of all, I am confident that we will be sending you
some written questions and would encourage you to respond in
writing. I would also appreciate your thoughts on this question
in writing if you have any further thoughts.
Mr. Searchinger, you did indicate one thing, and one of the
things I have noticed as we have gone through many different
types of collaborative efforts is that in the end, when we come
together on solutions, there is almost always a need for money
or resources to implement the solutions, which is one of the
reasons why I think that the conservation title of the farm
bill is so key to helping us to move into a more incentive-
oriented decisionmaking process in terms of species recovery.
But in any event, I want to thank all of the witnesses
today for sticking with us through this. Your testimony has
been very helpful, not only your written testimony, but your
oral presentations and what I expect to receive from you on any
written questions we send to you. I assure you that we are
going to continue our effort to try to make the maximum out of
this opportunity that we have with such a tremendous vehicle,
that is the conservation title of the farm bill.
With that, I am going to conclude this hearing. I apologize
I won't be able to stick around and visit because I am going to
have to rush over there and finish the last couple of these
votes. But again, I thank you all for sticking with us and
thank you for coming today.
This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 26, 2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.052
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 26, 2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.071
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
July 26,2005
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7639.078