U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–068 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–317

STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NEEDS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE STATES IN CONSERVING THE

NATION’S WILDLIFE

APRIL 10, 2001—RENO, NV

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman

HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

DAVE CONOVER, Republican Staff Director

ERIC WASHBURN, Democratic Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

APRIL 10, 2001—RENO, NV

OPENING STATEMENT

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada .................................. 1

WITNESSES

Abbey, Bob, director, Nevada Bureau of Land Management ............................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73

Collard, Leta, Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Elko, NV ................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Crawforth, Terry, administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife ............................ 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Denio, Karen, acting state executive director, Farm Service Agency, U.S.

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81

Dupree, Elsie, president, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Reno, NV ....................... 16

Article, NWF Works on Sage Grouse Booklet ................................................ 66

Letter, Nevada Wildlife Federation ................................................................ 64

Memorandum, Elsie Dupree ............................................................................ 67

Graham, Gary, division director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Service ................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

Henley, Don, Caddo Lake Institute, Karmack, TX ............................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Johnson, Larry, president, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, Reno, Nevada ............ 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Murphy, Dennis D., Ph.D., Biodiversity Initiative, University of Nevada,

Reno, NV ............................................................................................................... 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Pearson, Nick, State conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83

Sandlin, Hon. Max, U.S. Representative from the State of Texas ...................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Wallace, A. Brian, chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California .............. 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74

Williams, Robert D., field supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office ............. 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

(III)

(1)

STATE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NEEDS

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

RENO, NV.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. at the Bartley

Ranch, Reno, NV, Hon. Harry Reid (acting chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senator Reid.

Also present: Representative Sandlin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator REID. The U.S. Senate committee is called to order. I’m

very happy to convene this hearing. I’m fortunate that during my

entire time in the U.S. Senate that I’ve been able to serve on this

committee. I’m fortunate for 17 days this year that I was the chairman of the committee. Now I have a great working relationship

with the chairman of the committee, Bob Smith, from New Hampshire.

The wildlife conservation successes that we have had in Nevada

are, in a great deal, owed to a number of people in this room. I

have worked with many of you on the Truckee, Walker Lake, Lake

Tahoe, and Lake Mead. We have also worked together to restore

several Lahontan Trout, desert Tortoise, and Nevada’s other sensitive wildlife.

I’m very grateful today to have with us a Member of Congress,

Congressman Sandlin, from eastern Texas. He is a fourth-term

Member of Congress. He is a friend of Don Henley. Don Henley

graces us with his presence today. I’ve told him personally, and I’ll

say to him publicly, it’s very good for our country and it speaks

well of him that he would lend his prestige, his notoriety and his

fame to something like the environment. I’m very grateful to him

for being here.

This hearing in Nevada is being held here rather than in Washington, DC, not just because it would be more convenient for the

people that I want to hear from today, but it’s being held here because I think it’s symbolic of how we need to work on our wildlife

conservation efforts. We need to come to the people doing the work

on the ground to find out what works for them. Without the support of our sportsmen and women, local conservationists and university scientists, State agency people, and the local officials of our

Federal agencies, conservation efforts would never get off the

ground.

2

So your input is critical because this year Congress will consider

at least two conservation initiatives that could benefit State of Nevada if we work together.

The first Act is what we refer to as CARA, Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Most of you worked hard last year to see that

CARA was enacted. We’re going to take another try at it this year.

The House recently reintroduced CARA, and soon I will introduce

the parts of that bill that are in this committee’s jurisdiction.

The bill will provide funding for State wildlife conservation, education and recreation initiatives. It will also provide funding for endangered species conservation, and also conservation efforts that

are designed to remove the need to list species. I know that many

of you are involved in the effort to protect the sage grouse so that

we don’t need to list the sage grouse. I think we should be supporting proactive conservation efforts like that. It’s my hope that

between the efforts in the House and in the Senate, we will be able

to pass a CARA bill this year.

Another conservation initiative Congress will take up this year

is the Farm bill. While some people overlook it, the Farm bill

brings about $2 billion in annual conservation spending into play.

Nevada doesn’t see much of that money, and I’d like that to

change. This is spending that must take place. This isn’t discretionary. This is mandatory spending. Nevada doesn’t see much of

that money, but that’s going to change. I’m happy to see that

Karen Denio and Nick Pearson are here today, and they will talk

with us about those programs.

It’s my hope that I will have all of your help as we move forward

in those two conservation initiatives to craft programs and policies

that work for us.

Again, I thank each of you for being here today. We have staff

from my Washington, DC committee that are here with me and

local staff. We will prepare a report. We will circulate it to the

other members of the committee. There are other hearings taking

place around the country. We will assimilate, coordinate, and correlate all this information, hopefully in the process of bringing

more legislation to Washington that is better than what we have

done in the past.

We have, as I have indicated, a number of good witnesses. We

chose this very scenic place to do this hearing rather than some

building in downtown Reno for the obvious reasons. It’s nice to be

here and see what can be at a State park, to show off a little bit

of what we have is outside.

We’re going to first hear from Congressman Max Sandlin from

Texas. We’re happy to hear from him. He resides in Marshal, TX.

We will hear next from Don Henley who, as we know, is a noted

singer. His initial fame came with the historic Eagles group, and

he has gone out on his own and has done well. He is representing

the Caddo Lake Institute of Karnack, TX.

We will then hear from Leta Collord from Northeastern Nevada

Stewardship Group in Elko. We will hear from Larry Johnson who

has a great story to tell, and then we will hear from Nevada Wildlife Federation through its representative, Elsie Dupree.

Congressman Sandlin.

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX SANDLIN,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. SANDLIN. Thank you, Senator, for your invitation to be here

today and for the hospitality of your office and staff. You have been

very kind to us while we have been here. It’s a pleasure to be here

in beautiful Nevada—‘‘Nevada’’ as you say. Excuse me.

Senator REID. Let met interrupt and tell you that people are very

conscious about how we pronounce ‘‘Nevada.’’ But I’m always reminded of a lawyer in Nevada that has made more money than any

other lawyer probably is a lawyer by the name of Neil Gallats. Neil

Gallats is from New York, and he still pronounces Nevada as ‘‘Nevada,’’ but it hasn’t bothered the jury since then.

Mr. SANDLIN. You say ‘‘tomato’’ and I say ‘‘tomato.’’ It’s a pleasure being in Nevada. Both Nevada and Texas share

an interest in the environment and the outdoors and wildlife. I am

proud to be speaking to the men and women who are working to

introduce Federal legislation in order to sustain our State and local

wildlife conservation efforts across the Nation. We appreciate your

help, Senator, in that area and other areas in that Senate.

Last October, I had the pleasure of participating in the dedication of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Karnack, TX.

This was just one step in an ongoing effort to create an educational

and environmental legacy out of a former army ammunition plant.

The Caddo Lake Institute is a most unusual success story formed

from a public-private partnership and the tireless labor of the local

community.

The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant formerly employed over

3,000 people. This plant manufactured explosives and was a selfcontained city. For over 50 years, LAAP supplied explosives to our

Nation’s armed forces across the globe. First opened in World War

II, LAAP shipped flares, rockets and shells to armed conflicts in

Vietnam, Korea and Operation Desert Storm. At the end of the cold

war, the plant became responsible for the destruction of the nuclear missile engines it once built. Soviet inspectors watched on as

over 700 Pershing missile engines were fastened into concrete

cages and fired as their hulls were crushed.

When the U.S. Army and Monsanto Chemical officials first made

their way to Caddo Lake in the early 1940’s, they undoubtedly noticed it’s beauty. It’s virtually impossible to overlook the pristine

natural habitat complete with tall pines and exotic cypress trees

draped in Spanish moss. We have a picture over here for people to

see. Those are the cypress trees and Spanish moss that looks much

like you think of Florida and Louisiana. It’s just a beautiful pristine part of Texas.

What those officials did not realize is that this place, soon to be

known as Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, sat on a wetland of

international importance with a national treasure of native plant

and wildlife species.

While the ammunition plant successfully met its manufacturing

demands, it left behind a legacy of pollution and contamination.

Longhorns’ doors have been closed for many years, but its byproducts continue to pollute the soil and water of Caddo Lake. Further,

asbestos is prominent in the standing buildings of the now defunct

ammunition plant. I grew up hunting and fishing on that lake.

4

There are many, many sorts of species of fish, animals and plants,

white bass, black bass, perch, crappie. Many mornings as you’re

cruising you will see the alligators and snapping turtles sunning in

the breaks there in the cypress, and Bald Eagles are prevalent

there. Every sort of water fowl that you ever seen and some you

may not have seen are there.

Early in the morning it’s much like the beginning of time when

you’re there, just a very pristine national treasure. When the Army

ammunition plant made its manufacturing demands it left behind

a legacy of pollution as you might imagine. Doors have been closed

there for several years but they have a byproduct of pollution as

a result of manufacturing explosives.

Further, the asbestos is an important product of the buildings

that are there. Less than 15 percent of the total land appears to

be affected, and now it’s undergoing management clean-up by the

U.S. Army. We look forward to working with them in a positive

way.

Things in that area would probably have continued to deteriorate

if it weren’t for local citizens, pleas from several colleges and universities and the presence of the Caddo Lake Institute. The Caddo

Lake Institute was established by Mr. Don Henley and we are honored to have him with us today.

As early as 1993 we had several local schools, such as Wiley College, which is the oldest historically black college west of the Mississippi in that county. Wiley College, Stephen F. Austin State University and East Baptist University actively lobbied for Federal

and international recognition for the refuge as well as funding for

an educational institute.

By 1996 Caddo Lake was designated a ‘‘Ramsar Wetland of

International Importance’’ and was officially recognized as an ecosystem essential for maintaining biodiversity. Caddo Lake was also

given Resource Category 1 status by the Fish and Wildlife Service,

it’s highest classification of wetlands.

Dwight Shellman, president of the Caddo Lake Institute, conceived and implemented the plan for local involvement. Robin and

Betty Holder who live in Karnack, TX, and own the local grocery

store, went with Mr. Shellman, who is also here today, to look at

other wildlife refuges and examine plans for environmentally sound

reuse of abandoned war industry land. Both Robin and Betty agree

that any other use of the plant would be a waste and are excited

about its future. Dwight Shellman wanted to be here but he had

a family emergency. He has been the organizer and the person who

has done the leg work to implement Mr. Henley’s vision in this

area. Mr. Holder and others in the community I have spoken with

feel it would be a waste if we didn’t do something to preserve this

site.

Currently, land has been privately leased for the Caddo Lake Institute campus. We envision a collaborative atmosphere created by

our community leaders for visiting research scientists, graduate

students and echo-tourists. This atmosphere will contribute to the

creation and evolution of the first U.S. Regional Ramsar Wetland

Science Center, which will honor international wetland standards.

The higher education facility will conduct research on better forestry and wetland practices. This research will not only advance

5

agricultural practices but also improve wetland preservation and

conservation throughout the Nation. It is important that we facilitate the implementation of this plan with Federal funding to help

build the research center.

The creation of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge provides a rare opportunity to coordinate echo-tourism, scientific research and economic growth. Our conservation initiatives are in

place and our local interest is sustained. The Wildlife Conservation

bill would support our conservation plan and strategy at Caddo

Lake. I am pleased to be a part of this effort and will continue to

work to make this plan a reality. So after almost a decade of an

exceptional effort represented here today and by Mr. Henley’s vision, we seek your help and guidance, Senator, in completing the

third part of the original local vision, which is the appropriation of

the Department of Interior funding or our Ramsar Science and

Education Center in Longhorn, TX.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to be with you, Senator, and Mr. Henley. If there’s nothing further, then I’ll turn it

over to our local favorite, Mr. Don Henley.

[The prepared statement of Representative Max Sandlin follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX SANDLIN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE

STATE OF TEXAS

It is a pleasure to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at this Wildlife Conservation Hearing. I am proud to be speaking to the men

and women who are working to introduce Federal legislation in order to sustain our

State and local wildlife conservation efforts across the Nation.

Last October, I had the pleasure of participating in the dedication of the Caddo

Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Uncertain, Texas. This was just one step in an

ongoing effort to create an educational and environmental legacy out of a former

army ammunition plant. The Caddo Lake Institute is a most unusual success story

formed from a public-private partnership and the tireless labor of the local community.

The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) formerly employed over 3,000 people. This plant manufactured explosives and was a self-contained city. For over 50

years, LAAP supplied explosives to our Nation’s armed forces across the globe. First

opened in World War II, LAAP shipped flares, rockets and shells to armed conflicts

in Vietnam, Korea and Operation Desert Storm. At the end of the cold war, the

plant became responsible for the destruction of the nuclear missile engines it once

built. Soviet inspectors watched on as over 700 Pershing missile engines were fastened into concrete cages and fired as their hulls were crushed.

When the U.S. Army and Monsanto Chemical officials first made their way to the

banks of Caddo Lake in the early 1940’s, they undoubtedly noticed its beauty. It

is virtually impossible to overlook the pristine natural habitat complete with tall

pines and exotic cypress trees draped in Spanish moss (picture). What these officials

did not realize is that this place, soon to be known as Longhorn Army Ammunition

Plant, sat on a wetland of international importance with a national treasure of native plant and wildlife species.

While the ammunition plant successfully met its manufacturing demands, it left

behind a legacy of pollution and contamination. Longhorns’ doors have been closed

for many years, but its by-products continue to pollute the soil and water of Caddo

Lake. Further, asbestos is prominent in the standing buildings of the now defunct

ammunition plant.

Things would probably have continued to deteriorate had it not been for the efforts of local citizens, pleas from several colleges and universities and the presence

of the Caddo Lake Institute. The Caddo Lake Institute was established by Mr. Don

Henley and we are honored to have him with us today.

As early as 1993, local schools such as Wiley College, Stephen F. Austin State

University and East Baptist University actively lobbied for Federal and international recognition for the refuge as well as funding for an educational institute.

In 1996, Caddo Lake was designated a ‘‘Ramsar Wetland of International Importance’’ and was officially recognized as an ecosystem essential for maintaining bioVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
6

diversity. Caddo Lake was also given Resource Category 1 status by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)—its highest classification of wetlands.

Dwight Shellman, President of the Caddo Lake Institute, conceived and implemented the plan for local involvement. Robin and Betty Holder, who live in Uncertain and own the local grocery store, went with Mr. Shellman, who is also here

today, to look at other wildlife refuges and examine plans for environmentally sound

reuse of abandoned war industry land. Both Robin and Betty agree that any other

use of the plant would be a waste and are excited about its future.

Currently, land has been privately leased for the Caddo Lake Institute campus.

We envision a collaborative atmosphere created by our community leaders for visiting research scientists, graduate students and echo-tourists. This atmosphere will

contribute to the creation and evolution of the first U.S. Regional Ramsar Wetland

Science Center, which will honor international wetland standards. The higher education facility will conduct research on better forestry and wetland practices. This

research will not only advance agricultural practices but also improve wetland preservation and conservation throughout the Nation. It is important that we facilitate

the implementation of this plan with Federal funding to help build the research center.

The creation of the Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge provides a rare opportunity to coordinate echo-tourism, scientific research and economic growth. Our conservation initiatives are in place and our local interest is sustained. The Wildlife

Conservation bill would support our conservation plan and strategy at Caddo Lake.

I am pleased to be a part of this effort and will continue to work to make this plan

a reality.

Senator REID. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DON HENLEY, CADDO LAKE INSTITUTE,

KARMACK, TX

Mr. HENLEY. Thank you for allowing me to address the committee today. First, I want to thank Congressman Sandlin for his

positive efforts on behalf of this local initiative. His introduction

and his photograph provide an excellent overview of our vision. I

also thank the committee members for hearing our concerns about

a possible need for oversight and support for community-based initiatives that fulfill important Federal conservation commitments.

My remarks will address, not just the local, but also the national

and global conservation benefits that could result from congressional support for The Caddo Lake Ramsar Wetlands Science Center Program.

However, my comments about our Caddo Lake program may

apply equally well to other community initiatives that are also fulfilling important Federal conservation commitments. One example

is the Elko habitat restoration program in your State of Nevada,

Senator Reid. My conclusion will note some features and needs

which both programs seem to share.

We have provided the committee with a pamphlet about our

Caddo Lake initiative. The front cover contains the Caddo Lake

scene Congressman Sandlin showed you, prefaced by the phrase,

‘‘A Woods Hole for Wetlands.’’ That phrase was coined in a local

editorial several years ago, referring to the famous Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. This editorial is in the

pamphlet. Together the picture and the phrase show the reason for,

and the essence of, this local vision. This booklet also contains

schematic plans for the Center’s campus, the office building for our

Research Coordination Network, interpretive and accessory support

buildings. A possible hemispheric mission is noted in the letter

from John Rogers, Fish and Wildlife Service. Finally, the pamphlet

contains the 1999 Costa Rica Conference Resolution of the Ramsar

7

Nations, which endorses powerful guidance to maximize the involvement of local communities in management of Ramsar wetland

sites. The resolution notes that the approved guidance was coauthored by the Caddo Lake Institute, among others. Thus, this

rural Texas initiative has already influenced both the local and

international practice wetland conservation.

The Caddo Lake Ramsar Science Center is a proposed public/private partnership between the institute as the local facility manager

and the program coordinator, and two Department of Interior agencies which have special expertise.

These Federal agencies are: The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research Center of Lafayette, LA, and the International Affairs Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Both agencies have been our informal partners at

Caddo Lake since 1993.

The purpose of this Ramsar Center is to institutionalize a brilliant community achievement that could light the way for other

communities. The center is charged with demonstrating nothing

less than the ‘‘exemplary fulfillment’’ of an important U.S. treaty

commitment, specifically the Ramsar Convention on ‘‘Wetlands of

International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat.’’ Our

national credibility in keeping this commitment underpins our ability to ask other nations to manager wisely the wetlands in their

parts of our common flyways. In addition, the Caddo Lake Ramsar

Center fulfills an official pledge by the U.S. Government and the

Caddo Lake Institute to Brisbane, Australia.

At Brisbane we jointly pledged to establish at Longhorn the first

U.S. Regional Ramsar Center. To assure the availability of the facility and fulfill the pledge, the Caddo Lake Institute leased a

1,400-acre old growth forest at Longhorn for conservation research

purposes, as well as a 14-acre campus and buildings for eventual

renovation. We originally pledged $100,000 to this purpose. We

have incurred expenses greatly in excess of that amount to fill our

share of the Brisbane pledge.

The purpose of this requested appropriation is to augment the

Department of Interior’s budget for our partner agencies to underwrite the costs of the center and its programs for community

members and scientists. Together we will create, operate, and demonstrate the Caddo Lake Wetland Management Plan, as an exemplar of the best Ramsar guidance. The renovation plan contemplates that the facility will be a earning venue. It will include

powerful modeling tools for this wetland and its watershed. Interpretative and outreach programs will showcase the practical realities of a community-based wetland management program, and its

watershed science foundation.

Because of its wetland science expertise and proximity to Lafayette, LA, we think the National Wetlands Research Center or

NWRC, is the logical agency to receive a budget augmentation to

fund and provide oversight for the Caddo Lake Ramsar Center program. Although we know it to be an excellent science agency, we

believe NWRC is ‘‘fiscally underappreciated’’ within the Federal

budget. It deserves both the funding and the credit it will earn by

congressional augmentation to provide its expertise to local Ramsar

communities, a task we know that NWRC does well. FWS InterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
8

national Affairs, which executes our government’s Ramsar obligations, would be reimbursed for its cost of providing Ramsar oversight and U.S. policy coordination. We understand that FWS may

also wish to use some Center resources to assist other Ramsar sites

whose requests for help are currently underfunded. This new assistance capacity might include training at Caddo Lake and support for their delegations of our citizens and scientists who visit

other wetland communities in response to their requests for advice

or assistance.

We use the term ‘‘budget augmentation’’ purposefully. It would

be counterproductive to compromise the historic missions of NWRC

or FWS International Affairs by reallocating to our program any of

their shrinking resources. NWRC would reimburse itself and other

Federal agencies from this budget augmentation for direct Federal

agency costs as at Caddo Lake. The Caddo Lake communities have

made a solid beginning in showing that rural communities have

the potential to manage an internationally significant wetland conservation program. Last summer we facilitated a ‘‘Lake Residents

Working Group’’ to master and make local presentations of lake

management science information. Many Working Group participants, like our grocer and guide, Robin Holder, are also members

of key local businesses, community groups, and the local navigation

district. Our initiative formalized the practice of regular consultation with our colleagues of Texas Parks and Wildlife Fisheries and

Waterfowl Divisions, as well as their personnel managing their

Caddo Lake wildlife management area, the original 1993 Ramsar

site. Together they represent the nucleus of the Ramsar-like structure that joins community groups with science experts, a structure

which this appropriation would enable us to formalize to manage

the Caddo Lake Camero Ramsar wetlands.

To assure that there will always be a sound science foundation

for this ambitious program, we have expanded our historic academic monitoring program. It has become a much broader research

coordination network, RCN. The RCN’s mission is to provide scientific information to our communities for exemplary implementation of Ramsar guidance, not just for Caddo Lake, but also as a

model and encouragement to other wetland communities. Today

RCN is composed of scientists from Texas A&M, Stephen F. Austin

State University, East Texas Baptist University, Wiley College,

Panola College, and Louisiana State University, Shreveport. Anticipating that some committee members may be alumni of other

Texas universities, I hasten to note that both University of Texas

and Texas Tech University, among others, have been invited to

participate. This network includes agency scientists from Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

National Wetlands Research Center. Next week the RCN meets in

Jefferson, TX, to review Ramsar guidance and to create interpretative materials about ‘‘what we know’’ and to define research

projects about ‘‘what we need to find out to manage better.’’ These

conference products will become part of the annual research action

agenda for the Center. The Center’s interpretative program will

routinely showcase the findings of this applied research and how

such research informs the management of ‘‘critical issues’’ in the

Caddo Lake Basin. These critical issues include, by way of examVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
9

ple, how to maximize and measure the effectiveness of community

management itself, how to deal with invasive species, how to maintain hydrological integrity, and how to assess and monitor risks to

ecological character. Examples of risks already calling for sound

science are: Measurement of the effects of acids and nutrients and

trace metals from airborne and point sources, including levels of

mercury and other pollutants found in the fish and wildlife

throughout the basin.

Community members of the Lake Management Working Group

will attend the annual RCN conferences as full participants as a

part of their ongoing wetland science orientation. Therefore, much

of the funding will be passed through to implement or showcase the

research action agenda that the RCN will produce annually with

the community management entity. As a result, we expect that the

Center will become a model of an advanced research and educational facility for our participants as well as natural science visitors.

Congressman Sandlin perceptively stated a belief we all share at

Caddo Lake: Like politics, all conservation is ‘‘local’’ conservation— at least the best kind is. That has been true in our case. Contrary

to popular characterizations of rural southeasterners as being

alarmed by local Federal conservation activities, our communities

are proud of the Ramsar designation, understand its value, and use

the designation as a tool for stewardship.

During our preparation for this hearing we noticed that similar

local initiatives were happening with the sage grouse habitat initiative by rural people in Elko, NV. Both programs even share the

feature of local people recruiting two willing Federal agencies. We

suspect that these may be two examples, perhaps of many similar

situations, where extremely important Federal conservation commitments are actually being fulfilled by local initiatives—just because local people decided it was the right thing to do.

But the community-based initiatives, especially those pursuing

Federal conservation commitments, are very vulnerable. The local

effort required to create them is potentially exhausting. If they are

not institutionalized and incorporated into local cultural pride, they

can rapidly deteriorate. They may be undermined by the death, illness, aging, and the personal and family needs of key participants.

Local efforts can also be demoralized by indifference or by ‘‘turf

wars’’ or manipulation by the agencies whose missions they are furthering. They may die simply for want of an appropriate institutional vessel to carry them on. Often these local efforts achieve a

critical mass—and their greatest promise and vulnerability—just

when their need for costly institutionalization is also critical.

Survival of model community conservation initiatives like survival of model conservation bureaucracies, requires funding to pay

for the expertise and institutional structures which foster continuity of programs and personnel, as well as the means to retrieve

essential information to plan, to manage, train, and recruit successors. We believe that helping to institutionalize model community

programs, which fulfill Federal commitment, is justified, especially

where they are funded to support other local efforts.

So we suggest that, as we examine how we accomplish the conservation in this country, we should make a note of and accommoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
10

date the flashes of community brilliance that occur to illuminate

and fulfill a Federal conservation commitment. I believe one such

situation is occurring in our Caddo Lake Ramsar communities.

This significant conservation effort can be continued as a model for

our Nation and the world, especially if the vessel for institutionalization is the local vision, like our vision, of ‘‘A Woods Hole for Wetlands,’’ the Caddo Lake Wetlands Science Center.

Thank you.

Senator REID. Thank you, very much. If you and the Congressman would be patient, we will have a number of other witnesses.

And I have a couple questions that I’d like to ask.

Leta, we are very happy to have you here. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF LETA COLLORD, NORTHEASTERN NEVADA

STEWARDSHIP GROUP, ELKO, NV

Ms. COLLORD. Thank you so much for your efforts and thank you

to the Lake folks for supporting and upholding the principles that

we feel are certainly part and parcel of improving conservation

across the Nation starting at the local level.

My name is Leta Collord and I have lived in northern Nevada

since 1974 and no contest owe county for the past 15 years. Jim,

my husband, and I have certainly been aided by many, many other

people that took a train that was offered by the Bureau of Land

Management called the ‘‘Partnership Series’’ specifically community-based efforts for helping the various communities, and that

was held in 1998. So I have to share that opportunity starting with

many, many other people in our community.

But I’m pleased to be here on behalf of the members of the

Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, and thank you for the

interest that you have in finding improved and workable ways to

restore functioning habitats for species diversification.

The plight of sage grouse is symptomatic. It is an indication that

the ecosystems on which sage grouse depend are not functioning

properly. Therefore, on the grand scale the task is to return

functionality to the ecosystems. The overall objective of our plan is

to create a mosaic of a herb community. The various age classes

and vegetation cover condition represent the various seasonal habitats required by sage grouse for a different phases of their life

cycle.

That’s a statement from the introduction to the draft form of the

Elko County Sage Brush Ecosystem Conservation Plan that is

being developed by our stewardship group out in the Elko area. As

I discussed the organizational principles of the stewardship group

and the scientific aspects of the conservation plan, I hope to demonstrate the fit between our efforts and your proposed funding

sources. Our stewardship group offers two distinct and effective

components for improving the success of conservation planning that

we feel are very important to consider.

First, we are working to mend human relations within our communities. By building working relationships that nurture trust and

mutual respect, the scene is set to walk the land and identify and

solve problems.

Second, our stewardship group stresses the importance of pursuing dynamic science-based information that is objective and

11

thoughtful. We see man stewarding nature through thoughtful pursuits. To serious students, a public land conflict, the fact has become clear that in order to enhance the wholeness of our ecosystems, we must address the political side of public land conflict

as we actively educate people through sound natural resource

science. These components are expressed in our mission statement

and remain unique to community-based planning. We acknowledge

that man is an essential component of the ecosystem and the natural landscape will be healed as relationship building goes forward.

These are the principles that are expressed in the Bureau of

Land Management’s training that they shared with us in October

1998. They are contained in the partnership series entitled ‘‘Community-based Partnerships and Ecosystems for a Healthy Environment.’’ The designers of that more structured program deserve a

great deal of thanks for their wisdom. I think it has been a wonderful introduction into the Bureau’s training.

Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group is a nonprofit organization. We have an active core membership of approximately 60 people, and the citizen membership reflects the general diversity of

communities, and we include all of the judicial State and Federal

agencies for participating there as well as the university and U.S.

Geologica Survey and some others that you don’t normally think of

being in a community situation.

One principle expressed in the partnership series approach that

is important is the ability to recognize troubled areas or emerging

issues in time to nip them in the bud. By doing this you keep them

local and contained. Additionally as the skills and awareness develops, the credibility and general capacities increase. Respect for all

voices is important. By using the knowledge available, most structured and cultural, that exists in the community membership a

healthy exchange of information takes place. Enduring decisions

are a byproduct of participating with a learning attitude and including all voices at that—the initial stage of planning.

Let’s talk a little bit about our conservation plan. I’m amending

my remarks dramatically, and I hope you will have the time to

read my full paper.

After many meetings and discussions the group settled on the

emerging issue of the sage grouse. One thing that is important to

interject at this point is that our group was initiated through a

need to find a better avenue of addressing public lands in general

in Elko County. It was initiated by a great deal of angst over the

amount of money that is being spent on litigation and conflict and

having improved relations and improved sense of habitat and all

those associated things in our area.

So it was out of a general sense of frustration that we decided

to enter into a process, and it wasn’t until after we had been in

that process for a period of time that the emerging issue of sage

grouse is actually what the membership decided they would get involved in.

We reasoned that if we could keep the sage grouse off the endangered species list, that our users of public land in our region would

be benefited. Additionally we, at this time, were led to see that unless we did a multi-species approach plan on a watershed scale

12

level, that we would really not be very effective in furthering our

concerns.

So as a group we identified 11 different areas that would have

potential to affect the sage grouse, and for 6 months those different

topics were addressed in biweekly discussions. Each one of those

topics were flushed out fully with a full participation of representative membership involved in that.

In the fall of 2000 until February 2001, we gathered research

data and put it together and started the writing of the draft plan.

In March our draft plan was presented to the membership, and it’s

going to be circulated throughout our county. It’ll start in the conservation districts and then to all interested groups and folks within the community.

As a citizen participant in this process, it has become just a

strong, strong message to me that relationship building and closeness to the landscape is basic to solving natural resource problems.

You have to retain a system that has transparency and openness

to build the trust that has sorely been absent for so many years.

Working efficiently throughout the time and process, by sharing information and building knowledge base together, our hopes are of

alleviating the rush to litigation and confusion and conflict.

These combined will build a successful long-term regime of respect for land and conservation of the natural environment. The

growing reality of the financial implication for landscape restoration led directly to the need for long-term funding. Ongoing funding

concepts will be needed to accommodate the judicious implementation of the ecosystem restoration. There are already concerns within the participating agencies as to how the full implementation of

monitoring of such plans will be paid for. It’ll take full cooperation

and creative thinking, as well as adequate funding on all of our

parts to see these ambitious plans launched.

I believe that community-based planning efforts such as ours

hold the hope for optimum investment of our Nation’s conservation

dollars and should qualify under the titles you are considering.

In closing I’d like to reiterate that our group is working and talking together, incorporating the principles that we feel are principles

that the Western Governors Association developed a few years,

that you need to attack problems at the base closest to the ground

with a broad base of input and emphasis on science is absolutely

essential.

There is a history of flawed success across our Nation in general

for furthering some of these conservation plans in the field that—

considering this is a new community-based effort, it’s essential to

turning that into more successful history. Watershed planning is

the scale that is appropriate and will be very specific to having our

success.

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you

and we have been honored to be included.

Senator REID. Your full statement will be made part of the

record.

Ms. COLLORD. Thank you.

Senator REID. We will hear from Larry Johnson, president of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. Twenty years ago it was founded and we

will learn why. It’s a great story in and of itself. It’s an impressive

13

organization, and it introduced bighorn sheep to over 40 mountains

in Nevada, and as per our conversation with Don Henley today,

even into Texas.

The organization, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited engages in critical

reseeding efforts to help prevent the spread of cheatgrass and guzzlers. We will learn more about guzzlers today. We will learn they

have sponsored research projects and a multitude of education and

scholarship programs. It’s a great organization. I’m very impressed

with it.

Larry, I have a statement from you that I have read in its entirety. I need you to condense that. If you would do that. I can’t

tell you how grateful I am that you’re here. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF LARRY JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NEVADA

BIGHORNS UNLIMITED, RENO, NV

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for inviting me this afternoon. Again,

I want to, probably, summarize our goals, our accomplishments and

our mission.

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited is a private sportsmen conservation

group. We are approximately 20 years old. We were formed to raise

money for our State division of wildlife for the reintroduction of

bighorn sheep. That was our primary goal in the beginning. Since

then it’s become a separate business on the side almost. We

have——

Senator REID. You’re an engineer. Is that right?

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m an engineering geologist. I have a consulting

geotechnical and construction management firm that we work

around and across the State.

Senator REID. That’s your part-time job.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, as my wife says.

But Nevada Bighorns grew and has had such tremendous success

over the years that our programs have enabled us and dictate to

us, really, that we branch out merely from funding the Division of

Wildlife’s sheep transplant program to all wildlife and habitat and

education and research programs around the State.

We have formed very successful partnerships with State and

Federal agencies, primarily our State Division of Wildlife, Fish and

Wildlife Service, BLM, to accomplish these goals. I probably should

mention a couple of universities in there too.

We have successfully transplanted bighorn sheep to more than

50 mountain ranges in the State of Nevada. It’s a super success

story in that bighorn sheep were once the most numerous big game

animal in Nevada, but almost completely were extinct in the State.

By the turn of the century we had lost all of our Rocky Mountain

bighorns and California Bighorns in the Northwest and the great

majority throughout the remainder of the State. Only small herds

remained in the very southern desert mountains.

Other States and provinces really have been so incredibly generous to us and allowed us to capture and release stock back into

our mountain ranges. We have gotten California Bighorns primarily from British Columbia and Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep

from Colorado, Wyoming, and Alberta and we have used our own

seed populations of desert sheep in the south to spread sheep

across the State.

14

Now we’re in a position, as I was telling the gentleman from

Texas, that our State Division of Wildlife has allowed export of

desert and California sheep back into Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Texas,

as well, again, a widely successful program.

We’re also involved in a little bit of everything, wildlife from elk,

antelope, deer, sage grouse, you name it. We’re pretty much wildlife oriented. Our habitat programs that we have been intimately

involved with over the years are in both funding and providing volunteer labor reseeding projects.

We have lost in excess of 2 million acres of wildlife habitat to

range fires just in the last 2 years. In fact, the majority—our biggest budget expenditures in the last 2 years have been the BLM

and Division of Wildlife, the purchase of seed for reseeding purposes. It is one of those areas that there’s not enough money to go

around. We are woefully short of the needs there.

Water developments. Oftentimes the viable habitat for wildlife is

limited by water, and in Nevada we are, by far, the driest State

in the Union. We, along with our sister groups such as the fraternity of the desert bighorn in conjunction with BLM and the Fish

and Wildlife Service and Division of Wildlife have constructed and

provided volunteer man hours for design, construction, and clearance of water developments across the State. Division of Wildlife

has constructed over 1,000 small game, small wildlife water developments. We are probably in the neighborhood of a few hundred

large game water developments across the State. It’s very costly,

very labor intensive, but extremely successful.

We take only the mountain ranges that will only carry a few

dozen, for instance, Desert bighorn sheep. In the case of the Muddy

Mountains, turn that mountain range into habitat that will support

many hundreds of bighorn sheep.

Senator REID. Are those guzzlers?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. They collect rainwater, snow melt, and collect

those into underground tanks.

Senator REID. To our friends from Texas, you should explain

what a guzzler is.

Mr. JOHNSON. There’s a circle of forums of them. We actually, in

some areas, collect water just from big rock surfaces. We use those

as collection services, big bedrock slabs, and build a little dam and

a ravine and run a pipeline down to those underground tanks that

will sustain wildlife all year round. In areas where we don’t have

big—and those are called ‘‘slick rock collectors.’’ In areas where we

don’t have large bedrock exposure, we build synthetic collection

aprons. In some areas we build corrugated metal collection aprons,

again, wildly successful.

I primarily address game animals, but, quite frankly, everything

from bats to field mice to coyotes to eagles. Everything utilizes and

benefits from this program.

We’re heavily involved in the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project with the Bureau of Land Management and very

similar to what is happening in Elko County. That program is just

getting off the ground and, again, it has funding needs that will

last for decades.

Our education projects, we recognize the need to train good scientists and wildlife managers. For that reason we offer four college

15

scholarships to Nevada high school graduates who are majoring in

big game management. We are also involved in a partnership with

the Division of Wildlife and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in

publishing a magazine that targets fourth graders. It’s call ‘‘Wild

Outdoor World’’ magazine. Our goal is to hit every fourth grader

with this publication five times a year. Again, we do have budget

shortfalls there. We are currently reaching over two-thirds of the

fourth graders statewide.

We have Nevada range camp that takes high school kids primarily from urban areas and exposes them to range management

training in central Nevada. We fund their fees. In fact, we go over

and give them a slide show and a talk when I barbecue a few

steaks and show them the role of sportsmen in wildlife management.

We’re involved in a number of research programs. One of the biggest problems with bighorn sheep populations is their susceptibility

to a bacteria that’s carried by healthy domestic sheep, and which

does not make the sheep ranger a bad guy at all. We are firm believers in multiple use. The rangers belong there every bit as much

as we do. But we’re funding several university studies trying to

find out the answer to the problem. Our animals are presently at

risk, and we’re trying to find scientific solutions to that.

We fund research programs with the Fish and Wildlife Service,

sage grouse. In fact, a number of our directors were just up on the

Sheldon Antelope Refuge capturing and reimplanting them within

the past 2 weeks. We will be back up there after they hatch on the

First of June doing the same thing with the newborn chicks. Again,

it’s an incredibly intriguing research program.

In summary, we receive funding requests for a wide variety of

wildlife and habitat and education research projects from a variety

of schools, universities, State and Federal agencies, and we’re continually involved in the programs of big game fishery, game bird

reintroduction, green stripping, which is protection of existing habitat around the margins of existing range fires, noxious weed controls, habitat restoration, wild horse management, water developments in desert habitats, education and research programs.

Many of the badly needed projects simply can’t be implemented

due to funding shortfalls. We put somewhere around $200,000 of

donated private money back into Nevada on the ground every year.

We have, in our history, donated millions of dollars that have gone

back into Nevada.

Couple that with tens of thousands of volunteer man hours that

have gone into these programs. Our efforts are intense. But, quite

frankly, our efforts are insufficient to meet the needs. Additional

and continual sources of funding would greatly assist our goals,

and that’s enhancement of the wildlife resources across the State.

Senator REID. Congressman Sandlin talked about his obvious

pleasure in hunting and fishing. I want to read a sentence in your

statement which would be made part of the record, your entire

statement. This is a quote from Larry Johnson: ‘‘Nevada Bighorns

Unlimited’s actions prove that true sportsmen are the consummate

conservationists.’’ That’s a very powerful statement. Elsie, we

would like to hear you from you now.

16

STATEMENT OF ELSIE DUPREE, PRESIDENT, NEVADA

WILDLIFE FEDERATION, RENO, NV

Ms. DUPREE. Thank you, and welcome home. I’m president of the

Nevada Wildlife Federation. Nevada Wildlife Federation was

founded over 50 years ago by dedicated sportsmen that wanted to

work on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our membership consists of

affiliate clubs and members. We have nearly 10,000 members. The

public domain lands in Nevada are habitat to many unique plants

and animals. We are very concerned about this habitat. I asked for

comments from affiliates and members for this testimony.

The general concern of all was the lack of funding to take care

of the land. Nevada could use funding to help with long-term

projects to include: Flood protection along our few rivers to protect

habitat, water quality needs improvement as we remove mercury,

arsenic, and other pollutants.

Water issues are a concern on the Stillwater Refuge, and

Lahontan Valley wetlands here in the north. There is a severe

shortage of water to maintain the wetlands. Invasions of noxious

weeds in the riparian areas are stealing valuable water. In the

southern part of the State the Multi-species Conservation Plan,

MSCP, will need funding to continue the goals of recovery efforts

for fish species such as the bonytail chub and the razorback sucker.

Walker Lake is a unique situation where the water coming to the

lake is allocated at 130 percent for irrigation. There is a need for

money for willing sellers to give water rights to the lake. Right now

our Division of Wildlife owns a small amount of water rights that

in dry years does not even reach the lake. This desert lake will die

and the waters where migratory birds rest will not support them

with food.

The Great Basin Initiative is a good start for noxious weed control. There needs to be many educational seminars to educate the

public on the weeds and how to control them. Our State needs to

be fully involved in this problem with funding.

Several affiliates commented on the lack of funding for control of

the wild horses in our State. The herd populations are high and

there is little to no money to bring the herds to set limits of control.

We see damage to the habitat from overgrazing in wildlife areas.

Now that we are in a dry year there is even more damage. We do

not have the manpower to do the monitoring and repair work.

Some of the range workers in our Federal agencies cover more land

in a year than what is in some States in the East. It is impossible

to do a good job with this much territory. Our Federal agencies

need budgets increased to meet this problem. State agencies need

funding for wildlife habitat improvements. There needs to be

grants for conservation groups to help out on projects.

Other affiliates are concerned with the lack of funding to do the

proper studies. We need best science to take the lead in wildlife

issues. There needs to be monitoring, research, and studies to show

that the program will work or has worked. Often funds dry up before this is done.

Education is vital. The NvWF is using time and money to work

with our Northwest Sage Grouse Working Group for this purpose.

We have members from all walks of life making a slide show and

pamphlet to educate the public and the agriculture industry on just

17

what a sage grouse needs to survive and stop the declining trends.

Our Governor has a statewide committee working on the conservation plans to help stop the decline of sage grouse in our State, and

we fully support his efforts.

Other educational programs by NvWF include our annual Wildlife Poster Contest for school age children and Backyard Habitats

for those wanting to help provide habitat for wildlife close to home.

Our affiliate, the Truckee River Flyfishers, started a Trout in the

Classroom program where grade school children raise trout fry in

the classroom and then put them in the river. Ann Privrasky got

this program established so well that our Division of Wildlife is

going to try and get this program in every grade school in the

State.

Education can be as simple as having our city, county, State, and

Federal offices remember that we live in a desert State, and they

should landscape their areas with desert landscaping instead of

green lawns and other high water usage plants. This would educate

the public also. In summary, our State needs guaranteed funding

so we can do long-term planning and repair the damage to the

land.

The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson Funds were so successful in funding State agencies to administrate wildlife programs

that some States and other local governments have never developed other funding sources to manage wildlife programs. A guaranteed CARA-type fund would greatly enhance these programs.

I thank you for your time and the chance to share some information about Nevada. I will gladly try to answer any questions you

may have.

Senator REID. Thank you, very much. Let me also say here to my

friends and our guests from Texas, that that is an interesting

statement. People don’t realize that we are the most mountainous

State in the Union except for Alaska. We have 314 mountain

ranges, we have 32 mountains over 11,000 feet high. Because people come to see the bright lights of Reno and Las Vegas, they tend

not to realize that we have this very, very unique State. We’re the

most urban State in America, more than Texas, Ohio, California,

and New York, because 90 percent of our people live in Reno and

Las Vegas. And so it’s a great State with a lot of diversity.

I am struck by you, Don. It appears that this love affair that you

have for this Caddo Lake—am I saying it right?

Mr. HENLEY. Yes.

Senator REID. It started when you were a boy. Is that true?

Mr. HENLEY. Yes. I grew up near the lake. My father took me

there when I was a kid. I caught my first fish there. It was a bass.

I remember the lure that I used. There’s so much history in this

lake. It’s not only an ecological treasure but it has remained one

because this is a non-industrial part of the country. There’s a lot

of history in this lake. This lake is where Howard Hughes went to

experiment with underwater oil drilling. So there’s still abandoned

wells under the lake that have been capped and they need to be

looked at. That would be a subject of study, how to deal with the

abandoned oil wells under water.

18

There was steamboat traffic on the lake, the Caddo Indians were

quite a civilized Native American tribe with a highly developed system of tools and tribal government.

It’s a wonderful place. You have to see it. I can’t really describe

it. Pictures help, but it really requires a visit. I hope you will come

there some day and visit.

Senator REID. I would love to do that.

It’s my understanding that the education has gone so far that

kids at high school there use a frequently flooded football field to

study wetlands. Is that true?

Mr. HENLEY. That’s right. We made a wetland in a football field,

which is hard to do in Texas. But it was frequently flooded, and

we did that.

Senator REID. If you left no other message to us here in Nevada

than projects work best—in fact, the only way they work is if local

people are involved. If we had come from Washington and said,

‘‘Caddo Lake, we are going to do this’’, it probably wouldn’t have

worked very well, would it?

Mr. HENLEY. No. The people have lived on that lake all their

lives. A lot of elderly people know that lake backward and forwards. It’s filled with swampy backwaters and there are some people who have gone out and have never come back.

We revere and value the knowledge of the local elders because

they know how the lake works. They have seen it in many different

conditions. We welcome their involvement to teach our younger

people. We have instituted science programs in the public school

system which had no environmental science programs before.

There’s a wonderful awakening going on in that part of the country. As they watch other parts of the country become developed and

despoiled, they realize the treasure they have in their backyard.

It’s like the saying, ‘‘Brighten the corner where you live and you

will light the world.’’

Senator REID. Congressman Sandlin, I want to publicly express

my appreciation for you coming. It’s through efforts like yours that

we’re going to be able to accomplish something in Washington, because it’s gonna take Senators and House Members to get some of

this done.

By your being here I think you send a very strong message to

me as a Senator, who helps run one of these major meeting and

does a lot of stuff on the Senate floor. We need to work together.

There’s no reason Texas and Nevada—we have so many similarities in what you’re trying to do and what we’re trying to do. We

even share Howard Hughes with you.

So I want you to know I appreciate your being here, and I look

forward to this continued relationship in Washington. We will work

together. We hope, for your constituents and mine, a year from now

we can come back and tell them what we have done, not what we

want to do. Thank you very much.

Mr. SANDLIN. Thank you.

Senator REID. Leta, you exemplify what Don Henley has said.

You may not be the notorious person that he is—and I say that as

a compliment—but you——

19

Ms. COLLORD. Well, we have a history that I was raised in Santa

Monica and Mr. Henley is—are you residing in the Santa Monica

area now?

Mr. HENLEY. Occasionally.

Ms. COLLORD. It’s occasional. But I—it’s interesting each time I

participate in an event that is trying to share information like this,

we hear of new examples of this effort. It has evolved to the fact

that when communities and historic culture get together good

things perpetuate.

Senator REID. What you’re doing in Elko County is the same

thing that he is doing in Texas. They are a little ahead of us. You

have heard him describe with awe how beautiful this place that he

was raised in Texas is. We can tell him how beautiful Elko County

is.

I can remember—and we have an opportunity—it’s the only place

in Nevada where we have mountain goats, and I can remember as

if it were yesterday. I was a young lieutenant Governor and driving

with my entourage—which included me—and there was no one else

in the car. I was driving from Elko to Wells. It was one of those

winter days when those clouds were over the Ruby Mountains. It

was just about as beautiful as nature could be. So we look forward

to working with you. I congratulate you on your projects.

Mr. HENLEY. I think it’s important to remember—and I know

you know this—that Mother Nature doesn’t recognize State or national boundaries. I wish some of our leaders would remember that

and that we are all in this together.

Senator REID. Louisiana, Texas, Lake Tahoe, California, and Nevada is a great example. The only time we have been able to make

progress at Lake Tahoe is when we set aside our partisan and regional differences and say we have to do something to help the

lake. You’re right. Mother Nature never had in its mind a division

between California and Nevada when it was formed.

Larry, you’re certainly a great example. You have been leading

this organization for 15 years. I said with some jest that it was

your part-time job, that is your engineering work. But I say that

in sincerity. It takes people like you to accomplish what has been

accomplished here.

I grew up in southern Nevada, and I’m sorry to say I never saw

a bighorn sheep. They were out there someplace, but they were so

sparse. It was a rare, rare occasion for anyone to see a bighorn

sheep.

Now you can go to Boulder City and they are in the park. They

are grazing in the park. They are literally all over, this beautiful

animal. It’s because of you and your organization that these beauties of nature have now—are now where they should be. So I appreciate your being here and, I repeat, especially the great example

that you have set for all of us.

Elsie, you and I have worked together on different things over

these years. We have not always agreed on things, but you have

always expressed your feelings so well and so adequately. You’re

another example of how our State is a better place because of your

involvement. I want to thank all of you very much for being here

today.

20

STATEMENT OF TERRY CRAWFORTH, ADMINISTRATOR,

NEVADA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE

Mr. CRAWFORTH. Good afternoon. I am Terry Crawforth, administrator of the Nevada Division of Wildlife. I would like to thank

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for conducting these investigations into wildlife conservation needs and

inviting me to share our perspectives on wildlife conservation and

management in Nevada.

As the seventh largest State in land mass, Nevada’s extensive

wild lands support a broad and diverse assemblage of plant and

animal communities. This diversity of wildlife and habitats is amplified by the geographic and climatic character of the Great Basin

in the north and Mohave Desert in the south. Also, because Nevada

is the driest State, water is even more critical to wildlife distribution and abundance. A wide variety of topographic features from

low river valleys to 13,000-foot alpine peaks offers a habitat to Nevada’s wildlife, resulting in an astounding ecological diversity.

Managing this broadly diverse assemblage of animals and plants

presents many unique and formidable challenges. While some species such as mule dear and rainbow trout have broad distributions

across Nevada, other species such as the Palmers chipmunk and

the Amargosa toad exist only in very localized landscapes. All are

worthy of attention, though, and therein lies the management challenge to the Division. As the smallest wildlife agency in the Nation,

the Nevada Division of Wildlife is constantly faced with the difficult task of allocating limited resources to the preservation, protection, management, and restoration of all elements in this vast

and diverse wildlife resource.

The prioritization of management activities by the Division has

historically been largely a function of economics. The wildlife receiving primary emphasis in division management programs are

those species for which there is a consistent and adequate funding

resource. For years hunters and fishermen support the PitmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson

Sportfish Restoration Act by paying excise taxes on hunting and

fishing equipment have paid for the majority of wildlife management programs in Nevada. In addition, the matching funds required to capture these trust funds are provided by the same

sportsmen in the form of license and tag fees, hence, the wildlife

species that have for years received priority funding are those that

are hunted and fished.

These extensive management programs funded by Nevada’s

sportsmen can boost significant success in the conservation of wildlife in the State. The Big Game Management Program in Nevada

is second to none. Trapping and transplant projects for species such

as bighorn sheep antelope and elk have resulted in record animal

numbers and distributions throughout the State. The variety and

abundance of fish species available to anglers is impressive. Upland game species including exotics such as the chucker partridge

are pervasive. Nevada is renowned in the West as a high quality

hunting and fishing destination. It is obvious that consistently

funded collaborative programs can represent Nevada wildlife well.

It is important to note, however, that though management efforts

have been concentrated on sport wildlife, these species typically not

21

hunted or fished have not been summarily ignored. Good habitat

management fostered by successful game and sport fish programs

ultimately benefit all wildlife species. In addition, consistent, albeit

small, non-sportsmen funded annual appropriations are dedicated

to non-hunted or fished species.

But we have been aware for some time that those species which

do not receive program emphasis because they lack dedicated funding deserve more than they are getting from project ‘‘spin-off’’ or residual funding. While our history of successful management of

game wildlife and protection of habitat provides a good model for

the conservation of Nevada’s other wildlife, these species that are

not sought for sport or recreational purposes deserve more. Reliance on recreation areas are often last-ditch tools as the Endangered Species Act is not productive. We see a profound need to be

proactive in the management of all Nevada wildlife.

What is essential for Nevada’s wildlife diversity is sustained

funding to apply to already proven management techniques. Some

recent congressional appropriations will help when they eventually

reach us, but we need long-term legislation that provides an uninterrupted flow of funds for Nevada’s other wildlife. We came close

to this goal with the near passage of title 3 of the Conservation and

Reinvestment Act of the 106th Congress, which would have provided consistent and sustained funding for non-game wildlife conservation. Nevada’s other wildlife deserve this degree of attention.

Senator Reid, I have always appreciated your dedication to the

wildlife resources of our beautiful State. I applaud your present efforts to make a consistent and adequate funding source for Nevada’s other wildlife a reality. I pledge my agency’s support in this

endeavor. Securing a reliable funding source for Nevada’s other

wildlife when combined with the Pitman-Robertson and WallopBreaux funds that exist for game wildlife and sport fish would put

a third leg on the conservation stool and would better balance Nevada’s wildlife conservation effort.

Thank you.

Senator REID. Terry, while it’s on my mind—and this is democratic and republican Governors who are responsible for this—why

is it that we have such an underfunded, understaffed entity to take

care of this huge State?

Mr. CRAWFORTH. I think, probably, as in many States, the sportsmen stepped up to the plate and volunteered to tax themselves, if

you will, for wildlife conservation for hunting and fishing recognizing that those would benefit other wildlife species.

But we have always had struggles with people to recognize the

need to fund the total picture, if you will. I think we all learned

a lesson in Nevada concerning the desert tortoise. We spoke for a

number of years about the tortoise, but until it impacted people at

home, then funding was an emphasis.

Senator REID. You know, Terry, we have to have a better communication system. I was a lieutenant Governor, served in various

capacities. I was stunned when I got a call from the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the desert tortoise. I never knew there was

a problem with the desert tortoise. There had been a problem for

years, and we didn’t know about it.

22

Somehow we have to do a better job here in Nevada and I think

we are doing better. But I can’t put my finger on it right now. We

are just—maybe it’s because the Federal Government has such a

predominant role because they control so much of the land. I don’t

know the reason. But that’s something I will meet with Governor

Guinn on this trip home, and we will have a serious talk about it.

Mr. CRAWFORTH. I would concur with you. I think we’re doing

better. Some of the cries concerning the desert tortoise was a voice

in the wilderness, if you will, and it was a wake-up call and has

given us the opportunity to collaboratively focus on projects for the

betterment of the Amargosa toad, sage grouse, but there needs to

be a better and more consistent message.

Senator REID. Gary, I need you to shorten your statement a little

bit. So if you would do that, and I want to tell you how much I

appreciate you being here. As I indicated to Congressman Sandlin,

it’s through efforts of you and your State that the whole country

will be made a better place. We need to exchange ideas and find

out where you haven’t done so well and vice versa. Your being here

and developing a relationship with your counterparts is letting me

know that it’s important that you traveled all this way. It’s a big

help. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GARY GRAHAM, DIVISION DIRECTOR, TEXAS

PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. GRAHAM. I’m pleased to and privileged to be here today to

speak with you on behalf of the State in support of Federal legislation supporting wildlife conservation efforts. There are five things

that I hope you remember from my presentation. Texas is a very

diverse and big State. Our unmet wildlife conservation needs are

also big to the tune of $30 million a year. Recreation generated

about 6.7 billion dollars for the Texas economy during 1996. Keeping common species common keeps them off the Federal endangered species list. Finally, the solution to meeting our unmet needs

is predictable and adequate funding, such as what would be provided to the State when the Conservation Reinvestment Act is

passed.

Texas is so big that 15 Eastern States could fit within our borders, and one of our borders is shared with Mexico which is very

subtropical in nature.

We have 91 peaks that are a mile high or higher and about

80,000 miles of rivers and streams. Our population reached 20 million last April, and we have more species of wildlife, about 1,200,

which is more than any other State, except perhaps California.

Unlike California and Nevada, 97 percent of Texas is privately

owned. Conservation in a private land State like ours provides

unique opportunities and challenges. The key to our successes lie

in——

Senator REID. Excuse me, Gary. You mean 3 percent of the State

is owned by either the Federal or State government?

Mr. GRAHAM. That’s it.

Senator REID. Wow.

Mr. GRAHAM. It creates new challenges. In fact, opportunities, as

hopefully you will gather from my presentation.

23

The key to our success lies in offering technical assistance and

useful information to landowners. We have 20 full-time technical

staff who are principally responsible for the fact that last year 12.6

million acres of habitat land were managed under our wildlife management plans.

In addition, Texas has had a great deal of success in developing

cooperative agreements with private landowners precluding the

need to list a number of species under the Endangered Species Act.

One of our greatest current challenges in conservation concerns

black-tailed prairie dog that, if not handled well, could lead to the

biggest train wreck conservation has seen. We aim to preclude that

by working with other States in the West in implementing conservation agreements between States to conserve this controversial

species.

We have one of the largest wildlife diversity programs in the

United States and have led the country with several conservation

initiatives. We aggressively use nature tourism projects as incentives for conservation through economic development. We established and marketed the Great Texas Coastal Burning Trail in cooperation with over 100 communities. We are taking the nature

tourism a step further by developing a new complex of visitor and

conservation facilities called the World Birding Center in the lower

Rio Grande Valley among those subtropical habitats. This is one of

the most biologically rich areas of the Nation, but it’s also one of

the most economically challenged parts of the country. This project is expected to generate an additional $12 to $15 million a year in new revenue for the region. One of our greatest success stories is our Landowner Incentive Program, LIP, one of the

first efforts in the country to offer financial assistance to landowners who wish to manage rare and endangered species. Over the

past 4 years using over $1 million, this voluntary incentive program has addressed the conservation needs of 26 species over

46,000 acres.

Equally important is the fact that the program has changed the

attitude of many rural landowners from almost antagonistic to cautiously cooperative. Overall Texas Parks & Wildlife spends about

$10 million a year on the conservation of our wildlife diversity,

those species not listed as game species. But with a State as big

and diverse as ours, even this is not enough. We estimate that 30

million new dollars a year is needed to conserve a lot of the resources that Texans treasure and that would sustain the naturebased economy throughout the State. Just as important as the

amount is the fact that funds need to be available predictably from

year to year, just like the Federal aid funds would be currently

used for game species.

It took 20 years of predictable funding to successfully reestablish

eastern wild turkey back into its native Texas range. It would not

have happened if we were not able to invest in the recovery year

after year. The same could be said about bighorn sheep. We have

had success because we have had funds available year after year.

Federal funds such as those that would be provided through title

3 of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act would address these

needs. The funds will allow us an ability to invest in people and

natural resources predictably and adequately.

24

We will use Conservation and Reinvestment Act funds to grow

our already existing technical assistance, financial assistance, and

nature tourism efforts. Each year we would spend up to an additional $6 million for landowner incentives, $4 million for technical

assistance, $3 million to increase recreational opportunity, $4 million for habitat conservation and restoration, and $5 million for

education and outreach like the community-based efforts at Caddo

Lake, $3 million for research and monitoring, and $5 million for

the purchase of development rights, land leases, conservation uses,

and acquisitions.

In Texas the public owns about 3 percent of the land and we are

ranked 27th in the State park acres per capita. We firmly believe

that access to affordable recreation is important to grow the future

customers for our private land recreation partners. Thus, we are in

complete support of the President’s proposal which is title 2 of

CARA.

Finally, the economic development that has led to a high quality

of life for Texans also has severely damaged the entire coastal ecosystem. The damage to the hydrology along the coast is causing the

loss and erosion of a great deal of shallow gulf waters habitat and

adjacent marshes that are essential as nursery grounds for saltwater fishes and much of our wildlife.

The good news is that much of this is reversible, but it’s also

very expensive. Consequently, we are very supportive of fully funding title 9 of CARA.

And with that, thank you for this opportunity. I’ve very much enjoyed hearing the testimony.

Senator REID. The last point that you made, we have trouble understanding that. But with two Senators from Louisiana, this was

the No. 1 issue as far as they were concerned with CARA, that

there were huge pieces of land each year being washed into the

ocean in Louisiana. They believe we have to do something quick or

it’ll become irreversible. Would you agree?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Senator REID. Bob, would you proceed. Again, I’m going to have

to ask you to condense your statement. Your whole statement, I

will make that part of the record.

STATEMENT OF BOB ABBEY, DIRECTOR, NEVADA BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. ABBEY. It’s a pleasure to see you home in Nevada and your

staff.

It’s certainly an honor to share the podium with some distinguished panel members, and I’ll keep my remarks brief. No one

knows more than me that the management of public lands is not

always an easy task. It requires coordination and partnerships

with a variety of interest groups and individuals.

The BLM in Nevada is fortunate to have many fine partners in

this work, including the State of Nevada and its Division of Wildlife as well as a number of tribal governments and private organizations, such as the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and Nevada Wildlife Federation, which you heard from in the first panel.

In recent years we initiated efforts to deal with some very highly

visible issues relative to critical wildlife concerns. These include efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
25

forts to recover the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, management guidelines for sage grouse and the sagebrush ecosystems that are their

habitat, and the desert tortoise.

These species serve as a red flag for the overall health of our environment. The sage grouse is suffering from a decline in habitat,

a concern to the BLM and many of the organizations and entities

here today. Under the leadership of Terry Crawforth, administrator

for the Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Western Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies, in cooperation with the BLM, the Fish and

Wildlife Service, and others, have initiated a major effort to develop conservation plans for sage grouse in eight Western States.

In Nevada, Governor Guinn has taken a personal role in establishing a State sage grouse committee to develop strategies to conserve this game species. The BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Forest Service, as well as State, local, and tribal representatives, have formed an interagency sage brush habitat steering committee to coordinate habitat assessment, mapping, evaluation, and

restoration for species at risk within sage brush ecosystems in 10

States, and to coordinate ecosystem and species conservation planning in order to provide consistency across agencies in addressing

sage brush ecosystem-related issues.

Through the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, the BLM in Nevada is cooperating with State and local agencies to stop the spread

of invasive weeds and other vegetation and to restore the appropriate plant communities on the range lands.

After major wildfires in 1999 and 2000, the demand for sage

brush seeds and the seeds of other native plant species has increased considerably in the Great Basin. Through issuance of permits for harvesting of sagebrush and other native species seeds, the

BLM is tracking harvest activities to ensure that sufficient seed is

available for rehabilitation efforts that are currently underway in

the areas hardest hit by the wildfires. The BLM is working with

the Plant Conservation Alliance, private seed growers, State and

Federal nurseries and seed storage facilities to increase significantly the supply of native seeds available for rehabilitation and

restoration work while reducing the cost of producing native seed

in large quantities.

The BLM’s Ely field office has taken a leadership role under the

auspices of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative to restore and

maintain the biological conditions of the Great Basin landscape in

eastern Nevada through partnerships with the Rocky Mountain

Elk Foundation, Nevada Division of Wildlife, and dozens of other

groups. Approximately $10 million acres of public land are in the

project area, including 4 million acres of pinion-juniper woodlands,

2 million acres of pinion-juniper/sagebrush, 2.5 million acres of

sagebrush, $1.5 million acres of valley bottoms and mixed forest

conifer, 158 miles of stream riparian habitat, and 7,800 acres of

meadows, springs, seeps and wetlands.

The BLM field offices in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have continued reintroduction and habitat improvement programs for bighorn

sheep populations. Nevada contains some of the premier bighorn

sheep habitats in the United States. Approximately 2.5 million

acres of BLM-managed lands in Nevada provide habitat for three

subspecies of bighorn sheep: The California, Rocky Mountain, and

26

Desert Bighorns. Cooperative efforts with the Nevada Division of

Wildlife and partners such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited have

successfully restored bighorns on many historic habitats throughout the State. We estimate that there are an additional 1 million

acres of suitable but unoccupied bighorn sheep habitat on BLMmanaged land in the State.

Federal, State, and private partnerships have substantially enhanced successful wildlife habitat management on BLM-managed

land. The BLM works closely with a variety of groups to restore

habitats for native wildlife species on BLM-managed lands. Over

the past 10 years, the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nevada Division of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited, and local ranchers and

sportsmen have made substantial investments to restore Lahontan

cutthroat trout to 128 miles of the Mary’s River system, a premier

trout stream in northeastern Nevada. The BLM’s Challenge Cost

Share Program, established by Congress in 1985, has matched millions of dollars of private contributions with Federal appropriations

through successful partnership efforts that have delivered conservation and restoration projects throughout the West.

The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, a new Federal/private partnership in Clark County, is restoring native plant communities in

the Mohave Desert, including removal of the invasive tamarisk

from riparian areas and replanting native willows and grasses to

benefit the desert tortoises, desert fish species, and a wide range

of native birds, mammals, and amphibians.

Following the disastrous, widespread wildland fires of 1999, the

BLM extensively examined the effects of fire on habitat and ecosystem processes. We found that a fire cycle had developed, referred to in recent science reports as the ‘‘Cheatgrass-Wildfire

Cycle.’’ This problem is acute in Nevada, where the cycle of fire disturbance has spurred the invasive cheatgrass to alter range and

wildlife habitats. Cheatgrass has been on our landscape for many

years quietly spreading its water-stealing roots to ever increasing

areas.

Cheatgrass sprouts quickly as winter moisture arrives on burned

or disturbed lands. Its root mass quickly draws up all available

moisture, denying it to sagebrush seed. Left unmanaged, sagebrush

benchlands instead become fields of cheatgrass. These fields dry

out in the summer sun, and lay in wait for the summer lightning.

There was a time when people thought that getting rid of sagebrush was a good thing. However, we now know that sagebrush is

vital to the health of Great Basin wildlands. Sagebrush provides

cover for sage grouse, mice, and other rodents, smaller song birds,

ground squirrels—over 170 species which are inhabitants of the

open land. It provides shelter from the summer sun and from

raptors overhead. In winter, dry cheatgrass is buried under snow.

Sagebrush rises above the snow providing forage for deer, antelope,

and sage grouse.

We look forward to working with our partners here in Nevada to

address the cheatgrass problem, along with other efforts at wildlife

habitat and species restoration in a manner that balances the interests of stakeholders and addresses wildlife habitat needs. This

effort is massive, across the millions of acres of the Great Basin.

Change will require labor intensive effort and significant amounts

27

of native seed. Each landscape will call for its own prescription. In

some areas we may need to plant sagebrush seedlings and sow native seed by hand. The entire spectrum of plant and landscape

management must be brought into play if we are to begin a true

Great Basin restoration program.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

Senator REID. Thank you very much. I’ll say that the work that

has been done in recent years with you and the U.S. attorney in

developing better relations with the county governments throughout the State has been remarkable. It’s been a good job, and you’re

to be congratulated.

Mr. ABBEY. I met with the U.S. Attorney this morning, and complimented the leadership that Katherine has shown to all of us relative to setting the standards, and we will continue to carry on

that manner of doing business even after Katherine departs from

her job.

Senator REID. Chairman Wallace.

STATEMENT OF A. BRIAN WALLACE, CHAIRMAN, WASHOE

TRIBE OF NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator.

(Washoe greeting.)

Why I introduced myself in Washoe is to make a point that our

language is directly a component of the environment and it’s this

perspective that we bring to this opportunity that I want to share

with you. I use English as a tool to survive today, but my children

speak Washoe so the they can survive forever.

Senator REID. That’s something relatively new, the language. I

know with the Paiutes, that language out in Pyramid was almost

lost until some of the elders were able to teach the children.

Mr. WALLACE. It’s critical to maintain our native languages. It’s

the only medium we have to translate our understanding of the underlying order of the natural world to our children.

Senator REID. Isn’t it true that they have been in distress over

the last 40, 50 years?

Mr. WALLACE. Very much in decline and, in large part, because

of efforts with your colleagues there is Federal effort helping to recover that now.

Senator REID. Sorry to interrupt.

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you. First, I want to take the time on behalf of the members of the Washoe Tribe, and more particularly,

on behalf of people that only exist in my heart now, to thank you

for your historic efforts and courage in supporting the tribe’s unfinished dream to return to the Tahoe Basin. I just want to take the

time to publicly recognize the courage that you have demonstrated

in sharing that dream with us.

More than any other group in last year’s discussion related to the

Conservation Reinvestment Act, and despite our best efforts, tribes

were the only ones that were significantly and completely omitted

from the authorization of last year’s discussion.

Senator REID. The reason we have you here is to try and change

that.

28

Mr. WALLACE. I think I anticipated that. I would like to also request respectfully that our remarks and the testimony be entered

into the record.

Senator REID. We will make sure that your prepared statement

will be part of the record.

Mr. WALLACE. It’ll help me be quick. We definitely appreciate

your assistance to resuscitate some national and public benefit to

CARA. We’re here also to support all of the previous witnesses because we really believe in a stronger sense of hope because of what

we have heard here today that friends are finally approaching

these issues for us.

Senator Reid, like States, Indian tribes have governmental responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and

the regulation of hunting and fishing and gathering on their lands.

Native Americans who fish, hunt, and gather on Indian lands pay

excise taxes on ammunition, fishing gear, guns, and boat fuel, just

like other Americans. It is critical that any wildlife conservation

title of CARA, or a stand-alone bill, include an equitable distribution of Federal funds to Indian tribes for conservation and regulations so that we can receive, and count on receiving, Federal moneys for these woefully underfunded areas for which States have

been receiving money for many years.

Indian tribes play a unique and crucial role in four purposes

identified under this title: (1) wildlife and habitat conservation, (2)

development of comprehensive wildlife conservation and restoration

plans, (3) cooperative planning and implementation of wildlife conservation plans, and (4) wildlife education and public involvement.

Having lived in our homelands for thousands of years, Indian

tribes have developed a unique understanding of the ecosystem.

Through our traditional and customary practices we have developed a traditional knowledge of science that enhances the scope of

conventional science. Additionally, because tribal members have

significantly more direct contact with the habitat and wildlife and

because we rely upon the natural resources of our homelands, we

are exposed to a greater degree of risk when the wildlife and habitat is impacted. An unhealthy ecosystem will directly impact the

lives of Indian people.

Although there is little BIA funding and no EPA funding available for tribes to conserve and restore wildlife, the Washoe Tribe

has pursued a commitment to habitat restoration and conservation,

not just on tribal lands, but within our entire ancestral homelands.

On tribal lands we have used clean water funding to restore stream

banks and improve wildlife and aquatic habitat along the riparian

corridor of the Carson River. In addition, our conservation and restoration efforts have maintained a reach of Clear Creek that university students and local school groups visit to study. As part of

our cooperative agreement with the Forest Service at Lake Tahoe,

the Washoe Tribe is preparing a Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Plan for the Meeks Creek Meadows and the Taylor/Baldwin wetlands. The tribe will implement the Wetlands Conservation

and Restoration Plan in cooperation with the Forest Service. However, because of the lack of funding, these efforts are isolated and

we are not able to achieve the full benefits of comprehensive habitat planning.

29

The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Title of the pending

house legislation, H.R. 71, and last year’s Senate bills S. 2123 and

S. 2567, clearly identifies the need for a comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation and Restoration Plan, but the Washoe Tribe has no

funding available for development of such a plan. While we have

been able to implement and develop plans for isolated wetland

areas through the clean water funding, we have not been able to

develop a comprehensive conservation and restoration plan or even

collect data on wildlife populations. The need for such plans increases as commercial and residential development continues to

creep in on tribal lands and the pressure on wildlife habitat increases. Furthermore, the tribal lands are often intermixed with

lands under Federal and State jurisdiction, requiring a coordinated

planning approach. In our case, the Washoe Tribe has jurisdiction

over more than 60,000 acres of Indian allotment lands in the Pine

Nut Mountains, which are located in a checkerboard pattern with

BLM lands and private lands. Currently the BLM and State agencies are engaged in a planning process for their portions of the Pine

Nut Mountains, and the tribe is a critical partner. However, the

tribe’s efforts are clearly hampered by our lack of funding for wildlife and habitat planning. Similarly, conservation planning funds

would enhance our efforts to work with our State and Federal partners on the conservation and restoration of habitats in the Lake

Tahoe Basin and along the Carson and Truckee Rivers.

The pending House legislation, H.R. 701, includes language that

would provide Indian tribes with direct access to the PitmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act funding. The allocation mechanism proposed in this year’s House version of CARA allocates up

to 2.25 percent of total dollars to be divided among all 550 Indian

tribes based on relative land area and population. The 2.25 percent

is based on the acres of Indian trust land relative to the total acreage in the United States. In fact, the 2.25 percent actually represents less than the full equitable share. For an example, the

Washoe Tribe has done work on USFS lands with the Forest Service to conserve and restore wetlands on lands at Lake Tahoe. Indian tribes will continue to work on conserving wildlife and critical

ecosystems within ceded treaty lands and other ancestral homelands, which are no longer held in trust. Finally, it’s important to

note that current proposals of this nature do not reduce existing allocations to States and territories under the Dingell-Johnson or Pitman-Robertson Acts, but rather involve only new allocations never

before raised and distributed.

The Senate CARA bills from last year omitted critical allocation

to Indian tribes and would have continued to exclude tribes from

these funds. I strongly urge you to use the language from title 3

of this year’s Senate legislation.

As to your proposals under the category of Sensitive, Threatened,

and Endangered Species Incentives, we applaud your efforts to extend funding to conservation plans to preserve species that are not

yet listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but that are species of concern. Hopefully, by focusing efforts on these species prior to their being listed, we can avoid the

need to list them. Additionally, we encourage you to move beyond

the language as contained in CARA title 7, and recognize the imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
30

pacts of the conservation of these species on Indian tribes. Sensitive, threatened, and endangered species are a concern of Indian

people everywhere, for they are a part of our cultural heritage and

a consideration in our land management activities.

A classic example of this is the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout of the

river basins of Nevada. Native and non-native peoples alike share

a desire for the recovery of these amazing fish. Habitat recovery efforts are underway by all stakeholders, and help from the Federal

Government would be most welcome. Indian lands are integral to

these efforts, and the inclusion of Indian tribes as potential recipients of Federal funds for the development of conservation plans

and recovery agreements would be appropriate. The State-Federaltribal recovery LTC effort on the Truckee River is a specific example where the ability of tribes to engage the other partners is limited by our lack of funding. Again, in order for Indian tribes to play

a proper role in these conservation efforts, it is necessary that

tribes have the ability to access these funds directly.

I would like to briefly deviate from the two primary topics of

your proposed legislation to talk about a couple of other aspects of

the big CARA package that are important to tribes and that we

were stripped of from last year’s bill at the 11th hour.

The first is title 2, Land and Water Conservation Fund Revitalization, which would allocate Federal moneys from oil and gas revenues to various Federal agencies and State and tribal governments for the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. Tribes

would be entitled to one State’s worth of funding under current

house bill language. This too was stripped from last year’s ‘‘CARALite,’’ and I encourage you to support the effort to include tribes

in any land and water conservation fund distribution in 2002 and

beyond. Although the tribe has no funding for conservation land acquisition, the Washoe Tribe has been successfully partnered with

Federal agencies and private parties to acquire sensitive environmental and cultural lands for conservation purposes. Indian tribes

bring a unique element to the conservation effort, and with funding

we will be able to achieve more win-win situations. Again, looking

at the Pine Nut Mountains, to improve land management, Federal

and State agencies and governments support Washoe tribal acquisition of private land holdings which are surrounded by Indian allotment lands, and the private landowner is interested in selling

the land to the tribe, but there are no land acquisition funds available.

The final provision of note is the National Park and Indian

Lands Restoration, currently title 6 of last year’s Senate bill. The

title would provide up to $25 million annually for a coordinated

program on Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation, and protect public

health and safety.

The $25 million allocated to tribes under this title is modest

when you consider that it must be spread among more than 550

tribal governments and 56 million acres of Indian trust land. However, it does represent a critically important source of funds, and

I strongly urge you to ensure that the Senate version of CARA title

6 or its equivalent is kept intact in any CARA legislation that

emerges from the 107th Congress.

31

Senator Reid, once again I thank you for your leadership on this

and so many other issues important to the Washoe Tribe and Indian people across the United States.

I sit here representing our tribe in its unfinished dreams and

concentrate our efforts and my life, before God and all these witnesses, to the biological and cultural repatriation of where we call

home and love so much.

We sit here on behalf of the children that speak Washoe that

want to live forever and to join your efforts to help lift this great

Nation to a higher and better place, and to also give us the ability

to possibly make a responsible contribution in raising a generation

to match these mountains. On behalf of the members of the Tribe,

thank you for your public service and being our voice in the Senate.

Senator REID. Terry, we provided $50 million to fund the Wildlife

Conservation Project in last year’s appropriation process. The State

can access that money if it submits a conservation plan to the Interior Department.

Are you in the process of doing that? What type of projects would

you like to see funded with some of this money? Would you reiterate that?

Mr. CRAWFORTH. We will be submitting our signed eligibility documents later this week. The official agency of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife has formed a team to review those

to make sure those eligibilities are there.

Nevada would be eligible for about three-quarters of $1 million

of that. Our efforts will be to implement our migratory bird plan.

We definitely need to work on a very important group of species,

reptiles.

Senator REID. On what?

Mr. CRAWFORTH. Reptiles. It’s very important that we gain some

more knowledge about reptiles of Nevada, and we also need to do

work on several of the amphibian species. Once we get a plan for

sage grouse, we will be able to get the money on the ground

through the local groups that we’re establishing. Those would be

the general areas.

It has been, and I know we’re working through those rules, but

the process of getting eligibility for those moneys has become a little cumbersome. I think that’s improving. I see Gary nodding his

head, and I think we’re making some progress there.

But I would certainly encourage, and we certainly understand

the need to, as you mentioned, make people aware of wildlife and

the needs that we have for wildlife conservation. But to get that

money to the ground, the process can’t be too cumbersome.

Senator REID. Gary, has the State of Texas provided funding for

the effort at Caddo Lake?

Mr. GRAHAM. Not directly for the Institute. Over the past 10

years we have bought a 7,000-acre wildlife management area that’s

part of the 20,000 acres that Mr. Henley referred to. We assisted

Dwight Shellman in developing some of his conservation efforts,

but we have not actually contributed financially to it.

Senator REID. Bob, one of the things that concerns me about the

existing conservation program is that they are targeted toward private lands. It doesn’t work well here in Nevada.

32

Would you comment on ways we might structure incentives to

benefit public lands?

Mr. ABBEY. Again, I think the biggest incentive we have is for

people to take ownership of the issue and to participate in the decision process.

Senator REID. That’s what Don Henley and the Congressman

said.

Mr. ABBEY. That’s right. Again, the biggest obstacle and challenge is the people’s lack of trust in their government agencies, and

that’s at the Federal, State or local governments.

We need to overcome that challenge, and the best way to do that

is to make sure the people have an opportunity to participate in

their government. We are spending a lot of effort to offer that to

the public, to give them that opportunity.

Senator REID. I thought it was very enlightening what we heard

here in one of the blocks of testimony from Leta. It was as a result

of a public program by BLM.

Mr. ABBEY. We realize the significant challenges we have

throughout the western United States in managing these public

lands for multiple uses. We will have to bring people into that effort, and we’re seeing a great deal of success. I think as we achieve

successes, we need to communicate those successes to others so

that they can see the opportunities that are really there for them

to participate and help out.

Senator REID. Bob, one of the things I have heard on a couple

of occasions today before the hearing started, and even yesterday

evening, is that there’s a program being anticipated to allow ranchers to reduce the number of cattle in exchange for a hunting tag

or tags that they can sell to sportsmen.

Have you heard about that, Bob?

Mr. ABBEY. No.

Senator REID. Would you take a look into that.

Mr. ABBEY. I’d be happy too.

Senator REID. Terry, do you know anything about that?

Mr. CRAWFORTH. We have a couple of programs in Nevada, but

they are largely for compensation for damage to private lands

where landowners can get tags. We also have a program for elk

and deer, which we call an incentive-type program where private

landowners and people who are grazing on public lands can get

their share, if you will, of expanding elk or deer populations.

Senator REID. I’d like to know more about it.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony today.

Senator REID. We’re going to hear first from Robert Williams,

Field Manager. Bob has been an integral part of what has happened here in Nevada. He has received a lot of accolades in the

process. I appreciate very much the good work you have done.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. WILLIAMS, FIELD SUPERVISOR,

NEVADA FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some information on what actions the Fish and Wildlife Service is participating in here in Nevada. The service understands the importance

of working cooperatively with the State tribes and the private secVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
33

tors on species conservation. That’s why the Service has developed

and continued to explore conservation efforts at a local level.

You requested that I comment on current conservation initiatives, what conservation plans have been successful, what initiatives have been planned but not implemented, what are the obstacles to engaging people in conservation efforts, and what can we do

to encourage more participation in conservation planning.

It is crucial that the Service work cooperatively with our State,

tribal, and private partners on species conservation. Recognizing

this, the Service has developed and is implementing many approaches which enable cooperative conservation efforts. These approaches are flexible so as to encourage locally-based solutions to

complex and sometimes contentious conservation challenges. The

initiatives and agreements I will discuss here are a result of these

approaches. We need to continue seeking and indeed expand opportunities for local and private landowners to share in the development of conservation solutions.

Let me start by providing you with a review of current activities

in Nevada. Last year we and several partners signed two major

conservation efforts, the Clark County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, MSHCP, and the Amargosa Toad Conservation

Agreement.

The Clark County MSHCP covers 78 species, only two of which

are listed under the Endangered Species Act. This plan will allow

for a permit to be issued under section 10 of the ESA for an incidental take of the listed species due to development in southern

Nevada. The MSHCP covers over 145,000 acres that are subject to

development over the next 30 years.

The goal of the MSHCP is to conserve healthy ecosystems and

the species that are supported by them while allowing for development. A $550-per acre fee is paid to the county with the issuance

of development permits. The proceeds from the fees fund desert tortoise conservation and recovery activities, as well as other actions

needed to protect the 78 species covered under the plan. The plan

provides certainty for Clark County developers while ensuring a

conservation measure that will help recover the listed species and

prevent the other species from being listed.

The establishment of the MSHCP was successful because of the

cooperation between Clark County, State and Federal agencies, the

University of Nevada, Reno, environmental groups, recreational interest, and resource users.

The second major conservation action that was solidified last

year was a conservation agreement for Amargosa toad that resides

in the Oasis Valley. This agreement brought together Nye County,

the city of Beatty, private landowners, the State of Nevada, several

Federal agencies, environmental groups, and the Nature Conservancy. The premise of the agreement provides the Nature Conservancy with the ability to purchase valuable habitat for the toad

from a priority landowner. On October 14, 2000, the agreement

was signed with the parties, and they are currently working together to manage the land and other resources for the protection

of the toad and the other species that depend on the riparian wetland habitat.

34

Both of these plans depend upon private and public dollars for

their success. Private funding supports mitigation efforts and conservation actions to protect the species listed in the agreements.

We are currently working on several other conservation actions.

I will list them here and then discuss some of them in greater detail. Current initiatives include the following: Tahoe yellow cress

conservation agreement, Coyote Springs Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration, to the Truckee

River, Sage grouse conservation agreement, Spotted frog conservation agreement, Lincoln County Multispecies Habitat Conservation

Plan, and Nye County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan.

A planning team has been formed to develop a conservation

agreement for the Tahoe yellow cress, a plant that is found on the

shores of Lake Tahoe. Some of the habitat occurs on private lands,

so involving associations like the Lake Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association will be a key element to the success of finalizing such an agreement. One important measure to protect the

Tahoe yellow cress is simply to build fences around the plant.

Should a private landowner agree to fence an area to protect habitat, funds may be available through Candidate Conservation Agreement grants for the costs of the fencing or other conservation activities the landowner may desire to make.

We are also working closely with a developer in southern Nevada

on the Coyote Springs Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. Coyote

Springs Valley is a critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Coyote

Springs Limited Liability Corporation has indicated a willingness

to work by signing a memorandum of agreement with the Service

and the BLM to create a plan encompassing more than 40,000

acres of private and leased lands within the valley that would conserve desert tortoise habitat while providing opportunities for residential and commercial development. This plan is envisioned to

also address the long-term water needs of the developers, as well

as the listed fishes in the nearby Muddy River, which could be affected by long-term groundwater use. This type of proactive, early

involvement with landowners is acknowledged by the Service as

one of the most important objectives in our efforts to reduce conflicts and foster general acceptance of species conservation.

In our efforts to recover Nevada’s State fish, the Lahontan cutthroat trout, we have received funding to conduct habitat restoration work on non-Federal lands along the Truckee and Walker

Rivers. We are working with the Nature Conservancy to conduct

habitat restoration work on the Truckee River that will benefit the

river, the riparian corridor, and all the fishes that live in the river.

Our next step will be to develop Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners to compliment our LCT recovery efforts.

We’re working with the State on the conservation of the sage

grouse. We appreciate the State of Nevada’s leadership by heading

up this coordination effort, with the establishment of the Governor’s Sage Grouse working group. The working group is bringing

together private landowners, counties, environmental groups, and

Federal agencies to develop a conservation agreement.

For private landowners with suitable sage grouse habitat, and

who are willing to protect it, there are a variety of funding options

and incentives from the Service. Congress authorized funding beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
35

ginning in the fiscal year 1999 for the ESA Landowner Incentive

Program to provide financial assistance and incentives to private

property owners to conserve listed, proposed, and candidate species. I will discuss these and other funding sources below.

As you are aware under section 6 of the ESA, funds are provided

to the States for the species and habitat recovery actions on nonFederal lands.

In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $105 million for the

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The service

will use these dollars for Safe Harbor grants, Habitat Conservation

Planning grants, Species Recovery Land Acquisition grants, and

Candidate Conservation Agreement grants. Each of these grant

programs requires States to provide at least 25 percent of the

project costs in order to receive funds from these grants. Additionally, some of the funds will be used for habitat conservation land

acquisition by States.

The Nevada office of the Service recently worked with a number

of non-Federal partners on proposals for grants under the Service’s

Partners in Fish and Wildlife program. Of the six proposals submitted, five grants were awarded through the partners program.

Last fiscal year, we worked with the Nevada Division of Wildlife

to develop and submit applications for Cooperative Endangered

Species Conservation Fund grants, which led the Service to award

$176,000 to the State. Those funds will benefit 11 projects in Nevada.

In addition to the section 6 moneys, Congress provided $50 million in the fiscal year 2001. Commerce-Justice-State appropriations

to be allocated among the States for wildlife conservation, with the

objective of fulfilling unmet needs of wildlife within the States. One

of the primary means of accomplishing this goal is to encourage cooperative planning by State governments, the Federal Government,

and the other interested parties. Another $50 million for competitive wildlife grants to the States was provided in the Interior appropriations.

You asked for examples of successful conservation agreements in

Nevada. The Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement is such an

example. It came together after 6 years of meeting with local officials and private landowners to ensure they were comfortable with

the direction of the program.

This agreement gave Nye County an opportunity to play a leading role in species conservation and is a good example to demonstrate that local communities are willing, and able, to be leaders

on species conservation.

The Amargosa toad’s total range is limited to a 12-mile stretch

of the Amargosa River in Nye County’s Oasis Valley. The alarm

over the toad’s status was triggered by a 1994 survey that found

only thirty adult toads, resulting in a petition to list the toad as

an endangered species. Recent surveys conducted in cooperation

with private landowners, however, lead scientists to estimate that

as many as 16,000 adult Amargosa toads may live in the Oasis valley.

The nature conservancy purchased the Torrance Ranch, an area

that provides habitat for the Amargosa toad, the Oasis Valley

speckled dace, the Oasis Valley Spring snail, and 150 species of

36

birds, including yellow warbler, blue grosbeak, yellow-billed cuckoo,

and Bullock’s oriole. The Nature Conservancy’s purchase of the

Torrance Ranch was made possible with funding from the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and private donations.

The partners will undertake the restoration and monitoring of

the ranch with financial support by the Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Nature Conservancy, and the University of Nevada, Reno’s Biological

Resources Research Center. The land acquisition, combined with

other actions specified in the agreement, will secure the toad’s future.

One of the obstacles that has impeded local people from getting

involved in conservation planning in Nevada in the past has been

a lack of personal communication between employees of government agencies and landowners. Landowners may not know what

incentives and options are available to them for funding conservation measures. We, in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Nevada Fish

and Wildlife Office, are committed to doing a better job of reaching

out and communicating with landowners and informing them on

how they can play a bigger role in species conservation.

One way we are working to support local conservation efforts is

by dedicating a staff person in our office to identify what grants

and incentives are available for conservation and to reach out to

State and county agencies and private landowners to inform them

of how they can take advantage of these opportunities.

There may be other obstacles, but the Service is working to identify and resolve them so that States, counties, and private property

owners can and will take more active roles in species conservation.

There are numerous threats in Nevada that impact ecosystems

and cause species to decline including: Urban growth; invasion of

non-native grasses, such as cheatgrass and white top; fire damage,

conversion of habitat to agricultural lands; and over-grazing. Involving more people in conservation and protection of public and

non-Federal lands is crucial to preserving the health of the land

and maintaining the biological diversity of Nevada.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and welcome

any questions you may have.

Senator REID. We will have questions for you in a minute. We

will hear now from Dennis Murphy. We are very fortunate to have

him living in Nevada now. I first met him when he was a professor

at Stanford and he was working on a project at University of Nevada, Reno and came to me trying to get me to give him some

money to do biodiversity studies.

How many years ago was that?

Mr. MURPHY. Six and a half.

Senator REID. How much money?

Mr. MURPHY. Approximately $8 million.

Senator REID. So it’s one of the really outstanding and, some say,

the best true science project, going on in the country today as it

relates to biodiversity. I’m confident that it is true.

Not only is Dennis responsible for selling this program to Congress, but he comes with a great resume. Two years ago he was

chosen by his peers to be the, I say the No. 1 scientist. What was

the organization called?

37

Mr. MURPHY. The Society for Conservation Biology.

Senator REID. He was the person chosen to lead that organization. There may be somebody in the world—I don’t know who that

would be—but Dennis Murphy is probably the world’s leading expert on butterflies. The reason that’s so important, I’ve learned, is

that by simply understanding butterfly population you understand

what the ecology is, the environment, and what the biodiversity is

in that particular area. I’m happy to have him with us. I’m glad

you’re now a Nevadan.

Having said that, and the hour is getting late—and knowing you

very well, you will have to cut your testimony down a little bit.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS D. MURPHY, BIODIVERSITY

INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO, NV

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you

initiatives to bring better conservation wildlife, fish, and non-game

species to Nevada and the West.

Many of those concerned with Nevada’s natural heritage have

come to recognize that the critical environmental legislation of the

1970’s, including the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act, among others, has

the potential of becoming unfunded mandates unless the Federal

Government can deliver support for much needed management efforts. Funding for endangered species in particular has been woefully inadequate. As more species have been listed and the need for

conservation responses grow in turn, appropriations have limped

along. In the middle of the 1990’s, the United States spent more

money on military bands than on species at risk. During the same

period more money was spent on Domino’s Pizza deliveries inside

the beltway than on imperiled species programs nationwide. The

message is straightforward. The Federal Government must support

programs that are necessary to conserve listed species and must

aggressively pursue prelisting agreements and efforts to conserve

species before they become listed.

Despite a starvation budget for species protection, conservation

successes in Nevada have been many. The threatened desert tortoise survives across much of the southern State despite explosive

land development and severe drought. Ash Meadows, described by

Harvard University’s E.O. Wilson as a sacred American landmark, ‘‘the equivalent of Independence Hall or Gettysburg,’’ now has protection and work moves forward in earnest to conserve the many

imperiled species that reside there and to control invasive, weedy

species that threaten their habitat. The Spring Mountains Natural

Recreation area harbors more endemic species than any comparable location in the country, and nearly all seem to be doing

well despite rapidly increasing recreational visits.

But many challenges still face our land and resource managers.

The sage grouse and its habitats have precipitously declined across

much of the north of the State. No fewer than 15 imperiled butterfly subspecies are known from just a few dozen wetland acres

across the dry middle of Nevada, each one at more risk of disappearance than any of the currently listed butterfly species found

elsewhere in the Western States. Once the most abundant amphibian in the State, the relict leopard frog now exists in just 3 of the

38

more than 100 sites from which it was historically recorded on museum specimens. Our most widespread frog may just be a few years

away from disappearing from Nevada.

What these species have in common beyond their imperilment is

that they live on a shared landscape—on both lands public and private. They live on public lands with a very long history of resource

use and private stewardship. One conservation reality is apparent;

that is, that saving species and the habitats that support them is

a shared responsibility and will demand in coming years unprecedented cooperation. That cooperation must include Federal land

and resource managers, State fish & wildlife staff, private stakeholders, and scientists. Recognizing our long history of landscape

mismanagement and the twin threats from wildfire and invasive

plant species, we have a great opportunity to fail the sage grouse.

Certainly money alone can’t save the grouse. Federal and State

managers must coordinate to find a common ground between the

prohibitive policy that comes with listings under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the State’s management of fish and

wildlife for consumption. Although we all agree that we must save

sage grouse, we ask whether we want to save them as part of our

State’s rich natural heritage or so that we can have a season on

them.

Any new funding must look to recipients beyond the Federal and

State families. The shared landscape of the Intermountain West is

not equally shared. Private interests have long controlled the most

limiting resource, water. Although Desert tortoise and sage grouse

conservation challenges in this State are not solely driven by water

allocation conflicts, most other species challenges are. It is not a coincidence that pupfish, frogs and toads, spring snails, and butterflies present land managers with the most immediate species challenges. The springs, seeps, and riparian areas that support those

organisms have long been exploited and often over used. Where

dollars can buy water for fish and wildlife, and where private interests have the desire to contribute to saving species, our efforts will

be rewarded. A Federal listing of the 15 butterflies I mentioned can

be obviated with just a small redirection of waters and some threestrand fencing. It is that simple to save uniquely Nevada butterflies in Carson Valley, Big Smoky Valley, Railroad Valley, Steptoe

Valley and points in between.

Finally, cooperation must extend to information gathering and

sharing. We have to recognize we know woefully little about how

our wildlands serve both common species and rare ones. Our best

intended land management agencies have often failed to achieve

the desired results and frequently have had adverse effects on species of concern.

In Nevada we have come a long way toward a remedy. For 7

years the State has benefited from the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative, a cooperative effort joining Federal and State land and resource managers with university scientists to meet the goal of saving biodiversity in the face of human population growth and

diverse land uses. In continuous communication, managers and scientists direct funds to species and habitats at greatest risk, work

together to study biological systems that are poorly understood,

and prioritize future conservation actions. The Biodiversity InitiaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
39

tive cannot take all the credit, but it is certainly no coincidence

that, although Nevada was fourth in the Nation in candidate species for Federal protection in 1993, not one new species was listed

in the State until forces in Elko County caused the recent listing

of the bull trout. Very unfortunately, the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative’s funding has been removed by this administration from the

Federal budget.

In Nevada we have a unique level of communication, cooperation,

and collegiality on resource issues. That foundation has fostered

the largest habitat conservation plan in the country, 51⁄2 million

acres in Clark County, covering nearly 90 species of plants and animals, most not yet listed. In cooperation with California, Nevada

is involved in one of the Nation’s most visible and ambitious restoration efforts to save the fabled clarity of Lake Tahoe’s waters.

Now we are embarking on perhaps the biggest conservation challenge yet, to sustain and restore the most Nevadan of all habitats,

the sagebrush ecosystem. Neglected, abused, and under incalculable threats, we frankly have no available technology to reverse

the decline of our sagebrush. But Federal funding of a cooperative

effort involving agencies and stakeholders founded on reliable experimental science offers our best hope.

Senator Reid, I encourage you and the Committee on Environment and Public Works to fund cooperative efforts to bring more

effective species conservation to our State and our neighbors.

Senator REID. Dennis, how many articles have you published?

Mr. MURPHY. Approximately 160.

Senator REID. So I don’t want to boast on your behalf, but you’re

really a scientist. Tell me what we would have lost had we not had

the Biodiversity Program for the last 7 years.

Mr. MURPHY. The listing process for endangered and threatened

species works in mysterious ways, sort of a compromise between

risk of extinction and economic considerations and other pressures.

But I think it’s quite possible that we would have seen a listing of

one or more species each of the years since the initiative started

and certainly over the last several years.

Senator REID. You don’t mean a listing—you said a listing in

each of the last 7 years?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Senator REID. We have—because I’m responsible for getting the

money, I don’t want to sound too assertive, but is there a program

any place in the United States like this program?

Mr. MURPHY. There isn’t. In many ways it fills the gap that the

National Biological Survey hoped to fill. Secretary Babbitt at the

time wanted to consolidate the research, monitoring, and modeling

capacities within the agencies into a capacity that could be directed

to resolve technical matters related to species persistence, habitat

health and so on.

Senator REID. He was not able to get that——

Mr. MURPHY. Well, he got his survey, but it was slowly starved

through the appropriations process.

Senator REID. Nothing ever came of it? Is that a fair statement?

Mr. MURPHY. That would be unfair to many people who are——

Senator REID. Not much became of it. Is that a fair statement?

40

Mr. MURPHY. Certainly not much came of it. I think the Biodiversity Initiative has played a wonderful role in filling that gap

in this State. It’s a forum for us to solve specific challenges. It’s extremely important in getting folks to sit down together.

Senator REID. Also, Dennis, I cringe to think what we would

have done without the expertise that was developed over the years

with our problems at Lake Tahoe. We have been intimately involved with this. The Walker River system, you have been involved

in that regard.

Of course, even though you came in late, you have been involved

in the problems we had in the Carson/Truckee River systems. That

doesn’t take into consideration the vast areas that you have personally been in and studied dealing with the butterflies. Tell us, why

is it important in the State of Nevada, the country’s leading expert

on butterflies? Why are they important.

Mr. MURPHY. The real reason is because I love Nevada. I think

it’s one of the great untrammeled landscapes in the world and has,

not only wonderful people with an intimate relationship with the

landscape, but a spectacular biological diversity that has been

shaped over the years by the dramatic topography that you mentioned. Our 314 mountain ranges and the increasingly arid environment has isolated organisms in some small portions of many of

the mountain ranges and really gives us a bit of a——

Senator REID. Why are butterflies important?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, butterflies can give an early warning of ecosystems in decline. When your butterflies start to go, it tells you

substantial things about the plants that support them, the species

that co-exist with them, and the fate of the ecosystems in which

they survive.

Senator REID. Bob, you have been involved heavily in all the

many problems we have had in the State of Nevada dealing with

the environment.

How long have you been in Nevada now?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Three and a half years.

Senator REID. During that period of time you have been involved

very publicly, and even when you were not here, you were aware

of the problems going on in Nevada as part of your job. Is that

right?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. I was in Utah. I heard about them—about

the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative from my predecessor.

Senator REID. Even though this is a State program, you and the

Federal Government have relied on the information they gathered.

Is that true?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Very much so for the efforts on our conservation

plan for the spotted frog. As Dennis said, there’s several species

that, if we were not in a conservation planning effort right now,

they would be considered for listing if not listed already.

Senator REID. I’m disappointed that it’s not in the budget. This

program became so successful. As you know, we have a unique

form of government. It’s not a dictatorship. The legislative branch

of government has equal say. So we will see what we can do to reestablish those dollars.

We promised everybody that we would be out of this building by

4 o’clock. Speed on.

41

STATEMENT OF KAREN DENIO, ACTING STATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FARM SERVICES AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. DENIO. Actually, in an effort to conserve time and my voice,

I’m respectfully requesting that my written testimony be entered

into the permanent record.

Senator REID. Yes.

Ms. DENIO. Good afternoon. My name is Karen R. Denio, and I’m

the acting Nevada State executive director for the Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to present information on the conservation programs administered by the Farm Service Agency, FSA, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, in Nevada, the current levels

of participation, and the rationale for producer participation.

FSA and NRCS have several conservation programs available to

farmers and ranchers that provide incentives to encourage wildlife

habitat. Among these programs is the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, a voluntary program for agricultural landowners, offering wildlife and environmental benefits. Generally, offers for CRP

contracts are competitively ranked according to the environmental

benefits index, EBI. Environmental and cost data are collected for

each of the EBI factors, including: Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage, water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching, on-farm benefits of reduced

erosion, likely long-term benefits of reduced erosion, air quality

benefits from reduced wind erosion, benefits of enrollment in conservation priority areas where enrollment would contribute to the

improvement of identified adverse water quality, wildlife habitat or

air quality, and cost.

Under the CRP, producers receive annual rental payments and

cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving

covers on eligible crop land and marginal pasture land that improves soil, water, and wildlife resources. To be eligible to be enrolled in the CRP, cropland must also have been planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity 2 of the 5 most recent

crop years.

Conservation Reserve Program continuous sign-ups provide management flexibility to farmers and ranchers to implement certain

high-priority conservation practices on eligible land. To encourage

these high-priority practices, continuous sign-up participants do

not go through the normal bidding process and can enroll noncompetitively. One practice that offers significant wildlife benefits

for farmers and ranchers is the riparian buffer practice. The land

can be marginal pasture which is devoted to trees either planted

or naturally regenerated. This provides cover for waterfowl and fish

along with other wildlife species.

A second wildlife enhancement practice is to develop or restore

shallow water areas that provide a source of water for wildlife for

the majority of the year. Other eligible acreage devoted to certain

special conservation practices, such as filter strips, grassed waterways, shelter belts, living snow fences, contour grass strips, and

salt tolerant vegetation, may be enrolled at any time under the

CRP continuous sign-up and is not subject to competitive bidding.

42

To be eligible under continuous sign-up, land must first meet the

basic CRP eligibility requirements. In addition to the applicable

CRP rental rates, payments up to 50 percent of the eligible cost of

establishing a permanent cover are provided to producers as costshares.

Up to $350 million is available for additional incentives through

fiscal year 2002 to encourage producers to participate in the CRP

continuous sign-up including: An up-front CRP Signing Incentive

Payment of $100 to $150 per acre, a Practice Incentive Payment

paid as a one-time rental payment equal to 40 percent of the eligible installation costs to eligible participants enrolling in certain

practices in addition to the standard 50 percent CRP cost-share

rate, new rental rates that have been established for certain marginal pasture land to better reflect the value of such lands to farmers and ranchers.

Through mid-January 2001, over 1.4 million acres nationally

have been enrolled under continuous sign-up practices. With these

incentives, enrollment of filter strips has increased over 600 percent compared to the historic program (sign-ups 1–13).

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP, is used

in many States as a vehicle for conservation cooperation. The two

primary objectives of CREP are to coordinate Federal and nonFederal resources to address specific conservation objectives of a

State and the Nation in a cost-effective manner and to improve

wildlife habitat, water quality, and erosion control related to agricultural use in specific geographic areas.

These unique State and Federal partnerships allow producers to

receive incentive payments for installing specific conservation practices. Through the CREP, farmers can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource

conserving covers on eligible land. Like continuous sign-up, CREP

participants can enroll non-competitively and receive the signing

and practice incentive payments.

Under CREP, non-Federal partners provide a significant commitment, such as 20 percent, toward the overall cost of the program.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, is carried

out by NRCS. EQIP provides technical, educational, and financial

assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water,

and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmental beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides

assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with Federal,

State, and tribal environmental laws and encourages environmental enhancement.

The purposes of EQIP are intended to be achieved through the

implementation of a conservation plan which include structural,

vegetative, and land management practices on eligible land. Fiveto ten-year contracts are made with eligible producers. Cost-share

payments may be made to implement one or more of the eligible

structural or vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilitates, terraces, filter strips, tree planting, and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can be made to implement one or more land management practices, such as nutrient

management, pest management, and grazing land management. By

law, nationally, 50 percent of the funding available for the program

43

is targeted at natural resource concerns relating to livestock production.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, WHIP, is another Federal wildlife conservation program administered by NRCS. WHIP

is a voluntary program that provides cost-sharing of up to 75 percent for landowners to apply a variety of wildlife practices to develop habitat that will support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife,

threatened and endangered species, fisheries, and other types of

wildlife. The purpose of the program is to create a high quality

wildlife habitat that support wildlife populations of local, State,

and national significance.

Although these conservation programs are available, it is often a

difficult decision for the producer on whether to participate. As energy, fertilizer and transportation costs continue to escalate. It

often puts the farmers and ranchers in the position of choosing between production-based practices to pay the bills and the conservation practices they wish to carry out.

Nevada’s producer participation in CRP and the CRP continuous

sign-up is limited due to a variety of factors. One factor is the rental rate assigned to Nevada. Rental rates are based on the dry land

agricultural value because ongoing irrigation is not required as a

condition of enrollment. The dry land rate for enrolled land in Nevada is about $17 per acre. Consistent with the statutory obligation

prohibiting haying or grazing, a producer is required to keep cattle

off the CRP land. Therefore, if a producer or a neighbor has cattle

it would be necessary to fence the CRP acreage.

Along with wildlife enhancement benefits, one of the purposes of

CRP is to retire cropland in order to control erosion and improve

water quality. Because much of Nevada’s land base does not have

a cropping history due to it’s permanent grass cover or recently

being put into production, it is basically ineligible to be enrolled in

the CRP.

In Nevada there are more EQIP requests for participation than

available for funding. For example, in 2000 there were 57 applications for a total of $1,207,197, and with the $992,478 allocation, 43

projects were funded. The 2001 cycle is similar in that 85 applications totaling $1,769,873 have been received, but with $1,151,300

allocated, a minimum of 44 projects will be funded.

Ultimately, participation in conservation programs benefits all of

us. For even as we recognize our farmers and ranchers as the original conservationists, we each have a responsibility in preserving

our land and natural resources for the following generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or the committee may have.

Senator REID. Thank you. We will hear now from Nick Pearson

from the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. PEARSON. I’ll try to be brief.

Senator REID. Thank you for your patience in waiting around

this afternoon. I appreciate it.

44

STATEMENT OF NICK PEARSON, STATE CONSERVATIONIST,

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, farmers across America are faced with ever increasing pressures to maintain a productive and profitable business. Prices for many farm commodities

have been the lowest in years, and poor weather and growing conditions have been issues in many areas. Production costs have increased due to many factors, including rising prices of nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas. In addition to these concerns, farmers face

increasing pressures associated with natural resources. In recent

years concern regarding the health of our soils, water supply, and

air have made farming and ranching increasingly difficult.

We know that farmers want to be good stewards of the land.

They know that stewardship is in the best interest of long-term

productivity of farming operations. By and large, it is also important to farmers and ranchers who want to leave improved natural

resources and a better environment for future generations. Our

mission is to help farmers and ranchers meet the challenge of sustaining their natural resources while maintaining a productive and

profitable business.

Today I would like to highlight the many ways our conservation

programs are making a difference around the countryside. Since

the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996, NRCS has experienced an increased national demand

for participation in conservation programs. Farmers are utilizing

these programs for a variety of benefits, including managing nutrients to save on input costs and protect water quality, restoring and

protecting wetlands to create wildlife habitat, installing grassed

waterways to control erosion, and designing grazing systems to increase forage production and manage invasive species.

Land users are using conservation to improve the productivity

and sustainability of their operation, while also improving the asset

value of their farm even during times of such dire economic strain.

Our programs are voluntary. In response to new environmental

regulations at many levels, we are helping farmers and ranchers

meet some of the regulatory pressures they may face. In turn, the

public benefits from conservation programs go well beyond the edge

of the farm field.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the conservation programs Congress included in the 1996 Act, when coupled with our historic conservation programs and the State and local delivery system, are

proving winners for the farmer, and the country as a whole.

The cornerstone of our conservation activities is the NRCS work

force. Everything we accomplish is contingent upon the talents and

technical skills of our field staff around the country. They are

trained professionals with the technical tools, standards, and specifications who get the job done. NRCS has operated since its creation through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals,

State and local governments, and other Federal agencies and officials. That partnership may even be more important today if we

are to meet the challenging conservation problems facing our nation’s farmers and ranchers.

45

While we are accomplishing much through the 1996 Act programs, it is important not to lose sight of the importance of our ongoing Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For more than

60 years the NRCS has used conservation technical assistance to

build a foundation of trust with people who voluntarily conserve

their natural resources. On average, the agency’s conservation assistance leverages more than $1 in contributions for every Federal

dollar invested. In States like Nevada, NRCS has placed special

emphasis on the conservation of private grazing lands. As part of

our efforts in this area, farmers and ranchers are benefiting from

the planned grazing systems, resulting in better productivity and

improved natural resources. Through the National Cooperative Soil

Survey, approximately 22 million acres have been mapped each

year so that natural resource decisions are based upon sound

science and complete information about the natural resources.

NRCS accomplishes its goals by working with 3,000 local conservation districts that have been established by State law and

with American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Governments. We

also leverage our resources with the help of more than 348 resource

conservation and development RC&D councils. State and local governments contribute substantially with both people and funding to

complement NRCS technical and financial assistance. Approximately 7,750 full-time equivalent staff years are provided annually

by NRCS partners and volunteers.

Next I would like to highlight the accomplishments of the Wetlands Reserve Program. WRP preserves, protects, and restores valuable wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where historic wetland functions and values have been either depleted or

substantially diminished. Program delivery is designed to maximize wetland wildlife benefits to provide for water quality and

flood storage benefits and to provide for general aesthetic and open

space needs. Approximately 70 percent of the WRP project sites are

within areas that are frequently subjected to flooding, reducing the

severity of future flood events. The WRP is also making a substantial contribution to the restoration of the Nation’s migratory bird

habitats, especially for waterfowl.

As directed in the 1996 Act, WRP enrollment is separated into

three components: Permanent easements, 30-year easements, and

cost-share agreements. Pursuant to appropriations act directives,

enrollment is being balanced to respond to the level of landowner

interest in each of these three components.

The 1996 Act authorized a total cumulative enrollment of

975,000 acres in the program. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2000,

the program had almost reached maximum enrollment. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and

related agency appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 provided an

additional 100,000 acres raising the cumulative enrollment cap up

to 1,075,000 acres and allowing 140,000 acres to enroll in fiscal

year 2001.

From inception of the program in 1992 through 2000, interest in

WRP has been exceptional. Historically, there have been more than

five times as many acres offered than the program could enroll.

One benefit of WRP is the amount of resources we have been able

to leverage with other Federal programs as well as nongovernVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
46

mental organizations. It is clear from our experience to date, Mr.

Chairman, that the WRP continues to be very popular with farmers

and ranchers and is a program that clearly has strong support

around the countryside.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides up to 75 percent cost-share for implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop upland wildlife habitat, wetland wildlife habitat, threatened

and endangered species habitat as well as aquatic habitat. The

WHIP also helps landowners best meet their own needs while supporting wildlife habitat development, and to develop new partnerships with the State wildlife agencies, nongovernmental agencies

and others.

The program was initially funded at a total of $50 million in the

1996 Act to be spent over a number of years. As a result of strong

interest, those funds were exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1999,

at which time 1.4 million acres were enrolled in 8,600 long-term

wildlife habitat development agreements. For fiscal year 2001,

$12.5 million will be provided for WHIP from funding in section

211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, as authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. NRCS

has made an enormous effort to develop partnerships with government and private organizations to develop a practice that targets

specific State concerns.

The FPP protects prime or unique farm land, land of State or

local importance and other productive soils from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching funds to leverage funds

from States, tribes, or local government entities that have farmland

protection programs. The FPP establishes partnerships with State,

tribes, and local government entities to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land. It ensures that valuable farmland

is preserved for future generations and also helps maintain a

healthy environment and sustainable rural economy. The program

was initially funded in the 1996 Act at a level of $35 million to be

spent over a number of years. To date, those funds have been exhausted and local interest in the program continues to be strong.

For fiscal year 2001, additional funding provided in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will fund the FPP at $17.5 million. On January 22, 2001, a request for proposals was published

in the Federal Register. Eligible entities had until March 8, 2001,

to submit their proposals. After the evaluation process is concluded,

successful applicants will be notified in June 2001.

EQIP provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to

farmers and ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and

related natural resources on agricultural and other land. The 1996

Act authorized $200 million annually for EQIP, utilizing funds of

the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC. For fiscal year 2001, the

final appropriation was $200 million. In the previous 2 fiscal years

Congress appropriated $17.4 million annually. Consistent with the

authorizing legislation, the program is primarily available in priority conservation areas in order to maximize the benefits of each

Federal conservation dollar. The priority areas consist of watersheds, regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns that

have been recommended through a locally-led conservation process.

47

For fiscal year 2000, nearly 85 percent of the EQIP financial assistance funding was provided within priority areas.

The program has been extremely successful. We received nearly

76,168 applications in fiscal year 2000. After NRCS ranked the applications based on criteria developed at the local and State level,

16,443 long-term contracts with farmers and ranchers were approved. Since inception of the program, EQIP has averaged about

six times the number of applications than could be approved with

available funding. Certainly the demand for the program remains

high around the country.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would note that good conservation

doesn’t just happen. It takes all of us, including the Congress, the

conservation partners and, most importantly, the people living on

the land working together to make it happen. As exemplified

through the many programs and activities that we have underway,

there is a great deal happening on the ground. The work is not

only helping farmers and ranchers build more productive economically-viable operations, but also it’s building a better natural resource base for the future. We are proud of your accomplishments

and look forward to working with you to build on all that we have

done thus far.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

again for the opportunity to appear. I would be happy to answer

any questions the committee might have.

Senator REID. Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Karen, I understand Nevada received only one conservation reserve program contract last year.

Can you describe to me the reasons why the program doesn’t

work well for Nevada and some things we can do in the Farm bill

to change that.

Ms. DENIO. Like I mentioned in my testimony, it has everything to do with the rental rate as one of the factors. They get $17 an

acre to take the crop out of production. In other States they get

much more than that. We get the dry land rental rate even though

we have to irrigate to grow most crops.

Another factor is that they don’t have the cropping history. Because of the fact that we have now the irrigation techniques that

are available, we are just getting cropland into production, and so

they don’t have the many years of producing it, and thus they don’t

meet that requirement of the environmental benefits index.

Senator REID. One idea that my staff is thinking of is whether

we can write a program that would give farmers and ranchers financial assistance to voluntarily switch from a relatively waterintensive crop like hay, which is 40-acre feet of water per acre per

year, of course, to growing native seed, for example, or something

else.

Do you think that farmers might be interested in making the

switch if we did some pilot projects that showed that their soil was

good for growing seed?

Ms. DENIO. I think there would be. In order to do that, obviously,

incentives work really well. They would need different equipment

in order to produce the crops. If that were a part of the incentive,

to recover the costs, I think that would be possible.

Senator REID. Do you have any comments on that?

48

Mr. PEARSON. She’s right on, couldn’t have said it better.

Senator REID. Dr. Murphy, tell me roughly how the Biodiversity

Initiative both benefits from and supports students at the university.

Mr. MURPHY. The Biodiversity Initiative provides the funding

that allows us in turn to provide infrastructure that allows a

broader experience for the students. We have a geographic information system mapping capacity in our biodiversity office within the

biology department. We can provide stipends to support graduate

students who have worked projects ranging from the conservation

of bats to looking at the State’s biotic and physical resources on

landscape.

One of the great advantages of the Biodiversity Initiative is that

it has provided for cooperative staff sharing with the agencies. Several students have had experiences with Fish and Wildlife Service

and have gone on to work for the agency.

Senator REID. This biodiversity program, has it provided a better

graduate student? Has it made a better graduate student?

Mr. MURPHY. I certainly believe so. It has funded students to go

to international meetings exchange experiences and see how conservation is carried out elsewhere. But it has also allowed for Dr.

Richard Tracy, one of the top ecologists in the United States who,

with the assistance of the biodiversity initiative was brought to

UNR where he has continued to do path-breaking work on the

desert tortoise, for instance, and served on its recovery team which

has played such a substantial role in saving the species.

Senator REID. With you and Dr. Tracy, Dr. Broussard, and others, how has the UNR’s conservation and biology department—

what kind of stead does it have around the country?

Mr. MURPHY. We are certainly in the top three in terms of the

performance of the faculty, the number of graduate students produced, and the placement of those students in jobs.

Senator REID. When you say ‘‘in the top three,’’ you mean in all

universities around the country?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Senator REID. After your students leave the university after

working as part of the initiative, what do you have to report about

those students?

Mr. MURPHY. Certainly their placement within the agencies

working on these issues has been common, and they have been

placed throughout the United States.

But I think quite importantly that graduates in the State of Nevada are now playing substantial roles in decisionmaking that has,

I dare say, contributed to obviating the need for future species listing.

Senator REID. I’m grateful for everyone for having been here

today. When you do a hearing like this it is not nearly as sexy as

one dealing with capital punishment or other issues.

But the fact of the matter is it’s a very important hearing. The

wide range of witnesses that we have had, the Congressman from

Texas, we have had people who worked out of the goodness of their

own heart in improving wildlife habitat, helping sportsmen be able

to do the things that they enjoy so much.

49

It has shown to me that there’s the ability for government at all

levels to work with those on the ground. As we have heard here

from the very first witness, these programs will not work unless

local people support the programs. I look forward to making sure

that what we do in Washington takes that into consideration, programs that are so essential to the literal survival of various habitats around the country, no matter what the case is, that it won’t

work unless local people support it. As Larry Johnson in his written testimony said, ‘‘The Nevada Bighorn Unlimited actions prove

that true sportsmen are the consummate conservationists.’’

Having said that, this hearing of the Committee on Environment

and Public Works is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene on April 12, 2001, in Fallon, NV.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON HENLEY, CADDO LAKE INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for permitting me to address the committee, today.

First, let me thank Congressman Sandlin for his positive efforts on behalf of this

local initiative. His introduction and his photograph provide an excellent overview

of our vision. I also thank the committee members for hearing our concerns about

a possible need for oversight and support for community-based initiatives that fulfill

important Federal conservation commitments.

My remarks today will address not just the local, but also the national and global

conservation benefits that could result from congressional support for The Caddo

Lake Ramsar Wetlands Science Center Program.

However, my comments about our Caddo Lake program may apply equally well

to other community initiatives that are also fulfilling important Federal conservation commitments. One example is the Elko habitat restoration program in your

State of Nevada, Senator Reid. My conclusion will note some features and needs

which both programs seem to share.

We have provided the committee with a pamphlet about our Caddo Lake initiative. The front cover contains the Caddo Lake scene Congressman Sandlin showed

you, prefaced by the phrase, ‘‘A Woods Hole for Wetlands.’’ That phrase was coined

in a local editorial several years ago, referring to the famous Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. This editorial is in the pamphlet. Together the

picture and the phrase show the reason for, and the essence of, this local vision.

This booklet also contains schematic plans for the Center’s campus, the office building for our Research Coordination Network, interpretive and accessory support

buildings. A possible hemispheric mission is noted in the letter from John Rogers,

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Finally, the pamphlet contains the 1999 Costa Rica

Conference Resolution of the Ramsar Nations, which endorses powerful guidance to

maximize the involvement of local communities in management of Ramsar wetland

sites. The resolution notes that the approved guidance was co-authored by the

Caddo Lake Institute, among others. Thus, this rural Texas initiative has already

influenced both the local and international practice of wetland conservation.

The Caddo Lake Ramsar Science Center is a proposed public/private partnership

between the Institute, as the local facility manager and program coordinator, and

two Department of Interior agencies, which have special expertise.

These Federal agencies are: the USGS’ National Wetlands Research Center of Lafayette Louisiana and the International Affairs Office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC. Both agencies have been our informal partners at Caddo

Lake since 1993.

The purpose of this Ramsar Center is to institutionalize a brilliant community

achievement that could light the way for other communities. The Center is charged

with demonstrating nothing less than the ‘‘exemplary fulfillment’’ of an important

U.S. treaty commitment, specifically the Ramsar Convention on ‘‘Wetlands of International Importance, especially as waterfowl habitat.’’ Our national credibility in

keeping this commitment underpins our ability to ask other nations to manage wisely the wetlands in their parts of our common flyways. In addition, the Caddo Lake

Ramsar Center fulfills an official pledge by the U.S. Government and the Caddo

Lake Institute to more than 100 Ramsar nations at their 1996 Conference at Brisbane, Australia.

50

At Brisbane we jointly pledged to establish at Longhorn the first U.S. Regional

Ramsar Center. To assure the availability of the facility and fulfill the pledge, the

Caddo Lake Institute leased a 1,400-acre old growth forest at Longhorn for conservation research purposes, as well as a 14-acre campus and buildings for eventual

renovation. We originally pledged $100,000 to this purpose. We have incurred expenses greatly in excess of that amount to fulfill our share of the Brisbane Pledge.

The purpose of the requested appropriation is to augment the Department of Interior’s budget for our partner agencies to underwrite the costs of the Center and its

programs for community members and scientists. Together we will create operate

and demonstrate the Caddo Lake wetland management plan, as an exemplar of the

best Ramsar guidance. The renovation plan contemplates that the facility will be

a learning venue. It will include powerful modeling tools for this wetland and its

watershed. Interpretive and outreach programs will showcase the practical realities

of a community-based wetland management program, and its watershed science

foundation.

Because of its wetland science expertise and proximity, in Lafayette Louisiana, we

think the National Wetlands Research Center (or NWRC) is the logical agency to

receive a budget augmentation to fund and provide oversight for the Caddo Lake

Ramsar Center program. Although we know it to be an excellent science agency, we

believe NWRC is ‘‘fiscally under-appreciated’’ within the Federal budget. It deserves

both the funding, and the credit it will earn by congressional augmentation to provide its expertise to local Ramsar communities—a task we know that NWRC does

well. FWS International Affairs, which executes our government’s Ramsar obligations, would be reimbursed for its costs of provide Ramsar oversight and U.S. policy

coordination. We understand that FWS may also wish to use some Center resources

to assist other Ramsar sites whose requests for help are currently underfunded.

This new assistance capacity might include training at Caddo Lake, and support for

delegations of our citizens and scientists who visit other wetland communities in response to their requests for advice or assistance.

We use the term ‘‘budget augmentation’’ purposefully. It should be counterproductive to compromise the historic missions of NWRC or FWS International Affairs by reallocating to our program any of their shrinking resources. NWRC would

reimburse itself and other Federal agencies from this budget augmentation for direct Federal agency costs as well as NWRC’s costs of fiscal and wetland science or

oversight, passing through the balance of at lease 80 percent to finance the locally

managed program.

Beyond fulfillment of the Brisbane Pledge, there are compelling reasons to create

a program of this type at Caddo Lake. The Caddo Lake communities have made a

solid beginning in showing that rural communities have the potential to manage an

internationally significant wetland conservation program. Last summer we facilitated a ‘‘Lake Residents Working Group’’ to master and make local presentations

of lake management science information. Many Working Group participants, like

our grocer and guide Robin Holder, are also members of key local businesses, community groups and the local navigation district. Our initiative formalized the practice of regular consultation with our colleagues of Texas Parks and Wildlife fisheries

and waterfowl divisions, as well as their personnel managing their Caddo Lake

Wildlife Management Area, the original 1993 Ramsar site. Together, they represent

the nucleus of the Ramsar-like structure that joins community groups with science

experts, a structure which this appropriation would enable us to formalize to manage the Caddo Lake Ramsar wetlands.

To assure that there will always be a sound science foundation for this ambitious

program, we have expanded our historic academic monitoring program. It has become a much broader Research Coordination Network (RCN) The RCN’s mission is

to provide scientific information to our communities for exemplary implementation

of Ramsar guidance, not just for Caddo Lake but also as a model and encouragement to other wetland communities. Today the RCN is composed of scientists from

Texas A&M, Stephen F. Austin State University, East Texas Baptist University,

Wiley College, Panola College and Louisiana State University, Shreveport. Anticipating that some committee members may be alumni of other Texas universities,

I hasten to note that both University of Texas and Texas Tech University, among

others, have been invited to participate. This network includes agency scientists

from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

National Wetlands Research Center. Next week the RCN meets in Jefferson, Texas

to review Ramsar guidance and to create interpretive materials about ‘‘what we

know’’ and to define research projects about ‘‘what we need to find out to manage

better.’’ These Conference products will become part of the annual Research Action

Agenda for the Center. The Center’s interpretive program will routinely showcase

the findings of this applied research, and how such research informs the manageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
51

ment of ‘‘critical issues’’ in the Caddo Lake Basin. These critical issues include by

way of example: how to maximize and measure the effectiveness of community management itself, how to deal with invasive species, how to maintain hydrological integrity, and how to assess and monitor risks to ecological character. Examples of

risks already calling for sound science are: measurement of the effects of acids, and

nutrients and trace metals from airborne and point sources, including levels of mercury and other pollutants found in the fish and wildlife throughout the basin.

Community members of the lake management Working Group will attend the annual RCN Conferences, as full participants, as a part of their ongoing wetland

science orientation. Therefore, much of the funding will be passed through to implement or showcase the Research Action Agenda that the RCN will produce annually

with the community management entity. As a result, we expect that the Center will

become a model of an advanced research and educational facility for our participants as well as natural science visitors.

Congressman Sandlin perceptively stated a belief we all share at Caddo Lake:

Like politics, all conservation is ‘‘local’’ conservation—at least the best kind is. That

has been true in our case. Contrary to popular characterizations of rural

southeasterners as being alarmed by local Federal conservation activities, our communities are proud of the Ramsar designation, understand its value and use the

designation as a tool for stewardship.

During our preparation for this hearing we noticed that similar local initiatives

were happening with the sage grouse habitat initiative by rural people in Elko, Nevada. Both programs even share the feature of local people recruiting two willing

Federal agencies. We suspect that these may be two examples, perhaps of many

similar situations, where extremely important Federal conservation commitments

are actually being fulfilled by local initiatives—just because local people decided it

was the right thing to do.

But community-based initiatives, especially those pursuing Federal conservation

commitments are very vulnerable. The local effort required to create them is potentially exhausting. If they are not institutionalized and incorporated into local cultural pride, they can rapidly deteriorate. They may be undermined by the death,

illness, aging and the personal and family needs of key participants. Local efforts

can also be demoralized by indifference, or by ‘‘turf wars’’ or manipulation by the

agencies whose missions they are furthering. They may die simply for want of an

appropriate institutional vessel to carry them on. Often these local efforts achieve

a critical mass—and their greatest promise and vulnerability—just when their need

for costly institutionalization is also critical.

Survival of model community conservation initiatives, like survival of model conservation bureaucracies, requires funding to pay for expertise and institutional

structures which foster continuity of programs and personnel, as well as the means

to retrieve essential information, to plan, manage, train, and recruit successors. We

believe that helping to institutionalize model community programs, which fulfill

Federal commitments, is justified, especially where they are funded to support other

local efforts.

So we suggest that, as we examine how we accomplish conservation in this country, we should make note of and accommodate the flashes of community brilliance

that occur to illuminate and fulfill a Federal conservation commitment. I believe one

such situation is occurring in our Caddo Lake Ramsar Communities. This significant conservation effort can be continued as a model for our Nation and the world,

especially if the vessel for institutionalization is the local vision; like our vision of

‘‘a Woods Hole for wetlands,’’ the Caddo Lake Wetlands Science Center.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF LETA COLLORD, NORTHEASTERN NEVADA STEWARDSHIP GROUP,

ELKO, NV

For the last 7 years I’ve been working on the very idea that brings us together

at this meeting; that science needs to be better connected to, and used by, citizens

and communities if its going to have much of an effect on solving the many challenges we face now and into the future. Much of my work has been with citizens

and communities of place which, I believe, explains why I was invited to speak here

today.

To prepare for this presentation, I called a number of people with whom I’ve

worked (or have otherwise come to know during those years) to get their views on

this matter. Basically, I wanted to know whether or not science was being used by

people and the community. And, if not, why? I also asked for their thoughts on what

52

could be done to make science more widely understood and used by people and communities in the course of their making choices and decisions.

Let me begin by sharing with you what people feel are the problems. Armed with

that information, perhaps we can better understand how to proceed in the future.

Keep in mind that the following views come from the West where the public lands

play a much larger role in people’s lives. Views from other areas of the country may

be different from these.

The following is a summary of what I heard:

• When people hear about science, it’s frequently in a negative context. Many people believe that science will only be used against them. • Negative stories concerning science often abound in the local culture (e.g.,

spending large sums of money studying ‘‘useless’’ things, using science and information to take away or diminish what they view as constitutional rights [private lands,

grazing ‘‘rights’’], etc.). • People think that science is politically driven and nonobjective. There’s always

a purpose behind it that serves someone else’s agenda, someone who doesn’t live in

their community. • Because of the polarity over environmental and land use issues in the last 30

years or so, that agenda is typically suspected to be an environmental one. Across

much of the rural West, science is viewed as seldom, if ever, serving the well being

of the local people. More often, it represents a threat to them. • There’s a sense that all science and information are done to support authority

and regulation, little if anything is done to help people understand and/or solve

problems themselves. • Locals are highly suspicious of government initiated studies and surveys.

They’re particularly suspicious of remote sensing. These activities invigorate and

give credibility to the ‘‘black helicopter and one world government crowd.’’ Misinformation flourishes when people are not well informed. Once it is in place it’s very

difficult to overcome. • Most locals see scientists as living in such ‘‘different worlds’’ that they can neither understand nor relate to the needs of average people. • Scientists tend not to involve people effectively as scientific findings and information are released. People generally learn the results from local/regional news

services. The information is often met with suspicion, refuted, and labeled as ‘‘bad

science.’’ • Scientists come across as elitists. They’re not in touch with the local people;

they don’t involve the locals; and they don’t listen to their concerns or input. • People don’t like to feel that scientists are there to educate them. • People don’t see the different agencies of government working together. It’s widely held that the BLM and FS don’t use the same information, procedures, or

policies for their science. Now, people don’t see how the USGS fits into the picture,

particularly concerning the ‘‘biological sciences.’’.

• More and more, people go to sources other than government agencies for their

science and information.

I could go on, but I think this feedback paints a very clear picture of why ‘‘they’’

don’t use ‘‘our’’ information? But the news isn’t all bad. I also got some very encouraging feedback. Here are some examples:

• I talked to a county commissioner in Idaho who thought that the Columbia

River Ecosystem Management Project had been a failure because it was not a ‘‘community-based project.’’ However, when I asked him if he thought there was any good

that came from that project his response was, ‘‘Yes, the science. But for it to be applied it needs to be brought down to the community level and adapted to the local

situation.’’

• A person in Elko, Nevada answered my question about science essentially this

way, ‘‘When people in a community are pulled together and empowered to solve natural resource problems they naturally begin to look for sources of expertise and information. If they think the information is objective and useful, they will use it.’’

This feedback tells me that under the right circumstance people view science as

important and will make an effort to put it to use. So the question before us today

perhaps should be thought of a little differently. Maybe we should be inquiring into

what we can do to help foster a social environment at the community/citizen level

that supports the application of science. In my view, we’re faced with a social challenge, not a technical one.

In effect, we should be looking for a new relationship between government,

science, and citizens that supports stewardship by people, rather than looking for

more regulatory and decisionmaking powers in government. The future can be much

brighter if we learn to work with people. In fact, there are those who believe that

the only way that many future problems can be effectively resolved is through peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
53

ple and community of place, that other course of action simply won’t lead to sustainable solutions. I believe that. I think that many of you in attendance at this meeting

do too.

So, what would such an environment, or social setting, look like relative to

science? Well, it might look something like this:

• People would become actively and constructively involved in understanding

science and its implications.

• People would gain a sense of ownership and responsibility over science and information, especially that which is important to them locally.

• People would apply science and information to solving problems and in making

decisions and choices.

Of these statements, the most important is the one containing the word ‘‘ownership.’’ If we could approach this interface of science and community in a way that

resulted in people having a sense of ownership, the other outcomes would have an

excellent chance of materializing, naturally so. I believe, that if people are to have

ownership they must be ‘‘empowered.’’ I really think that it’s as simple and, at the

same time, as complex as that.

When people feel dis-empowered, disenfranchise, or otherwise threatened, they

have the choice of ignoring, refuting, or even demonizing the science that comes

their way. Their power (at least within their own social circles) comes from doing

just that. As one person told me, ‘‘If the locals don’t consider it important, it just

isn’t going to happen.’’ I think that person is telling us that we can complete all

the studies, assessments, reports, and decision support models we want. By themselves, these things are not going to really change anything. We need to work for

the trust, understanding, ownership and responsibility of people if science is to be

effectively applied on the ground.

There is a process for creating such an environment. I call it ‘‘Community-based

Stewardship.’’ Now, there are lots of terms being thrown around these days, ‘‘collaboration,’’ ‘‘partnerships,’’ ‘‘collaborative stewardship,’’ etc. What I’m talking about

is a process of empowering people, particularly people in place based, or community,

settings. It is not simply a process for getting people, or representatives of special

interests, together to talk for the purpose of finding ‘‘common ground.’’ We’re talking

about a place-based, community-based, in fact, community-led process for

stewarding landscapes, watershed, and ecosystems.

It is local people living in a community construct who have the attachment to the

surrounding landscapes needed for lasting, sustainable stewardship. My sociologists

friends have convinced me that there is always a cultural setting that defines the

interrelationship of people to land. That culture may not presently contain all the

knowledge, or even the right land ethic, needed to steward the land in the greater

interest of society, but all that can change through a process aimed at incorporating

science into local knowledge and wisdom. That’s our challenge.

Imagine a future in which a majority of the community holds, practices, and

teaches land and environmental ethics that are scientifically sound and inclusive of

the larger interests of society. Imagine further that the role of government and scientists has largely shifted from regulation and formal decisionmaking to that of supporting citizen-based, citizen-led solutions to many environmental issues, at least

those that lend themselves to solving at that level. In my mind, that’s the future

that we need to work toward. A fantasy? Perhaps, but I do see us moving in that

direction.

Given the space and support for doing so, the process I speak of seems to come

together and evolve almost naturally. Although it doesn’t readily lend itself to modeling or text book descriptions, the following diagram serves as a visual reference

to help our discussions here today.

54

COMMUNITY-BASED STEWARDSHIP

The relationship between community and government, as implied by this model,

primarily depends upon those agencies that have a local presence in the community,

such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National

Park Service, or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Typically, a lot of front end work

is needed between the community and these (and other) agencies to make community-based stewardship operational. It’s not our purpose here today to talk about

that relationship. However, I do want to again emphasize the importance of ‘‘Trust

and Empowerment.’’ In my opinion, community-based stewardship cannot be made

operational without these qualities of human interrelationships. Empowerment, in

all its complexity and subtlety, also affects the role of science in this model, and

certainly its effectiveness.

So, let’s see what the people I interviewed had to say concerning what needs to

be done for science to become more effectively involved in the community. Here is

some of what I heard:

• We need to have scientists available to us; they need to demonstrate that they

care about us and have a first hand knowledge of, and concern for, where we live.

• Scientists need to be close enough, or available enough, to gain credibility. They

need to be more than just someone who occasionally shows up to explain or present

something.

• Scientist need to be out on the ground and talking with people to gain credibility.

• Scientist need to listen to us as well, learning is not a one way street.

• Scientific information needs to be brought down to the local scale and communicated through local language and culture for it to be effective.

• Scientists need to respect the local knowledge.

55

• Before starting major surveys, work with local people to help them understand

what’s going on, and why. After that, stay involved with them. If ground truthing

is needed, get the locals involved.

• Similarly, get local people involved in monitoring; help them to feel that you

and they are working with common purpose.

In short, all this says to me that science needs to have a ‘‘face put on it’’ at the

local level. If I may, I would like to leave you today with some recommendations

on how to do that.

1. Train scientists to work effectively in a community context (i.e., establishing

credibility, gaining trust, and helping people to become more a part of the science

that should be considered important to them and the area they live in).—Most people

I interviewed indicated a need to have more local contact with scientists, not less.

They want to bring that knowledge and expertise down to the local level and they

want to feel that the scientists involved are truly concerned and knowledgeable

about them or the area they live in. While there are ways of attaining these goals,

they often are disallowed by agency and/or professional protocol. Having key people

regularly sitting in community gathering places, drinking coffee, and discussing

matters of local interest is not often considered productive work. Nor is it viewed

as a way of getting the ‘‘important’’ reportable work out. Yet, that may be exactly

what is called for if we are to become effective as change agents on the ground,

where, in my opinion, it counts the most. There is now training available on how

to work effectively in a community setting. I would hope that in the near future the

importance of this kind of work becomes better understood and accepted, and that

a part of the work force becomes committed to working for trust and credibility at

the local level.

2. Staff the culture.—To be even more effective in gaining confidence and application of science at the local level, we should think about permanently locating scientists within communities and expect them to become active members of the community, both locally and more regionally. This is not without precedent. At least

some, and perhaps most, of the scientist who came to USGS from different agencies

to staff biological services remain in their former duty stations. In one such case

that I’m familiar with, the scientist is well known and respected throughout the region she works. At the same time, I know this person to be deeply committed to

the ecology of this particular area. Here is an example that appears to be meeting

many of the conditions people are asking for. She is also proving that you do not

have to compromise your values to be effective in this role. In fact, I believe the

opposite is true; you lose respect if you do compromise yourself. Fairness, objectivity,

and caring are, however, mandatory prerequisites.

3. Form ‘‘regional science teams’’ and work toward establishing their regional

credibility.—There are examples of regional science teams already in existence in

various parts of the country. But, in my opinion, they’re being formed mostly for

the wrong reasons—typically to put the best possible science together to advise

agency administrators and support formal, government-led decisionmaking processes. These are the very actions that people are telling us only promote suspicion

and distrust for science from government sources. The idea that such teams could

support community-based stewardship across the area they cover is mostly absent

from the thinking behind their formation. The concept of local empowerment and

trust is missing. Regional science teams, if set up to serve community-based stewardship, could be extremely effective in getting science applied on the ground. If oriented to gaining people’s confidence and trust, and if effectively connected to communities as discussed above, they could become recognized sources of expertise and

information for the region. This could grow to be even more true over time. As the

county commissioner in Idaho said, ‘‘Yes, the science is good, but if it’s going to

make a difference it needs to be brought down to the local level and delivered in

a way that gains people’s confidence.’’

STATEMENT OF LARRY JOHNSON, NEVADA BIGHORNS UNLIMITED

INTRODUCTION

My name is Larry Johnson. I am an engineering geologist by profession. I am

President of a geotechnical engineering and construction service consulting firm in

Reno. While I serve on numerous professional boards and committees, my true love

and life is in the Nevada outdoors. As such I have been a director of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited for the past 15 years.

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited was founded in 1981 by a small group of Nevada

sportsmen and conservationists. Since its beginning, NBU-Reno has grown into one

56

of the most successful and respected, action-oriented, non-profit organizations in the

State of Nevada with a growing membership base of well over 3,500. NBU is an organization concerned with the conservation and management of not only Bighorn

Sheep, but all of Nevada’s wildlife. The organization’s mission is to promote and enhance increasing populations of wildlife in Nevada, to fund programs for professional management and habitat improvements, and to protect the heritage of sportsmen and hunters. The organization is led by a rotating group of 16 volunteer Board

Members dedicated to making a difference in Nevada’s natural habitat. The membership is made up of primarily hunters, but also includes conservationists, outdoorsmen and wildlife lovers of all ages. NBU-Reno is striving to protect wildlife,

habitat resources, and hunting rights through the use of game reintroduction programs, conservation activities, education, scientific research, legislative action, and

honest hands-on labor. NBU holds only one major fund raising event each year. The

annual banquet and auction attract well over 1,500 hunting enthusiasts and wildlife

lovers from all over North America. The funds generated from this event are what

enable NBU to accomplish their mission. We have invested millions of dollars into

Nevada wildlife projects. Now more than ever, those who participate with NBU by

donations, time, or participating as a member have a profound effect on the future

of wildlife resources not only throughout Nevada but throughout the world as well.

WILDLIFE PROJECTS

Before the turn of the century, Bighorn Sheep were Nevada’s most numerous big

game animal. Emigrant journals documented Bighorn Sheep silhouetted against the

sky on every rock pinnacle in the Truckee River canyon below present-day Reno.

Historically, Nevada was the only area in the Nation to have three subspecies of

Bighorn Sheep; the Rocky Mountain Bighorn, the California Bighorn, and the

Desert Bighorn.

By the turn of the century, however, Desert Bighorn populations had been drastically reduced while Rocky Mountain and California Bighorns had become completely extinct within the State. This virtual extinction was caused by a combination

of market hunting, loss of habitat, and disease from the introduction of domestic

sheep.

NBU’s mission to promote and enhance increasing populations of wildlife in Nevada, and to fund programs for professional management and habitat improvements

was born out of the desire to put back what was lost. NBU’s goals of protecting our

heritage as sportsmen and hunters was inspired by a group of individuals who believe there is nothing more important than protecting our land and its wildlife.

NBU is well known for transplanting big game animals back into their original

habitat—animals including not only Bighorn Sheep, but also Elk, and Antelope.

Today the Division of Wildlife, funded by groups like NBU has reintroduced these

majestic animals back into their original habitat throughout the State.

The future of big game in Nevada is extremely promising due to a high percentage of public land, and the fact Nevada has one of the most progressive Division’s

of Wildlife in the Nation.

NBU, along with Federal Pittman Robinson matching funds, provides all funding

for the Nevada Division of Wildlife’s Big Game Reintroduction Program.

A lengthy land management process which takes several years is necessary for

a single reintroduction decision to be made. On average an original reintroduction

consists of approximately 20 animals. Within 5 years, another augmentation of a

similar amount to the same area from a different gene pool is then reintroduced.

This process will produce a huntable population of viable sheep within a decade.

Bighorn Sheep when reintroduced into an ecological niche that was once their

original habitat usually experience a population explosion.

For the first time in modern history, the State is opening up the management

areas for hunting each year.

At this time, Bighorn Sheep have been reintroduced into over 50 mountain ranges

in Nevada. Though a tremendous come back by any measure, there is still work to

be done.

NBU’s actions prove that true sportsmen are consummate conservationists. In

their efforts to create a more balanced and healthy wildlife population in Nevada

and beyond, generations of hunters and non-hunters alike will benefit for years to

come.

HABITAT PROJECTS

Not much more than a hundred years ago, Nevada’s landscape was primarily that

of grasslands and wooded mountains. This habitat supported grazers, including Elk,

Antelope, and the three species of Bighorn Sheep.

57

With the spread of mining and ranching came the deforestation of the mountains

and the destruction of the grasslands. Sagebrush then took over as the primary

vegetation. Many of the native big game animals became extinct in Nevada. Deer,

never present in much of Nevada before, came to feed on sagebrush.

The Federal grazing laws of 1932 put a stop to uncontrolled livestock grazing and

true wildlife and habitat management practices began to be implemented.

NBU supports Nevada’s habitat with funding for a number of special restoration

projects, as well as many volunteers donating hands-on labor for these projects.

NBU’s major habitat improvement programs take areas of poor quality and restore

them to usable land which benefits all types of wildlife, including man.

Reseeding

Range fires have devastated millions of acres of big game winter range and habitat over the years, significantly decreasing the animals’ potential winter survival

rates. Without the assistance of groups like NBU, reseeding efforts would not have

been possible.

If these areas had not been reseeded with sagebrush and other natural grasses,

a noxious weed known as the cheatgrass would have taken over almost immediately,

choking out all other forms of vegetation. Cheatgrass has no nutritional value. Deer

have been known to literally starve with a belly full of cheatgrass.

Timely donations from NBU and other organizations have aided in purchasing

seed and private helicopter services to assist in the reseeding effort of critical range

areas literally saving the lives of potentially thousands of animals.

Water Developments

Water is often the limiting factor in the expansion of wildlife populations. Nevada’s climate ranges from arid in the south to semi-arid in the north, making access to a healthy water supply an even greater issue.

NBU is involved with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fraternity for

the Desert Bighorn’s water projects in all facets of planning, design, funding, and

construction of water development projects. This allows for expansion of habitable

ranges for wildlife, including Desert Bighorn Sheep, California Bighorn Sheep, Antelope, Elk, Sage Grouse, Chukar, and a multitude of non-game species.

Hundreds of these water development systems known as ‘‘Guzzlers’’ have been

completed in Nevada over the past couple of years with great success. As a consequence, big game animals are not the only animals benefiting from these water

developments. As anticipated, everything from Coyotes to Eagles to Bats have been

sighted drinking from these guzzlers.

Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited is involved in a successful collaborative partnership

with the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition. The objective of the Coalition is to

develop a consensus on the overall health of the Great Basin in eastern Nevada,

and to implement actions to restore the health of the land. The Coalition is a partner with BLM’s Ely Field Office as they implement the Eastern Nevada Landscape

Restoration Project. The goal of this 10-million acre project is to restore and maintain the biological and ecological conditions of the Great Basin landscape in eastern

Nevada through collaborative efforts.

In order to maximize restoration capability and success while achieving mutual

goals, approximately 75 independent, non-governmental partners including agricultural, conservation, cultural, environmental, universities, private enterprise and

other interests have joined the Coalition to help the BLM implement decisions on

public land. The centerpiece of the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project

is the partnership between the Coalition and the BLM. Nevada Bighorns Unlimited

has supported this project from its inception. Other partners include Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, University of Nevada at Reno, Nevada

Cattlemen’s Association, Nevada Woolgrowers Association, Society for Range Management, Red Rock Audubon Society, White Pine, Lincoln and Nye Counties, and

others.

Public involvement is expanded through landscape teams. These teams, comprised

of agency staff and scientists from outside the BLM, will identify landscape goals,

conduct landscape/watershed assessments, support NEPA compliance and plan

amendments, develop site-specific objectives designed to meet established goals, develop and recommend actions designed to meet objectives, and monitor and evaluate

implemented decisions. All of which will assist the Agency in its decisionmaking regarding appropriate restoration activities. All stakeholders, including academic researchers, educators, Native Americans, interest groups members, and interested

citizens will have input and be a part of the process.

58

Congress could help by adequately funding this project to facilitate the Coalition’s involvement in restoring public lands in eastern Nevada. Second, Congress could

adequately fund the Coalition’s partnership activities to facilitate involvement by

Coalition members and the public.

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited has joined the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition

to help the BLM restore healthy ecosystems in the Great Basin. Doing so will improve wildlife habitat, watershed stability, riparian areas, species diversity and composition, and Native American values.

Legislative Efforts

Over the past several years, NBU has become more involved in legislative activities in order to further support the future of Nevada’s wildlife. NBU was instrumental in organizing a sportsmen conservationist group, known as The Coalition for

Nevada’s Wildlife, which provides a unified voice for sportsmen in the legislature.

The Coalition represents all types of sportsmen, including big game, waterfowl,

upland game, fishing, trapping, houndsmen, rod & gun clubs and general conservationists.

During legislative sessions, the Coalition allows rapid dissemination of information to each Coalition member group pertaining to relevant wildlife issues. Each

group maintains its complete autonomy, but can join in with other groups on a

statewide basis to provide real political clout. Through NBU’s efforts, a number of

important victories have been won in the Legislature.

With continued support by groups like NBU and effective habitat management,

the trend in Nevada today is a return to the grasslands of our past. This trend will

assist in the State’s augmentation efforts of big game animals across the State significantly.

EDUCATION PROJECTS

NBU faces the challenge of education head-on determined to win. Popular sentiment over the last several decades has not supported the hunter. From prime-time

media to our children’s teachers, the true picture of hunters and their impact on

the environment has been distorted.

NBU fully believes that without educating our youth with the facts and merits

of hunting, sportsmanship, wildlife management and conservation, the results of our

other endeavors will be of little or no benefit to the future of wildlife in our State.

To this end, there are several programs funded and supported by NBU that merit

mention.

Jim Lathrop Memorial Scholarship Fund

This scholarship fund was created by NBU in honor of NBU’s founder, the late

Jim Lathrop. The fund represents a cooperative effort involving NBU, the Nevada

Division of Wildlife and the University of Nevada. It was set up for post graduate

study in the fields of biology and wildlife management and has been extended to

include funding of summer internships for selected individuals majoring in wildlife

management and has been extended to include funding of summer internships for

selected individuals majoring in wildlife management. The objective of these studies

will be further understanding and development of big game populations and habitat

enhancement within our State.

Wild Outdoor World Magazine

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited has formed a partnership with the Rocky Mountain

Elk Foundation and the Nevada Division of Wildlife to publish a wildlife magazine

targeting 4th graders throughout Nevada. The magazine is published in full color

five times annually and is distributed in elementary schools throughout the State.

(A copy is attached for review.)

We are limited by budget constraints in reaching all fourth graders statewide,

even though teachers and students enthusiastically request increased circulation.

RESEARCH

NBU-generated dollars have assisted in the funding of several important research

programs conducted by several distinguished institutions such as the University of

California at Davis, The Caine Veterinary, Teaching and Research Center in Idaho,

and Washington State University.

The most recent research project is being conducted by Washington State University under the direction of Dr. William Foreyt. The most important element of this

research program has been the establishment of evidence outlining the devastating

consequences upon wild sheep herds caused by interaction between Bighorn Sheep

and domestic sheep.

59

It is believed the main reason for Bighorn Sheep extinction throughout their original habitat is due to pneumonia contracted from a bacteria transmitted from domestic sheep herds.

NBU is a firm believer in the multiple use of public lands. They recognize the

rights of domestic sheep operators to graze on these lands.

It is NBU’s goal in funding this research to find the causes and cures for these

transmitted diseases so that domestic and wild sheep can coexist.

Funding provided by Nevada Bighorns Unlimited to Dr. Foreyt and Dr. Ron

Silflow has greatly assisted in their efforts to develop a laboratory test to determine

the potency of the bacteria responsible for causing pneumonia in wild sheep.

This test serves as the tool for discriminating between potentially dangerous and

relatively harmless isolates of the bacteria. The test can now be applied to practical

issues of Bighorn Sheep management and health maintenance. These developments

pioneered in the study of bacterial organisms in Bighorn and domestic species can

be immediately applied to other wildlife species such as Deer, Elk and Dali sheep.

The information gained from NBU funded research is already having an impact

on policymaking decisions regarding the shared land use of Bighorn and domestic

sheep.

The research promises to contribute valuable information to facilitate management decisions regarding the transplantation of Bighorn Sheep populations. NBU

expects management applications facilitated by this research tool will have a positive impact on the maintenance of healthy, flourishing wild sheep populations in future years, and assist in understanding and management of wildlife everywhere.

NBU’s commitment to promote and enhance increasing populations of indigenous

wildlife in Nevada will continue to be extended to those dedicated to increasing the

knowledge and understanding of our wildlife.

PROJECT FUNDING NEEDS

Nevada Bighorns Unlimited receives funding requests for a wide variety of wildlife, habitat, education, and research projects from a wide variety of schools, universities, State and Federal agencies. We are continually involved in programs such as: • Big game, fishery, and game bird reintroductions; • Green stripping (protection) of existing habitat form wildlife; • Noxious weed control; • Habitat Restoration; • Wild Horse Management (see attachment) • Water Development in Desert Habitats; • Education; and • Research.

Many badly needed projects cannot be implemented primarily due to funding

short falls. NBU would like to fund a full-time water development crew, big game

transport units, aerial wildlife survey equipment, and GPS telemetry tracking systems for the Nevada Division of Wildlife, reseeding, green stripping, and water development projects for the Bureau of Land Management, as well as Sage Grouse research programs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Additional and a continual source of funding would greatly assist in our goals— the enhancement of wildlife resources throughout the State.

ATTACHMENT

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT UPDATE.—MARCH 2000

SUBJECT: WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, as amended, provides for

the protection and management of wild horses and burros (WH&B) to assure a

thriving, natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on the range. The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for implementing this Act by assuring healthy, viable WH&B populations within herd management areas (HMAs)

at appropriate management levels (AML), and through appropriate placement of excess animals.

ISSUE SUMMARY

‘‘Restoration of Threatened Watersheds’’ is a vital initiative within the Presidents

fiscal year 2001 budget for the BLM and includes a comprehensive strategy for

achieving AML on all HMAs. This strategy is necessary to counter one of the major

threats to watershed health and dependent resources that excess WH&B popuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
60

lations pose to the land’s carrying capacity. Currently WH&B populations are 85

percent over the BLM’s estimated AML. Attaining AML on HMAs is the most critical need of the WH&B program. With current funding, the BLM is unable to remove sufficient animals to make progress toward AML or even to maintain a static

population.

BACKGROUND

Wild horse and burro populations are exceeding AML on 159 of 192 HMAs. Populations are increasing at approximately 18 to 20 percent per year. For all HMAs the

BLM estimates the overall established FAIL at 27,379 animals. At the end of fiscal

year 2000, the BLM projects the population will be 50,631 animals, or 23,252 animals over AML. WH&B populations are exceeding the capability of the land to support them. If the BLM does not reduce populations. irreparable damage will occur

to riparian zones and watersheds, water quality, threatened and endangered species

such Is the Lahontan cutthroat trout and Desert tortoise, and special status species

such as Sage grouse. In addition, degradation of native vegetation communities will

accelerate the establishment and spread of invasive weeds. If the BLM does not

manage WH&B herds within AML, the agency could face numerous lawsuits from

a variety of interest groups. resulting in court management of natural resources.

The fiscal year 2001 budget proposal of $29,447,000, which includes a $9 million

increase to base funding and 172 FTE (+5 FTE), will allow the BLM to implement

a strategy to bring all HMAs to AML in 4 years. The strategy will require the BLM

to remove 12,855 animals from HMAs (an increase of 6,855 animals) in the first

year, dropping to 4,500 animals by the sixth year and remaining at that level. The

strategy will allow the BLM to improve its marketing of animals and events; will

allow the agency to implement techniques to enhance the adoption prospects of older

animals; and will enable the agency to provide long-term care and holding (pasturing) for the oldest, least adoptable animals. With consistent funding through fiscal year 2005, the BLM can achieve AML on all HMAs. In fiscal year 2006 and beyond, the BLM will need to gather and adopt only 4,500 animals annually, which

is below the current and anticipated long-term adoption demand. The savings from

reduced gathers, holding and adoption costs will greatly offset the increased cost of

long-term care and holding. As the number of animals in long-term caring and holding declines through natural attrition and adoptions, the BLM will realize lower

costs for maintaining ‘‘a thriving. natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on the range’’.

CONTACT

Lee Delaney, BLM Group Manager for Wild Horse and Burro Management (202)

452–7744.

Bud Cribley, BLM Senior Wild Horse and Burro Specialist (202) 452–5073.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—NATIONAL WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

THE ‘‘RESTORATION OF THREATENED WATERSHEDS’’ INITIATIVE—LIVING LEGENDS IN

BALANCE WITH THE LAND.

A STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE HEALTHY RANGELANDS AND VIABLE HERDS—A FISCAL

YEAR 2001 PRESIDENTIAL BUDGET INITIATIVE

One of the major threat to watershed health is an overabundance of wild horses

and burros on rangelands. During fiscal year 1999 BLM completed a comprehensive

program capability and population modeling analysis. This analysis revealed that at

current funding capability and adoption demand, WH&B populations will increase

at a rate faster than our ability to remove excess animals.

POPULATION STATUS

Projected populations for fiscal year 2001 is 50,631 animals;

• 23,252 animals over Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 27,379;

159 of 192 Herd Management Areas (HMA) are over AML;

Reproducing at 18–20 percent per year; 9,475 animals in the year 2000.

IMPACTS OF CURRENT MANAGEMENT

Overpopulation leads to increased negative impacts on watershed health, habitat

of the herds, and dependent resources and uses, specifically:

61

• Severely damages upland vegetation and riparian areas critical to wild horse

and burro herd health;

• Significantly diminishes water quality and watershed stability;

• Contributes to potential listing of threatened species (i.e. sage grouse) and

jeopardizes the recovery of listed species, (i.e. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout);

• Increases the threat to other Special Status Species;

• Threatens wildlife viability by creating unhealthy competition for limited forage;

• Increases the likelihood of exotic invasive weed species becoming established;

• Magnifies existing conflicts with public land users (recreation, cultural, livestock); potentially displacing these uses and leading to litigation by such

groups;

• Litigation could cause the Courts to redirect BLM’s budget to resolve the

issue.

ATTAINING AML ON ALL OF BLM’s HMA’s IS THE MOST CRITICAL NEED OF THE PROGRAM

Faced with this critical need and acting on recommendations from the WH&B Advisory Board, BLM modeled several management scenarios for achieving AML to determine shortest timeframes and highest cost effectiveness.

Current Management

• Current funding is only adequate to remove and adopt 6,000 animals/year.

• Current funding does not allow for achieving AML or maintaining a static population.

• Projected populations in 2010 will be 126,380 animals on the range.

• 99,001 animals over AML (462 percent over AML).

• The Adopt-A-Horse or Burro Program is the only accepted tool for dealing with

excess animals.

• Adopting only wild horses 5 years and younger to maximize adoptions.

• Fertility control research is ongoing, however, no widespread usage for several

years.

62

Current Management Without Budget Limitations

BLM’s current management (only wild horses 5 years and younger removed)

without budget limitations does not achieve AML within a 10-year planning period.

BLM’s STRATEGY

• Establishes a 4-year gather schedule for all HMAs beginning in fiscal year

2001.

• Reduce all HMA’s to AML by removing with no age restrictions.

• Remove 12,855 animals in first year dropping to 4,500 by sixth year and remaining at that level.

• Requires a funding increase of $9,000,000/year over current funding levels sustained through 2005.

• Enhance marketing of animals and adoption events.

• Train and geld wild horses otherwise difficult to adopt.

• Place unadaptable wild horses in long term holding (pasturing).

63

BENEFITS

• Significantly contributes to the improvement of watershed health.

• Contributes to healthy, viable herds on all HMAs.

• Balances wild horse and burro populations with the capability of the land.

• Achieves AML in the shortest amount of time (4 years).

• Removing fewer animals annually:

• Equals fewer animals in the adoption system;

• Reduces stress on the animals left on the range.

• Decreased removal numbers equals significant cost savings and is the most cost

effective over a 10-year period.

• Reduces resource conflicts and thus potential litigation.

• Reaching AML on all HMAs in 4 years allows for achieving ‘‘a thriving natural

ecological balance’’ as required by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act thus

achieving: Living Legends in Balance with the Land.

64

NEVADA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.,

Reno, NV, April 10, 2001.

Hon. BOB SMITH, Chairman,

Hon. HARRY REID,

Committee on Environment and Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear SENATORS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Good afternoon and I wish to welcome

you to Nevada on behalf of the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NvWF). I am Elsie

Dupree, president of this organization.

NvWF was founded over 50 years ago by dedicated sportsmen that wanted to

work on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Our membership consists of affiliate clubs and

members. We have nearly 10,000 members.

The public domain lands in Nevada are habitat to many unique plants and animals. We are very concerned about this habitat. I asked for comments from affiliates

and members for this testimony.

The general concern of all was the lack of funding to take care of the land. Nevada could use funding to help with long term projects to include:

Flood protection along our few rivers to protect habitat. Water quality needs improvement as we remove mercury, arsenic and other pollutants.

Water issues are a concern on the Stillwater Refuge, and Lahontan Valley wetlands here in the North. There is a severe shortage of water to maintain the wetlands. Invasions of noxious weeds in the riparian areas are stealing valuable water.

In the southern part of the State, the Multi Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) will

need funding to continue the goals of recovery efforts for fish species such as the

bonytail chub and the razorback sucker. (see attachment one)

Walker Lake is an unique situation where the water coming to the lake is allocated at 130 percent for irrigation. There is a need for money for willing sellers to

give water rights to the lake. Right now our Division of Wildlife owns a small

amount of water rights that in dry years does not even reach the lake. This desert

lake will die and the waters where migratory birds rest will not support them with

food.

The Great Basin Initiative is a good start for noxious weed control. There need

to be many educational seminars to educate the public on the weeds and how to

control them. Our State needs to be fully involved in this problem with funding.

Several affiliates commented on the lack of funding for control of the wild horses

in our State. The herd populations are high and there is little to no money to bring

the herds to the set limits of control. We see damage to the habitat from overgrazing

in wildlife areas. Now that we are in a dry year there is even more damage. We

do not have the man power to do the monitoring and repair work. Some of the range

workers in our Federal agencies cover more land in a year then what is in some

65

States in the East. It is impossible to do a good job with this much territory. Our

Federal agencies need budgets increased to meet this problem. State agencies need

funding for wildlife habitat improvements. There needs to be grants for conservation

groups to help out on projects.

Other affiliates are concerned with the lack of funding to do the proper studies.

We need BEST SCIENCE to take the lead in wildlife issues. There needs to be monitoring, research, and studies to show that the program will work or has worked.

Often funds dry up before this is done.

Education is vital. The NvWF is using time and money to work with our North

West Sage Grouse Working Group for this purpose. We have members from all

walks of life making a slide show and pamphlet to educate the public and the agriculture industry on just what a sage grouse needs to survive and stop the declining

trends. Our Governor has a statewide committee working on Conservation Plans to

help stop the decline of sage grouse in our State and we fully support his efforts.

(See attachment two.)

Other educational programs by NvWF include our annual wildlife poster contest

for school age children and Backyard Habitats for those wanting to help provide

habitat for wildlife close to home. Our affiliate, the Truckee River Flyfishers started

a trout in the class room program where grade school children raise trout fry in the

class room and then put them in the river. Ann Privrasky got this program established so well that our Division of Wildlife is going to try to get this program in

every grade school in the State.

Education can be as simple as having our city, county, State and Federal offices

remember we live in a desert State and they should landscape their areas with

desert landscaping instead of green lawns and other high water usage plants. This

would educate the public also. In summary, our State needs guaranteed funding so

we can do long term planning and repair the damage to the land.

The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson Funds were so successful in funding

State agencies to administrate wildlife programs that some States and other local

governments have never developed other funding sources to manage wildlife programs. A guaranteed CARA type fund would greatly enhance these programs. (see

attachment three)

I thank you for your time and the chance to share some information about Nevada. I will gladly try to answer any questions you may have.

ELSIE DUPREE,

President.

ATTACHMENT 1

Subject: CARA Info

Date: Wed. 04 Apr 2001 23:18:58–0400

From: Myra Wilensky <Wilensky@nwf.org>

To: <dpree@pyramid.net>

Hi Elsie,

First, the wildlife title should include a specific amount. The proposed $350 million in H.R. 701 for State fish and wildlife agencies is a must.

A river and So. NV example you could use in your written testimony is the following:

The second title could be used to provide funding for species recovery activities

under habitat conservation plans such as the Lower CO Multi Species Conservation

Plan. The MSCP is making a commitment to continue the recovery efforts of threatened and endangered species above the efforts mandated by the Endangered Species

Act. While the States and private entities are providing a substantial amount of

funding, funding under a species recovery agreement could further the goals of recovery efforts for such fish species as the bonytail chub, humpback chub, and the

razorback sucker.

Funding under this title could be used to encourage species restoration efforts

while eradicating invasive species. The Lower CO MSCP is encouraging the restoration of native species such as the cottonwood willow while controlling such invasive

species as tamarisk and salt cedar.

I hope this is helpful. Good luck!

MYRA.

ATTACHMENT 2

Subject: Sage Grouse Article

66

Date: Thu. 5 Apr 2001 11:00:08–0700

From: Julie Dudley

To: The Duprees

NEVADA WILDLIFE FEDERATION WORKS ON SAGE GROUSE BOOKLET & PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT CAMPAIGN

(By Julie Dudley, Chair of Nevada Wildlife Federation’s Endangered Species

Alliance)

BACKGROUND

Sage grouse are the ‘‘Ambassadors’’ of the sagebrush ecosystem, spanning parts

of California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Utah. According to a Jan. 29, 2001 article

in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, sage grouse once numbered 2 million, but today

they are estimated at a mere ‘‘140,000 birds.’’ During the past few years, scientists

have noted a 30 percent decline in sage grouse numbers, and in some places, 80 percent.

There are many reasons for the decline in sage grouse numbers and no easy solution.

Because sage grouse are suffering from extensive loss of sagebrush habitat, the

drop in their population is more than worrisome. To many it indicates the beginning

of the collapse of the entire sagebrush ecosystem.

In early 2000, the Nevada Wildlife Federation (NvWF) formed the Northwest Nevada Sage Grouse Working Group (NWNVSGWG) to begin discussing the sage

grouse problem at monthly meetings in Reno and Carson City. This group’s mission

is to advocate improvement of habitat for sage grouse and other wildlife dependent

on the sagebrush ecosystem in Northwest Nevada.

Former Nevada Wildlife Federation President, Gale Dupree, is chair of the

NWNVSGWG and I am the vice chair. The NWNVSGWG has three goals:

1. To educate ourselves about a healthy sagebrush ecosystem and sage grouse

habitat requirements.

2. To insist State and Federal agencies immediately develop and implement sage

grouse conservation plans.

3. To build public involvement and support among Nevadans about the urgency

of improving the sagebrush ecosystem and sage grouse habitat requirements, including operating a Web site with information on sage grouse conservation needs.

Based on scientific research conducted throughout the West, there are many reasons for the loss of sagebrush, and thus the decline in sage grouse. These reasons

are one or a combination of the following:

• Invasion of annual, non-native plant species like cheatgrass;

• Increased fire frequency followed by weed invasions;

• Brush control followed by seeding of non-native grass species;

• Invasion of pinyon and juniper woodlands into shrub communities;

• Conversion to agriculture;

• Various livestock management practices;

• Habitat fragmentation due to power lines, fences, roads and urbanization.

Because of the sage grouse’s potential listing under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), comparisons are being drawn between the grouse and the spotted owl controversy (‘‘The Next Spotted Owl,’’ Audubon, Nov/Dec 2000) which divided communities in the Pacific Northwest. If the sage grouse is listed under the ESA, much

larger areas of the West will be affected than those in the spotted owl controversy.

Many Nevadans would like to take positive, preliminary steps to avoid the heated

polarization displayed during the spotted owl controversy.

The NNNVSGWG is seeking funding to accomplish one such project by answering

Nevada private landowners’ question: ‘‘what can we do to restore sage grouse populations?’’ The Sage Grouse Booklet and Public Involvement Campaign will provide

the answers to this question by giving private landowners information about seasonal sage grouse habitats and ways to make conditions more conducive for the

birds.

Based on shared information at NWNVSGWG meetings, the Nevada Farm Bureau and Society for Range Management are helping make this project a success.

Conservation groups are also well-represented at the working group meetings with

members of the Sierra Club, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, American Lands Alliance and Lahontan Audubon Society attending, plus many State and Federal agency

contacts.

The Sage Grouse Booklet and Public Involvement Campaign aims to print an informational booklet based on science distributed to Nevada private landowners recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
67

ommending steps to enhance sage grouse habitat. Second-tier audiences include the

media, State and Federal agency scientists, county commissioners, State and Federal legislators and the general public.

Accompanying the printing and distribution of the booklet is a public involvement

campaign that includes press releases, media relations, ad placements, flyers and

a special sage grouse Web page added to the current NVWF site at www.nvwf.org.

If you would like more information about this project, or would like to attend a

NWNVSGWG meeting, please call Julie Dudley, at (775) 323–4500 or Gale Dupree

at (775) 885–0405.

ATTACHMENT 3

Subject: Testimony thoughts

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:35:43–0700

From: Leontine Nappe

To: Elsie Dupree

Elsie, I have been all day on a Black Rock NCA RAC meeting and will be going

out shortly for the evening.

So . . . here are my thoughts.

The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson funds were so successful in funding

State agencies to administer wildlife programs that States and local governments

have never developed other funding sources to manage wildlife programs. Without

PR and DJ funds, the States, at this time, would have no wildlife program. With

all the other commitments, States have made, they are unable or unwilling to step

up to the plate now to fund wildlife programs. The PR and DJ funds primarily administer the agencies, some research and contribute to purchase of key lands and

water.

Because of Federal lands in the West, lakes, reservoirs, and streams, DJ and PR

funds have not had to stretch to purchase habitat. Many wildlife management areas

and National Wildlife Refuges were created to exist on drain or excess water from

irrigation projects. As we know now, ‘‘waste’’ or drain water is a disappearing commodity and too late wildlife agencies both State and Federal must purchase water

to support these lands.

Belatedly, some States have through bonding issues started to invest in land and

water purchases or capitol improvements. The State of Nevada has had parks and

wildlife bonds in 1973 and 1990; a bill has been introduced for another park and

wildlife bond. Some counties have also invested in open space through bonds.

Washoe County recently passed a $38,000,000 bond; however, parks for recreational

development were the primary expenditures.

The success of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson is also a shortcoming. Although States are responsible for managing all wildlife within the States, wildlife

agencies spend virtually all of their funds managing game species. Nongame species

management is limited.

Federal lands once so vacant and available for wildlife are now becoming filled

with receptionists, utility and transportation corridors, energy development, and

other uses. Growing populations will require Federal lands and tap agricultural

water on both private and Federal lands.

If we are to sustain wildlife populations, then States must expand their responsibilities to managing wildlife species. All species of wildlife dependent on wetland

and riparian areas will require more knowledge of their habitats and distribution,

more education of the public and more law enforcement. State wildlife agencies are

well equipped to handle these new tasks. Many, like the Division of Wildlife, have

with minimal State funding provided limited nongame programs since 1970.

Some of the species which could benefit from these funds are: the long billed curlew which is declining. Development and maintenance of habitat for sandhill cranes.

Creation and preservation of wetlands for both waterfowl and shorebirds.

The Spring Mountains in southern Nevada host endemic mammals whose distribution and habitat needs must be incorporated into an area increasingly popular

for recreation.

The Division of Wildlife could build Nature trails, and interpretive centers, in existing areas and provide additional education programs for schools. The Division of

Wildlife could work more closely with local government and Federal agencies, for

instances, to identify critical habitat for nongame species and to develop programs

to minimize impact on the habitat.

While nongame is important in this legislation, I would like to point out that in

the sage grouse potential listing has made us aware that ecosystem protection is

important. CARA funds could be blended with game funds to build comprehensive

68

programs. The bear in Nevada is not a game species but is a species which is requiring more time and commitment because people are encroaching on its habitat.

TINA NAPPE.

STATEMENT OF TERRY R. CRAWFORTH, ADMINISTRATOR, NEVADA

DIVISION OF WILDLIFE

Good afternoon. I am Terry Crawforth, Administrator of the Nevada Division of

Wildlife. I would like to thank the Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works for conducting these investigations into wildlife conservation needs and inviting me to share our perspectives on wildlife conservation and management in Nevada.

As the seventh largest State in land mass, Nevada’s extensive wildlands support

a broad and diverse assemblage of plant and animal communities. This diversity of

wildlife and habitats is amplified by the geographic and climatic character of the

Great Basin in the north and Mohave Desert in the South. Also, because Nevada

is the driest State, water is even more critical to wildlife distribution and abundance. A wide variety of topographic features from low river valleys to 13,000 foot

alpine peaks offers habitat to Nevada’s wildlife, resulting in an astounding ecological diversity.

Managing this broadly diverse assemblage of animals and plants presents many

unique and formidable challenges. While some species such as mule deer and rainbow trout have broad distributions across Nevada, other species such as the Palmers chipmunk and the Amargosa toad exist only in very localized landscapes. All are

worthy of attention, though, and therein lies the management challenge to the Division. As the smallest wildlife agency in the Nation, the Nevada Division of Wildlife

is constantly faced with the difficult task of allocating limited resources to the preservation, protection, management and restoration of all elements of this vast and

diverse wildlife resource.

The prioritization of management activities by the Division has historically been

largely a function of economics. The wildlife receiving primary emphasis in Division

management programs are those species for which there is a consistent and adequate funding source. For years hunters and fishermen who support the PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration

Act by paying excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment have paid for the majority of wildlife management programs in Nevada. In addition, the matching funds

required to capture these trust funds are provided by these same sportsmen in the

form of license and tag fees. Hence, the wildlife species that have for years received

priority funding are those that are hunted and fished.

These extensive management programs funded by Nevada’s sportsmen can boast

significant success in the conservation of wildlife in the State. The big game management program in Nevada is second to none. Trapping and transplant projects for

species such as bighorn sheep, antelope and elk have resulted in record animal

numbers and distributions throughout the State. The variety and abundance of fish

species available to anglers is impressive. Upland game species including exotics

such as the chukar partridge are pervasive. Nevada is renowned in the West as a

high quality hunting and fishing destination. It is obvious that consistently funded,

collaborative programs can represent Nevada wildlife well.

It is important to note, however, that though management efforts have been concentrated on sport wildlife, those species typically not hunted or fished have not

been summarily ignored. Good habitat management fostered by successful game and

sport fish programs ultimately benefits all wildlife species. In addition, consistent,

albeit small, non-sportsman funded annual appropriations are dedicated to nonhunted or fished species.

But we have been aware for some time that those species which do not receive

program emphasis because they lack dedicated funding deserve more than they are

getting from project ‘‘spin-off’’ or residual funding. While our history of successful

management of game wildlife and protection of habitat provides a good model for

the conservation of Nevada’s ‘‘other wildlife,’’ these species that are not sought for

sport or recreational purposes deserve more. Reliance on reactionary and often ‘‘last

ditch’’ tools such as the Endangered Species Act is not productive. We see a profound need to be proactive in the management of all Nevada wildlife.

What is essential for Nevada’s wildlife diversity is sustained funding to apply to

already proven management techniques. Some recent congressional appropriations

will help when they eventually reach us, but we need long-term legislation that provides an uninterrupted flow of funds for Nevada’s ‘‘other wildlife’’. We came close

to this goal with the near passage of title III of the Conservation and Reinvestment

69

Act in the 106th Congress, which would have provided consistent and sustained

funding for non game wildlife conservation. Nevada’s ‘‘other wildlife’’ deserves this

degree of attention.

Senator Reid, I have always appreciated your dedication to the wildlife resources

of our beautiful State. I applaud your present efforts to make a consistent and adequate funding source for Nevada’s ‘‘other wildlife’’ a reality. I pledge my agency’s

support in this endeavor. Securing a reliable funding source for Nevada’s ‘‘other

wildlife,’’ when combined with Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux funds that

exist for game wildlife and sport fish would put a third leg on the conservation stool

and better balance Nevada’s wildlife conservation effort.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GARY GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, TEXAS PARKS AND

WILDLIFE, AUSTIN, TEXAS

BACKGROUND

Texas is possibly the most unique State in the continental United States. We have

more species and habitats than all other States, except perhaps California. However, unlike California, 97 percent of the land and habitat in Texas is privately

owned, which provides unique conservation opportunities and challenges. The diversity of people and perspectives in Texas is also impressive and healthy. Texas Parks

and Wildlife serves this diversity by promoting the conservation of all wildlife, including over 1,000 species of nongame and rare wildlife, as well providing conservation assistance to people interested in these species. The funding provided by the

Title III of CARA would go directly to TPW, enhancing its ability to manage all of

the State’s wildlife.

For Texas, the stakes are huge. By keeping common species common, adding species to lists of endangered species will be uncommon. This is particularly important

in Texas with so many species and so much private land. Wildlife-watching, hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related recreation in Texas generated about $6.7 billion in direct spending in 1996. Healthy landscapes and wildlife populations are

vital to both of these important issues.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Texas has several well-established programs targeting nongame wildlife, including

one of the largest wildlife diversity programs in the country, as well as an extensive

resource protection division that has responsibility for monitoring and protecting

wildlife habitat in Texas, particularly aquatic habitats.

Overall, Texas Parks and Wildlife spends over $10 million a year in these areas,

out of a total agency budget of $250 million. In addition, we spend about $21 million

on game and general wildlife management, $20 million on fisheries management,

nearly $40 million on law enforcement and about $8 million on communication and

education activities.

Over the past 10 years, Texas Parks and Wildlife has made major additions to

its private lands assistance program (technical guidance staff) as well as creating

and staffing new urban and nature tourism programs. But with a State as big as

Texas, even this isn’t enough. Even $10 million a year doesn’t go far in a State with

over 267,000 square miles of land, 80,000 miles of rivers and streams, 254 counties,

20 million citizens and 1,200 species of vertebrate wildlife.

Still, we have seen some tremendous success stories, such as our Landowner

Incentive Program (LIP), the first program in the country that offers financial assistance to landowners who wish to manage for rare and endangered species and

habitats. The LIP program stimulates conservation by recognizing and rewarding

landowners who are willing to manage their land for rare species, using a voluntary,

incentive-based approach. While many landowners are already willing to manage

their land for wildlife without financial reward, there are times when a little advice

and startup funding is all it takes. Over the past 4 years, Texas Parks and Wildlife

has spent nearly $1 million on 45 projects affecting 46,000 acres of habitat, matched

by $425,000 in outside funds.

Concurrently, we have increased our technical guidance program to 20 biologists.

These biologists assist landowners in developing LIP projects, as well as providing

general wildlife management advice. In their work with landowners, our technical

guidance biologists have developed wildlife management plans for 12.6 million acres,

promoting a habitat-focused conservation approach that works for wildlife as well

as for private landowners.

70

We also aggressively use nature tourism and Watchable-wildlife projects as incentives for conservation through economic development. We have seen this approach

work particularly well along the Gulf Coast and in South Texas, which now have

a national reputation as bird-watching destinations. Each April, birdwatchers in

Texas can see over 300 of the 600 species of birds that occur in the State. Texas

Parks and Wildlife has been a leader in working with landowners and communities,

showing them that the bird habitat they provide can return them direct economic

benefits. And once people accept that nature tourism is part of their business, it’s

easy to convince them that they need to maintain the habitat their business depends upon.

We have already established and marketed the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail,

producing maps that identify over 300 premiere bird-watching sites on the Gulf

Coast in cooperation with over 100 communities, as well as cost-sharing site improvements with those communities. And we are following up with plans for the

Great Texas Wildlife Trail in central Texas and the Panhandle.

We have taken this nature tourism model a step further by proposing a new complex of visitor and education centers, called the World Birding Center, in the Lower

Rio Grande Valley. The Lower Rio Grande Valley is one of the most economically

challenged areas in the country—4 of the counties there are among the poorest

counties in the United States. But bird watching has become a big business in the

Valley, generating nearly $100 million a year in tourism income. The World Birding

Center will serve as a focus for this new industry, and is expected to generate an

additional $10–$15 million a year in new income to the region.

In addition, Texas Parks and Wildlife has had tremendous success developing cooperative agreements with private landowners, precluding the need to list a number

of species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. By working with landowners

and other States, we have developed conservation agreements for swift fox, lesser

prairie chickens, Arkansas River shiners and Devils River minnows, restoring and

securing the status of the these rare species in Texas.

One of our greatest challenges in conservation agreements concerns the blacktailed prairie dog—a conservation issue that, if not handled well, could lead to one

of the biggest endangered species train-wrecks in history. We are working now to

develop a conservation agreement for black-tailed prairie dogs, developing the plan

in cooperation with landowners and agricultural interests, as well as conservationists. And the lesson we’re learning is that we need to address more than prairie dog

conservation—we have to address the habitat and the suite of species associated

with it. It’s no coincidence that prairie dogs, swift fox, and lesser prairie chickens

are all species of concern, because prairies are a habitat of concern.

Through these various programs, by making a small investment now, we have

avoided the much larger costs associated with endangered species issues—not only

the direct costs that relate to regulating, protecting and restoring the species themselves, but also the much larger social costs that citizens bear when endangered species are on their property.

The conservation incentives are there, but landowners, local governments and

communities need advice and assistance to put conservation measures into practice.

State wildlife agencies are in the best position to offer this assistance.

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION

As these examples all show, conservation in Texas depends upon our closeworking relationship with landowners and communities. In Texas, we know what

needs done, how to do it, and who to work with—but we simply lack the resources

to affect the hundreds of species that are in need of conservation, as well as assuring the future of species that are currently common. All the conservation we’ve accomplished to date has been the ‘‘easy stuff’’, involving a few hundred wildlife species whose needs are known and which readily respond to the habitat changes humans impose on the landscape. But now we’re faced with dealing with another 1,000

species that aren’t so easy. The conservation challenge is just beginning.

And many of these species are not unique to Texas, their conservation depends

on States working together to affect habitat throughout a species range. Interstate

conservation requires funding beyond what States can access themselves. And it requires long-term, predictable funding.

For example, over the past 20 years, Texas Parks and Wildlife has reintroduced

over 7,000 eastern wild turkeys throughout the State, as well as relocated thousands of native Rio-Grande wild turkeys. Thanks to these restocking efforts, and

combined with the habitat management assistance we provide landowners, the wild

turkey is back in Texas. We now have turkeys throughout the State, occupying all

of the available habitat and supporting over 3 million hunter-days each year. Our

71

turkey restoration efforts worked because we had a reliable funding source over an

extended period of time, plus the technical assistance to provide to landowners.

So that is the obstacle we’re facing, obtaining the long-term financial resources

needed to expand our conservation partnerships with citizens and communities. In

Texas, we estimate that need to be at least $30 million a year. This would allow

us to expand our efforts in:

1. Landowner Incentives.—Estimated need: $6 million/year.

• Habitat cost-share program and

• Landowner incentive program.

2. Technical Assistance.—Estimated need: $4 million/year.

• Expand technical guidance program and

• Urban wildlife program

3. Increasing Recreational Opportunity.—Estimated need: $3 million/year.

• Nature trails

• River access

• Watchable-wildlife projects

• Nature tourism cost-share grants

4. Habitat Conservation and Restoration.—Estimated need: $4 million/year.

• Conservation planning for wildlife

• Habitat restoration projects

• Re-establish populations of native species

• Research and surveys

5. Conservation Outreach.—Estimated need: $5 million/year.

• Demonstration habitats

• Outreach programs

• Urban wildlife program

• Visitor and education centers (World Birding Center, River Center)

• Volunteer programs (Texas Master Naturalist, Texas Nature Trackers)

• Conservation information, literature, video

• Schoolyard habitats Project WILD

6. Wildlife Research.—Estimated need: $1 million/year.

7. Resource Protection and Monitoring.—Estimated need: $2 million/year.

8. Land Conservation (conservation leases, easements, acquisition).—Estimated

need: $5 million/year.

Total Estimated Need.—$30 million/year.

I have a handout that is an excerpt of a document we gave to congressional representatives last year, focusing on wildlife conservation.

With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.

ATTACHMENT

TITLE III.—WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION FUND

THE BENEFITS OF CARA IN TEXAS

Texas is the most unique State in the United States. We have more species and

habitats than all other States except perhaps California. However, unlike California,

97 percent of the land and habitats in Texas is privately-owned, which provides

unique conservation opportunities and challenges. The diversity of people and perspectives in Texas is also impressive and healthy. Texas Parks and Wildlife serves

this diversity by promoting the conservation of all wildlife, including over 1,000 species of nongame and rare wildlife, as well providing conservation assistance to people interested in these species. The funding provided by the Title III of CARA would

go directly to TPW, enhancing it’s ability to manage all of the State’s wildlife.

For Texas, the stakes are huge. By keeping common species common, adding species to lists of endangered species will be uncommon. This is particularly important

in Texas with so many species and so much private land. Wildlife-watching, hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related recreation in Texas generated about $6.7 billion in direct spending in 1996. Healthy landscapes and wildlife populations are

vital to both of these important issues.

For wildlife in Texas, CARA could support Texas Parks and Wildlife’s conservation and outreach efforts in several areas:

Landowner Incentives.—Estimated need: $6 million/year. TPW has a Landowner

Incentive Program (LIP) which provides financial assistance to landowners interested in helping rare species. CARA funds would be used to expand the LIP and

create new cost-share and incentive programs for landowners, focusing conservation

efforts on the privates lands that host more of the State’s wildlife.

72

CARA funds would also allow the Department to expand the number and variety

of workshops and held days it offers: teaching landowners by example.

Technical Assistance.—Estimated need: $4 million year. TPW currently employs

technical guidance biologists who work closely with private landowners, advising

and assisting them with wildlife management plans that affect nearly 10 million

acres of wildlife habitat per year. CARA funding would allow the Department to

double its current effort.

Increasing Recreational Opportunity.—Estimated need: $3 million/year. TPW has

identified over 300 wildlife-viewing sites as part of the Great Texas Coastal Birding

Trail. This nature tourism effort has directly benefited the local communities and

landowners. CARA funds would be used to expand this kind of effort to the other

four tourism regions of the State.

Currently TPW has 50 Wildlife Management Areas that are not all accessible to

the public. With CARA, the Department could create a number of nature trails, with

interpretive signage, to better serve the needs of today’s outdoor enthusiast.

CARA funding would allow the expansion of river access and restoration programs

initiated to work with private landowners to develop controlled access programs that

address needs of both users and river landowners.

With CARA, staff would be able to fund a number of watchable-wildlife projects

with individual landowners as well as communities. More work would be done with

private landowners to develop controlled access programs that address needs of

users and landowners.

Habitat Conservation and Restoration.—Estimated need: $4 million/year. As wildlife habitat is converted to human habitat, Texas is losing a number of unique ecosystems. With the additional funding provided by CARA, Texas could begin creating

strategies for conserving these unique habitats. Management efforts for aquatic and

marine ecosystems would also be increased, focusing on riparian, wetland, riverine

and estuarine ecosystems.

Texas has been a leader in conservation planning for wildlife (particularly birds

and bats). CARA funds would speed the development of these plans on the status

and management needs for species and allow the Department to develop similar

plans and recommendations for reptiles amphibians lisp mammals and other important wildlife groups.

With CARA funding, TPW would also work to develop the capacity to establish

populations of native aquatics to replace exotics in lakes and rivers. Programs would

include habitat restoration, aquatic vegetation nurseries associated with hatcheries,

development of educational outreach to engage population that impact or are impacted by displacement of native with exotic vegetation.

Conservation Outreach.—Estimated need: $5 million/year. TPW has a network of

urban biologists who work with residents to increase awareness of wildlife in urban

areas. With CARA, TPW would be able to expand this effort into other metropolitan

areas.

CARA funding would allow the development of demonstration habitats that combine many components of ‘‘an ecosystem’’ such as wildlife, wetlands, riverine habitats on small land areas near or in urban areas.

TPW has created a number of volunteer and . . . citizen-involvement programs

and nationally acclaimed outreach programs, such as Project WILD and Outdoor

Kids, involving children and school teachers in conservation education. With CARA

these projects would be expanded across the State, involving citizens directly in conservation.

Texas has a network of nature centers and TPW has created a number of visitor

and education centers—the Freshwater Fisheries Center, Sea Center, and the World

Birding Center. CARA funds would be used to expand the efforts of existing education and nature centers. as well as fund the creation of new education centers as

needed.

Communication with the large urban populations is essential to the success of all

of these conservation areas, particularly outreach. TPW is well known for its outstanding media efforts, including video, radio and printed publications. CARA funds

would allow TPW to expand these efforts, as well as provide them at less cost to

the public.

Wildlife Research.—Estimated need: $1 million Year. Good wildlife management

depends on good science. Each year, TPW funds 40–60 wildlife research projects.

gathering data on the management needs of native species. However, with 10

ecoregions, dozens of habitats and almost 1,000 different species of wildlife, this research only scratches the surface of what the Department needs to know concerning

native plant and wildlife species. CARA funds would be used to increase research

efforts statewide.

73

Resource Protection and Monitoring.—Estimated need: $2 million/year. TPW is responsible for monitoring and correcting land and water problems that may affect native fish and wildlife. With the creation of the State Water Plan, these efforts have

grown.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, STATE DIRECTOR, NEVADA BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss wildlife conservation efforts in Nevada.

The State of Nevada encompasses a large portion of the Great Basin and Upper

Colorado River Plateau of the United States. These lands were not divided into

farms, primarily due to their lack of water. Towns remain widely separated. Curiously, Nevada is said to be the most urbanized State in our Nation. Those urban

areas are concentrated, however, as is evident in Las Vegas and along the Eastern

Sierra Front.

As a result, Nevada has a wealth of open land, largely in Federal ownership.

These lands hold a wide and wonderful variety of wildlife and wildlife habitat. The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for management of about 48 million acres of this land and the wildlife habitat on it.

Management of these lands is not an easy task. It requires coordination and partnership with local and State conservation groups and initiatives in order to be successful. The BLM in Nevada is fortunate to have many fine partners in this work,

including the State of Nevada and its Division of Wildlife, as well as a number of

private organizations, such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Nevada Wildlife

Federation.

Recently, efforts to address some critical wildlife concerns in Nevada have been

highly visible. These include projects to recover the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, management guidelines for sage grouse and the sagebrush ecosystems that are their

habitat, and the desert tortoise.

These species serve as a red flag for the overall health of our environment. The

sage grouse is suffering from a decline in habitat, a concern to the BLM and many

of the organizations and entities here today. Under the leadership of Terry

Crawforth, Administrator for the Nevada Division of Wildlife, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in cooperation with the BLM, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and others, have initiated a major effort to develop conservation

plans for sage grouse in eight western States. In Nevada, Governor Guinn has taken

a personal role in establishing a State sage grouse committee to develop strategies

to conserve this game species. The BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

U.S. Forest Service, as well as State, local and tribal representatives, have formed

an interagency sagebrush habitat steering committee to coordinate habitat assessment, mapping, evaluation, and restoration for species at risk within sagebrush

ecosystems in 10 States, and to coordinate ecosystem and species conservation planning in order to provide consistency across agencies in addressing sagebrush ecosystem-related issues.

Through the Great Basin Restoration Initiative, the BLM in Nevada is cooperating with State and local agencies to stop the spread of invasive weeds and other

vegetation and to restore appropriate plant communities on the rangelands.

After major wildfires in 1999 and 2000, the demand for sagebrush seeds and the

seeds of other native plant species has increased considerably in the Great Basin.

Through issuance of permits for harvesting of sagebrush and other native species

seeds, the BLM is tracking harvest activities to ensure that sufficient seed is available for rehabilitation efforts that are currently underway in the areas hardest hit

by the wildfires. The BLM is working with the Plant Conservation Alliance, private

seed growers, State and Federal nurseries and seed storage facilities to increase significantly the supply of native seeds available for rehabilitation and restoration

work while reducing the cost of producing native seed in large quantities.

The BLM’s Ely Field Of rice has taken a leadership role under the auspices of

the Great Basin Restoration Initiative to restore and maintain the biological conditions of the Great Basin landscape in eastern Nevada through partnerships with the

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Nevada Division of Wildlife and dozens of other

groups. Approximately 10 million acres of public land are in the project area, including 4 million acres of pinyon juniper woodlands, 2 million acres of pinyon juniper/

sagebrush, 2.5 million acres of sagebrush, 1.5 million acres of valley bottoms and

mixed forest conifer, 158 miles of stream riparian habitat, and 7,800 acres of meadows, springs, seeps and wetlands.

74

BLM field offices in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah have continued reintroduction

and habitat improvement programs for bighorn sheep populations. Nevada contains

some of the premier bighorn sheep habitats in the United States. Approximately 2.5

million acres of BLM-managed lands in Nevada provide habitat for 3 subspecies of

bighorn sheep: the California, Rocky Mountain and Desert bighorns. Cooperative efforts with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and partners such as Nevada Bighorns

Unlimited have successfully restored bighorns on many historic habitats throughout

the State. We estimate that there are an additional 1 million acres of suitable but

unoccupied bighorn sheep habitat on BLM-managed land in the State.

Federal, State and private partnerships have substantially enhanced successful

wildlife habitat management on BLM-managed land. The BLM works closely with

a variety of groups to restore habitats for native wildlife species on BLM-managed

lands. Over the past 10 years, the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nevada Division of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited and local ranchers and sportsmen have

made substantial investments to restore Lahontan cutthroat trout to 128 miles of

the Marys River system, a premier trout stream in northeastern Nevada. The

BLM’s Challenge Cost Share program, established by Congress in 1985, has

matched millions of dollars of private contributions with Federal appropriations

through successful partnership efforts that have delivered conservation and restoration projects throughout the West.

The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, a new Federal/private partnership in Clark

County, is restoring native plant communities in the Mojave Desert, including removal of the invasive tamarisk from riparian areas and replanting native willows

and grasses to benefit desert tortoise, desert fish species and a wide range of native

birds, mammals, and amphibians.

Following the disastrous, widespread wildland fires of 1999, the BLM extensively

examined the effects of fire on habitat and ecosystem processes. We found that a

fire cycle had developed, referred to in recent science reports as the ‘‘cheatgrasswildfire cycle.’’ This problem is acute in Nevada, where the cycle of fire disturbance

has spurred the invasive cheat grass to alter range and wildlife habitats. Cheat

grass has been on our landscape for many years, quietly spreading its water-stealing roots to ever increasing areas.

Cheatgrass sprouts quickly as winter moisture arrives on burned or disturbed

lands. Its root mass quickly draws up all available moisture, denying it to sagebrush

seed. Left unmanaged, sagebrush benchlands instead become fields of cheat grass.

These fields dry out in the summer sun, and lay in wait for summer lightning.

There was a time when people thought that getting rid of sagebrush was a good

thing. However, we now know that sagebrush is vital to the health of Great Basin

wildlands. Sagebrush provides cover for sage grouse, mice and other rodents, smaller songbirds, ground squirrels—over 170 species which are inhabitants of the open

land. It provides shelter from the summer sun and from raptors overhead. In winter, dry cheatgrass is buried under snow. Sagebrush rises above the snow, providing

forage for deer, antelope, and sage grouse.

We look forward to working with our partners here in Nevada to address the

cheat grass problem, along with other efforts at wildlife habitat and species restoration in a manner that balances the interests of stakeholders and addresses wildlife

and habitat needs. This effort is massive, across the millions of acres of the Great

Basin. Change will require labor intensive effort and significant amounts of native

seed. Each landscape will call for its own prescription.

In some areas, we may need to plant sagebrush seedlings and sow native seed

by hand. The entire spectrum of plant and landscape management must be brought

into play if we are to begin a true Great Basin restoration program.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. A. BRIAN WALLACE, CHAIRMAN, WASHOE TRIBE OF

NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA

Senator Reid, thank you for your continued interest in the equitable distribution

of Federal funding for wildlife conservation efforts, and for the opportunity to

present the views of the Washoe Tribe and of Indian country generally on your proposed CARA legislation. I also want to thank you again for your on-going efforts to

give the Washoe Tribe access to their ancestral homeland at Lake Tahoe.

Senator, as you well know, CARA was severely diluted last year into a ‘‘CARA

Lite’’ that funded fewer activities with fewer dollars over less time. No stakeholder

was more adversely affected by this dilution than Indian tribes, who lost every sinVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
75

gle provision that had benefited them in the original legislation. I applaud your

leadership in the effort to breathe new life into CARA.

Your proposed legislation deals with two of what are currently nine Titles in the

House version of CARA. I will restrict most of my remarks to these two titles,

though I will, at the end of my remarks, touch briefly on two other CARA Titles

of import to Indian country.

Senator Reid, like States, Indian tribes have governmental responsibility for the

conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and the regulation of hunting and fishing

and gathering, on their lands. Native Americans who fish, hunt, and gather on Indian lands pay excise taxes on ammunition, fishing gear, guns, and boat fuel, just

like other Americans. It is critical that any wildlife conservation Title of CARA, or

a standalone bill, include a equitable distribution of Federal funds to Indian tribes

for conservation and regulation, so that we can receive, and count on receiving, Federal moneys for these woefully underfunded areas for which States have been receiving money for many years.

WILDLIFE

Title Indian tribes play a unique and crucial role in four purposes identified under

this title: (1) wildlife and habitat conservation; (2) development of comprehensive

wildlife conservation and restoration plans; (3) cooperative planning and implementation of wildlife conservation plans; and (4) wildlife education and public involvement. Having lived in our homelands for thousands of years, Indian tribes have developed a unique understanding of the ecosystem and through our traditional and

customary practices we have developed a traditional knowledge and science that enhances the scope of conventional science. Additionally, because tribal members have

significantly more contact with the habitat and wildlife and because we rely upon

the natural resources of our homelands, we are exposed to a greater degree of risk

when the wildlife and habitat is impacted. An unhealthy ecosystem will directly impact the lives of Indian people.

Although there is little BIA funding and no EPA funding available for tribes to

conserve and restore wildlife, the Washoe Tribe has pursued a commitment to habitat restoration and conservation, not just on tribal lands but within our entire ancestral homelands. On tribal lands we have used clean water funding to restore

stream banks and improve wildlife and aquatic habitat along the riparian corridor

of the Carson River. In addition, our conservation and restoration efforts have maintained a reach of Clear Creek that university students and local school groups visit

to study. As part of our cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest Service at Lake

Tahoe the Washoe Tribe is preparing a wetlands conservation and restoration plan

for the Meeks Creek meadow and the Taylor/Baldwin wetlands. The Tribe will implement the wetlands conservation and restoration plan in cooperation with the Forest Service. However, because of the lack of funding, these efforts are isolated and

we are not able to achieve the full benefits of comprehensive habitat planning.

The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration title of the pending House legislation

(H.R. 701) and last year’s Senate bills (S. 2123 and S. 2567) clearly identifies the

need for a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Plan, but the

Washoe Tribe has no funding available for development of such a plan. While we

have been able to implement and develop plans for isolated wetland areas through

clean water funding, we have not been able to develop a comprehensive conservation

and restoration plan or even collect data on wildlife populations. The need for such

plans increases as commercial and residential development continues to creep in on

tribal lands and the pressure on wildlife habitat increases. Furthermore, Tribal

lands are often intermixed with lands under Federal and State jurisdiction, requiring a coordinated planning approach. In our case, the Washoe Tribe has jurisdiction

over more than 60,000 acres of Indian allotment lands in the Pine Nut Mountains,

which are located in a checkerboard pattern with BLM lands and private lands.

Currently the BLM and State agencies are engaged in a planning process in for

their portions of the Pine Nut Mountains, and the Tribe is a critical partner. However, the Tribe’s efforts are clearly hampered by our lack of funding for wildlife and

habitat planning. Similarly, conservation planning funds would enhance our efforts

to work with our State and Federal partners on the conservation and restoration

of habitats in the Lake Tahoe Basin and on along the Carson and Truckee Rivers.

The pending House legislation, H.R. 701, includes language that would provide Indian tribes with direct access to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act

funding. The allocation mechanism proposed in this year’s House version of CARA,

allocates up to 2.25 percent of total dollars to be divided among all 550 Indian tribes

based on relative land area and population. The 2.25 percent is based in the acres

of Indian trust land relative to total acreage in the United States (56,015,221 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 May 03, 2002 Jkt 071527 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78068 SENENV1 PsN: SENENV1
76

lion Indian trust acres divided by the 2,379,390,458 acres that comprise the entire

United States). In fact, the 2.25 percent actually represents less than the full equitable share, for an example, the Washoe Tribe has done work on USES lands with

the Forest Service to conserve and restore wetlands on lands at Lake Tahoe. Indian

tribes will continue to work on conserving wildlife and critical ecosystems within

ceded treaty lands and other ancestral homelands, which are no longer held in trust.

Finally, it is important to note that current proposals of this nature do not reduce

existing allocations to States and territories under the Dingell-Johnson or PittmanRobertson Acts, but rather involve only new allocations never before raised and distributed.

The Senate CARA bills from last year omitted critical allocation to Indian tribes,

and would have continued to exclude tribes from these funds, and I strongly urge

you to use the language from Title III of this year’s Senate legislation.

SENSITIVE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES INCENTIVES TITLE

As to your proposals under the category of Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered

Species Incentives, we applaud your efforts to extend funding to conservation plans

to preserve species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered under the

Endangered Species Act, but are species of concern. Hopefully, by focusing efforts

on these species prior to their being listed we can avoid the need to list them. Additionally, we encourage you to move beyond the language as contained in CARA Title

VII, and recognize the impacts of the conservation of these species on Indian tribes.

Sensitive, threatened, and endangered species are a concern of Indian peoples everywhere, for they are a part of our cultural heritage and a consideration in our land

management activities.

A classic example of this is the Lahontan cutthroat trout of the river basins of

Nevada. Native and non-Native peoples alike share a desire for the recovery of these

amazing fish. Habitat recovery efforts are underway by all stakeholders, and help

from the Federal Government would be most welcome. Indian lands are integral to

these efforts, and the inclusion of Indian tribes as potential recipients of Federal

funds for the development of conservation plans and recovery agreements would be

appropriate. The State-Federal-Tribal recovery LTC effort on the Truckee River is

a specific example where the ability of Tribes to engage the other partners is limited

by our lack of funding. Again, in order for Indian tribes to play our proper role in

these conservation efforts, it is necessary that tribes have the ability to access these

funds directly.

OTHER CARA PROVISIONS

I would like to briefly deviate from the two primary topics of your proposed legislation to talk about a couple of other aspects of the big CARA package that are important to tribes and that were stripped from last year’s bill at the eleventh hour:

• The first is Title II, Land & Water Conservation Fund Revitalization, which

would allocate Federal moneys from oil and gas revenues to various Federal agencies and State and tribal governments for the acquisition of land for conservation

purposes. Tribes would be entitled to one State’s worth of funding under current

House bill language. This too was stripped from last year’s ‘‘CARA Lite,’’ and I encourage you to support the effort to include tribes in any Land and Water Conservation fund distribution in FY2002 and beyond. Although the Tribe has no funding

for conservation land acquisition, the Washoe Tribe has been successfully partnered

with Federal agencies and private parties to acquire sensitive environmental and

cultural lands for conservation purposes. Indian tribes bring a unique element to

the conservation effort, and with funding we will be able to achieve more win-win

situations. Again, looking to the Pine Nut Mountains, to improve land management,

Federal and State agencies and governments support Washoe Tribal acquisition of

private land holdings which are surrounded by Indian allotment lands, and the private land owner is interested in selling the land to the Tribe, but there are no land

acquisition funds available.

• The final provision of note is the National Park and Indian Lands Restoration,

currently Title VI of last year’s Senate bill. The Title would provide up to $25 million annually for a coordinated program on Indian lands to restore degraded lands,

protect resources that are threatened with degradation, and protect public health

and safety.

The $25 million allocated to tribes under this title is modest when you consider

that it must be spread among more than 550 tribal governments and 56 million

acres of Indian trust land. However, it does represent a critically important source

of funds, and I strongly urge you to ensure that the Senate version of CARA Title

77

VI or its equivalent is kept intact in any CARA legislation that emerges from the

107th Congress.

Senator Reid, once again I thank you for your leadership on this and so many

other issues important to the Washoe Tribe and Indian people across the United

States.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. WILLIAMS, SUPERVISOR, NEVADA FISH AND WILDLIFE

OFFICE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Thank you for the opportunity to present information on species conservation activities that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) is conducting in Nevada.

You requested that I comment on current conservation initiatives, what conservation plans have been successful, what initiatives have been planned but not implemented, what are the obstacles to engaging people in conservation efforts, and what

can we do to encourage more participation in conservation planning.

It is crucial that the Service work cooperatively with our State, Tribal, and private partners on species conservation. Recognizing this the Service has developed

and is implementing many approaches which enable cooperative conservation efforts. These approaches are flexible so as to encourage locally-based solutions to

complex and sometimes contentious conservation challenges. The initiatives and

agreements I will discuss are a result of these approaches. We need to continue

seeking, and indeed expand opportunities for local communities and private landowners to share in the development of conservation solutions.

Let me start by providing you with a review of current activities in Nevada. Last

year we and our partners signed two major conservation efforts, the Clark County

Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement.

The Clark County MSHCP covers 78 species, only two of which are listed under

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This plan will allow for a permit to be issued

under Section 10 of the ESA for an incidental take of the listed species due to development in southern Nevada. The MSHCP covers over 145,000 acres that are subject

to development over the next 30 years.

The goal of the MSHCP is to conserve healthy ecosystems and the species that

are supported by them, while allowing for development. A $550 per acre fee is paid

to the County with the issuance of development permits. The proceeds from the fees

fund desert tortoise conservation and recovery activities, as well as other actions

needed to protect the 78 species covered under the Plan. The plan provides certainty

for Clark County developers while ensuring conservation measures that will help recover the listed species and prevent the other species from being listed.

The establishment of the MSHCP was successful because of the cooperation between Clark County, State and Federal agencies, the University of Nevada, Reno,

environmental groups, recreational interests, and resource users.

The second major conservation action that was solidified last year was a conservation agreement for the Amargosa Toad that resides in the Oasis Valley. This agreement brought together Nye County, the city of Beatty, private landowners, the State

of Nevada, several Federal agencies, environmental groups and The Nature Conservancy. The premise of the agreement provides the Nature Conservancy the ability

to purchase valuable habitat for the toad from a private landowner. On October 14,

2000 the agreement was signed with the parties, and they are currently working

together to manage the land and other resources for the protection of the toad and

the other species that depend on the riparian wetland habitat.

Both of these plans depend upon private and public dollars for their success. Private funding supports mitigation efforts and conservation actions to protect the species listed in the agreements.

We are currently working on several other conservation actions. I will list them

here and then discuss some of them in greater detail. Current initiatives include

the following:

• Tahoe Yellow Cress Conservation Agreement;

• Coyote Spring Valley Habitat Conservation Plan;

• Lahontan cutthroat trout restoration, Truckee River;

• Sage Grouse Conservation Agreement;

• Spotted Frog Conservation Agreement;

• Lincoln County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and

• Nye County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

78

TAHOE YELLOW CRESS CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

A planning team has been formed to develop a conservation agreement for the

Tahoe yellow cress, a plant that is found on the shores of Lake Tahoe. Some of the

habitat occurs on private lands, so involving associations like the Lake Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association will be a key element to the success of finalizing such

an agreement. One important measure to protect the Tahoe yellow cress is simply

to build fences around the plant. Should a private landowner agree to fence an area

to protect habitat, funds may be available through Candidate Conservation Agreement Grants for the costs of the fencing or other conservation activities the landowner may desire to make.

COYOTE SPRINGS VALLEY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

We are also working closely with a developer in Southern Nevada on the Coyote

Springs Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. Coyote Springs Valley is critical habitat

for the desert tortoise. Coyote Springs Limited Liability Corporation has indicated

a willingness to work, by signing a Memorandum of Agreement with the Service and

BLM, to create a plan encompassing more than 40,000 acres of private and leased

lands within the valley, that would conserve desert tortoise habitat while providing

opportunities for residential and commercial development. This plan is envisioned

to also address the long-term water needs of the developers, as well as the listed

fishes in the nearby Muddy River, which could be affected by long-term groundwater

use. This type of pro-active, early involvement with landowners is acknowledged by

the Service as one of the most important objectives in our efforts to reduce conflicts

and foster general acceptance of species conservation.

LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT RESTORATION, TRUCKEE RIVER

In our efforts to recover Nevada’s State fish, the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT),

we have received funding to conduct habitat restoration work on non-Federal lands

along the Truckee and Walker Rivers. We are working with the Nature Conservancy

to conduct habitat restoration work on the Truckee River that will benefit the river,

the riparian corridor, and all the fishes that live in the river. Our next step will

be to develop Safe Harbor Agreements with private landowners to compliment our

LCT recovery efforts.

SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

We are working with the State on the conservation of the sage grouse. We appreciate the State of Nevada’s leadership by heading up this coordination effort, with

the establishment of the Governor’s Sage Grouse Working Group. The working

group is bringing together private landowners, counties, environmental groups and

Federal agencies to develop a conservation agreement.

For private landowners with suitable sage grouse habitat, and who are willing to

protect it, there are a variety of funding options and incentives from the Service.

Congress authorized funding beginning in Fiscal Year 1999 for the ESA Landowner

Incentive Program to provide financial assistance and incentives to private property

owners to conserve listed, proposed, and candidate species. I will discuss these and

other finding sources below.

As you are aware, under Section 6 of the ESA, funds are provided to the States

for species and habitat recovery actions on non-Federal lands.

In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated 105 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The Service will use these dollars for Safe

Harbor Grants, Habitat Conservation Planning Grants, Species Recovery Land Acquisition Grants and Candidate Conservation Agreement Grants. Each of these

grants programs requires States to provide at least 25 percent of the project costs

in order to receive funds from these grants. Additionally, some of the funds will be

used for Habitat Conservation Land Acquisition by States.

The Nevada Office of the Service recently worked with a number of non-Federal

partners on proposals for grants under the Service’s Partners in Wildlife Program.

Of the six proposals submitted, five grants were awarded through the Partners Program. Last fiscal year, we worked with the Nevada Division of Wildlife to develop

and submit applications for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

grants, which led the Service to award $176,000 to the State. These funds benefit

11 projects in Nevada.

In addition to the Section 6 moneys, Congress provided $50 million in the fiscal

year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations to be allocated among the States

for wildlife conservation, with the objective of fulfilling unmet needs of wildlife within the States. One of the primary means of accomplishing this goal is to encourage

79

cooperative planning by State governments, the Federal Government, and other interested parties. Another $50 million for competitive wildlife grants to the States

was provided in the Interior appropriations.

You asked for examples of successful conservation agreements in Nevada. The

Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement is such an example. It came together after

6 years of meeting with local officials and private landowners to ensure they were

comfortable with the direction of the program.

This agreement gave Nye County an opportunity to play a leading role in species

conservation and is a good example to demonstrate that local communities are willing, and able, to be leaders on species conservation.

The Amargosa Toad’s total range is limited to a 12-mile stretch of the Amargosa

River in Nye County’s Oasis Valley. The alarm over the toad’s status was triggered

by a 1994 survey that found only 30 adult toads, resulting in a petition to list the

toad as an endangered species. Recent surveys conducted in cooperation with private landowners, however, lead scientists to estimate that as many as 16,000 adult

Amargosa toads may live in the Oasis Valley.

The Nature Conservancy purchased the Torrance Ranch, an area that provides

habitat for the Amargosa Toad, the Oasis Valley speckled dace, the Oasis Valley

spring snail, and 10 species of birds, including yellow warbler, blue grosbeak, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Bullock’s oriole. The Nature Conservancy’s purchase of the

Torrance Ranch was made possible with funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and private donations.

The partners will undertake the restoration and monitoring of the ranch with financial support provided by the Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, and The Nature Conservancy and the University

of Nevada, Reno’s Biological Resources Research Center. The land acquisition, combined with other actions specified in the agreement, will secure the toad’s future.

One of the obstacles that has impeded local people from getting involved in conservation planning in Nevada in the past has been a lack of personal communication

between employees of government agencies and landowners. Landowners may not

know what incentives and options are available to them for funding conservation

measures. We in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Nevada Fish & Wildlife Office are

committed to doing a better job of reaching out and communicating with landowners

and informing them on how they can play a bigger role in species conservation.

One way we are working to support local conservation efforts is by dedicating a

staff person in our office to identify what grants and incentives are available for

conservation, and to reach out to State and county agencies and private landowners

to inform them of how they can take advantage of these opportunities.

There may be other obstacles, but the Service is working to identify and resolve

them so that States, counties and private property owners can and will take more

active roles in species conservation.

There are numerous threats in Nevada that impact ecosystems and cause species

to decline, including: urban growth; invasion of non-native grasses (such as cheat

grass and white top); fire damage; conversion of habitat to agricultural lands; and

over-grazing. Involving more people in conservation and protection of public and

non-Federal lands is crucial to preserving the health of the land and maintaining

the biological diversity of Nevada.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and welcome any questions you

may have.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS D. MURPHY, PH.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF

NEVADA, RENO, NV

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you initiatives to bring better conservation of wildlife, fish, and non-game species to Nevada and the West.

Many of those concerned with Nevada’s natural heritage have come to recognize

that the critical environmental legislation of the 1970’s—including the Clean Water

Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, among others—has the potential of becoming a collection of unfunded mandates unless the

Federal Government can deliver support for much needed management efforts.

Funding for endangered species in particular has been woefully inadequate. As more

species have been listed and the need for conservation responses grow in turn, appropriations have limped along. In the middle of 1990’s, the United States spent

more money on military bands than on species at risk. During the same period more

money was spent on Domino’s Pizza deliveries inside the Beltway than on imperiled

species programs nationwide. The message is straightforward. The Federal Government must support programs that are necessary to conserve listed species, and must

80

aggressively pursue prelisting agreements and efforts to conserve species before

they become listed.

Despite a starvation budget for species protection, conservation successes in Nevada have been many. The threatened desert tortoise survives across much of the

southern State despite explosive land development and severe drought. Ash Meadows, described by Harvard University’s E.O. Wilson as a sacred American landmark,

‘‘the equivalent of Independence Hall or Gettysburg,’’ now has protection and work

moves forward in earnest to conserve the many imperiled species that reside there

and to control invasive, weedy species that threaten their habitat. The Spring

Mountains Natural Recreation Area harbors more endemic species than any comparable location in the country and nearly all seem to be doing well despite rapidly

increasing recreational visits.

But many challenges still face our land and resource managers. The sage grouse

and its habitats have precipitously declined across much of the north of the State.

No fewer than 14 imperiled butterfly subspecies are known from just a few dozen

wetland acres across the dry middle of Nevada; each one at more risk of disappearance than any of the currently listed butterfly species found elsewhere in the western States. Once the most abundant amphibian in the State, the northern leopard

frog now exists in just three of the more than one hundred sites from which it was

historically recorded on museum specimens. Our most widespread frog may be just

a few years away from disappearing from Nevada.

What these species have in common beyond their imperilment is that they live

on a shared landscape—on both lands public and private. They live on public lands

with a very long history of resource use and private stewardship. One conservation

reality is apparent; that is, that saving species and the habitats that support them

is a shared responsibility and will demand in coming years unprecedented cooperation. That cooperation must include Federal land and resource managers, State fish

and wildlife staff, private stakeholders, and scientists. Recognizing our long history

of landscape mismanagement and the twin threats from wildfire and invasive plant

species, we have a great opportunity to fail the sage grouse. Certainly money alone

cannot save the grouse. Federal and State managers must coordinate to find a common ground between the prohibitive policy that comes with listings under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the State’s management of fish and wildlife for

consumption. Although we all agree that we must save sage grouse, we must ask

whether we want to save them as part of our State’s rich natural heritage, or so

that we can have a season on them.

Any new funding must look to recipients beyond the Federal and State families.

The shared landscape of the Intermountain West is not equally shared. Private interests have long controlled the most limiting resource—water. And, although the

desert tortoise and sage grouse conservation challenges in this State are not solely

driven by water allocation conflicts, most other species challenges are. It is not a

coincidence that pupfish, frogs and toads, spring snails, and butterflies present land

managers with the most immediate species challenges. The springs, seeps, and riparian areas that support those organisms have long been exploited and often overused. Where dollars can buy water for fish and wildlife, and where private interests

have the desire to contribute to saving species our efforts will be rewarded. A Federal listing of the 14 butterflies I mentioned can be obviated with just a small redirection of waters and some three-strand fencing. It is that simple to save uniquely

Nevada butterflies in Carson Valley, Big Smoky Valley, Railroad Valley, Steptoe

Valley and points in between.

Finally, cooperation must extend to information gathering and sharing. We have

to recognize we know woefully little about how our wildlands serve both common

species and rare ones. Our best intended land management actions have often failed

to achieve the desired results and frequently have had adverse effects on species of

concern.

In Nevada we have come a long way toward a remedy. For 7 years the State has

benefited from the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative, a cooperative effort joining Federal and State land and resource managers with university scientists to meet the

goal of saving biodiversity in the face of human population growth and diverse land

uses. In continuous communication, managers and scientists direct funds to species

and habitats at greatest risk, work together to study biological systems that are

poorly understood, and prioritize future conservation actions. The Biodiversity Initiative cannot take all the credit, but it is certainly not coincidence that although

Nevada was fourth in the Nation in candidates species for Federal protection in

1993, not one new species was listed in the State until forces in Elko County caused

the recent listing of the bull trout. Very unfortunately, the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative’s funding has been removed by this administration from the Federal budget.

81

In Nevada we have a unique level of communication, cooperation, and collegiality

on resource issues. That foundation has fostered the largest Habitat Conservation

Plan in the country, 51⁄2 million acres in Clark County, covering nearly 90 species

of plants and animals, most not yet listed. In cooperation with California, Nevada

is involved in one to the Nation’s most visible and ambitious restoration efforts to

save the fabled clarity of Lake Tahoe’s waters. And, now we are embarking on perhaps the biggest conservation challenge yet—to sustain and restore the most Nevadan of all habitats, the sagebrush ecosystem. Neglected, abused, and under incalculable threats, we frankly have no available technology to reverse the decline of

our sagebrush. But Federal funding of a cooperative effort involving agencies and

stakeholders, founded on reliable experimental science offers our best hope.

Senator Reid, I encourage you and the Committee on Environment and Public

Works to fund cooperative efforts to bring more effective species conservation to our

State and our neighbors.

STATEMENT OF KAREN R. DENIO, ACTING STATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEVADA

FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Good afternoon. My name is Karen R. Denio and I am the Acting Nevada State

Executive Director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service

Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to present information on the conservation programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) in Nevada, the current levels of participation, and the

rationale for producer participation.

FSA and NRCS have several conservation programs available to farmers and

ranchers that provide incentives to encourage wildlife habitat. Among these programs is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a voluntary program for agricultural landowners, offering wildlife and environmental benefits. Generally, offers for

CRP contracts are competitively ranked according to the Environmental Benefits

Index (EBI). Environmental and cost data are collected for each of the EBI factors,

including:

• Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage;

• Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching;

• On-farm benefits of reduced erosion;

• Likely long-term benefits of reduced erosion;

• Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion;

• Benefits of enrollment in conservation priority areas where enrollment would

contribute to the improvement of identified adverse water quality, wildlife habitat, or air quality; and

• Cost.

Under the CRP, producers receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible cropland and

marginal pastureland that improves soil, water and wildlife resources. To be eligible

to be enrolled in the CRP, cropland must also have been planted or considered

planted to an agricultural commodity 2 of the 5 most recent crop years.

Conservation Reserve Program Continuous signups provide management flexibility to farmers and ranchers to implement certain high-priority conservation practices on eligible land. To encourage these high-priority practices, continuous signup

participants do not go through the normal bidding process and can enroll noncompetitively. One practice that offers significant wildlife benefits for farmers and

ranchers is the riparian buffer practice. The land can be marginal pasture which

is devoted to trees either planted or naturally regenerated. This provides cover for

waterfowl and fish, along with other wildlife species.

A second wildlife enhancement practice is to develop or restore shallow water

areas that provide a source of water for wildlife for the majority of the year. Other

eligible acreage devoted to certain special conservation practices, such as filter

strips, grassed waterways, shelter belts, living snow fences, contour grass strips,

and salt tolerant vegetation may be enrolled at any time under the CRP continuous

signup and is not subject to competitive bidding.

To be eligible under continuous signup, land must first meet the basic CRP eligibility requirements. In addition to the applicable CRP rental rates, payments up to

50 percent of the eligible cost of establishing a permanent cover are provided to producers as cost-shares.

Up to $350 million is available for additional incentives through fiscal year 2002

to encourage producers to participate in the CRP continuous signup, including:

• An up-front CRP Signing Incentive Payment (CAP-SIP) of $100 to $150 per

acre.

82

• A Practice Incentive Payment (PIP) paid as a one-time rental payment, equal

to 40 percent of the eligible installation costs to eligible participants enrolling certain practices, in addition to the standard 50 percent CRP cost-share rate. • New rental rates that have been established for certain marginal pastureland

to better reflect the value of such lands to farmers and ranchers.

Through mid-January 2001, over 1.4 million acres nationally have been enrolled

under continuous signup practices. With these incentives, enrollment of filterstrips

has increased over 600 percent compared to the historic program (signups 1–13)

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is used in many States

as a vehicle for conservation cooperation. The two primary objectives of CREP are

to coordinate Federal and non-Federal resources to address specific conservation objectives of a State and the Nation in a cost-effective manner, and to improve wildlife

habitat, water quality, and erosion control related to agricultural use in specific geographic areas.

These unique State and Federal partnerships allow producers to receive incentive

payments for installing specific conservation practices. Through the CREP, farmers

can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish longterm, resource conserving covers on eligible land. Like continuous signup, CREP

participants can enroll noncompetitively and receive the signing and Practice Incentive Payments.

Under CREP, Non-Federal partners provide a significant commitment, such as 20

percent, toward the overall cost of the program.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is carried out by NRCS.

EQIP provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to eligible farmers

and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their

lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, and encourages environmental enhancement.

The purposes of EQIP are intended to be achieved through the implementation

of a conservation plan which include structural, vegetative, and land management

practices on eligible land. Five- to ten-year contracts are made with eligible producers. Cost-share payments may be made to implement one or more eligible structural or vegetative practices, such as animal waste management facilities, terraces,

filter strips, tree planting, and permanent wildlife habitat. Incentive payments can

be made to implement one or more land management practices, such as nutrient

management, pest management, and grazing land management. By law, nationally,

50 percent of the funding available for the program is targeted at natural resource

concerns relating to livestock production.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is another Federal wildlife conservation program administered by NRCS. WHIP is a voluntary program that provides cost-sharing of up to 75 percent for landowners to apply a variety of wildlife

practices to develop habitat that will support upland wildlife, wetland wildlife,

threatened and endangered species, fisheries, and other types of wildlife. The purpose of the program is to create high quality wildlife habitats that support wildlife

populations of local, State and national significance.

Although these conservation programs are available, it is often a difficult decision

for the producer on whether to participate. As energy, fertilizer, and transportation

costs continue to escalate, it often puts the farmers and ranchers in the position of

choosing between production-based practices to pay the bills and the conservation

practices they wish to carry out.

Nevada’s producer participation in CRP and the CRP continuous signup is limited, due to a variety of factors. One factor is the rental rate assigned to Nevada.

Rental rates are based on the dryland agricultural value because ongoing irrigation

is not required as a condition of enrollment. The dry land rate for enrolled land in

Nevada is about $17 per acre. Consistent with the statutory obligation prohibiting

haying or grazing, a producer is required to keep cattle off the CRP land. Therefore,

if a producer or a neighbor has cattle, it would be necessary to fence the CRP acreage.

Along with wildlife enhancement benefits, one of the purposes of CRP is to retire

cropland in order to control erosion and improve water quality. Because much of Nevada’s land base does not have a cropping history, due to its permanent grass cover

or recently being put into production, it is basically ineligible to be enrolled in the

CRP.

In Nevada, there are more EQIP requests for participation than available funding.

For example, in 2000 there were 57 applications for a total of $1,207,197 and, with

the $992,478 allocation, 43 projects were funded. The 2001 cycle is similar, in that

85 applications totaling $1,769,873 have been received but, with $1,151,300 allocated, a minimum of 44 projects will be funded.

83

Ultimately, participation in conservation programs benefits all of us, for even as

we recognize our farmers and ranchers as the original conservationists, we each

have a responsibility in preserving our land and natural resources for the following

generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions that you or the committee may have.

STATEMENT OF NICK PEARSON, STATE CONSERVATIONIST, NEVADA NATURAL

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to

appear today and provide an update on the Conservation Programs implemented by

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (ARCS).

Mr. Chairman, as you know: farmers across America are faced with ever increasing pressures to maintain a productive and profitable business. Prices for many

farm commodities have been the lowest in years and poor weather and growing conditions have been issues in many areas. Production costs have increased due to

many factors including rising prices of nitrogen fertilizer and natural gas. In addition to these concerns, farmers face increasing pressures associated with natural resources. In recent years, concern regarding the health of our soils, water supply, and

air have made farming and ranching increasingly difficult.

We know that farmers want to be good stewards of the land. They know that

stewardship is in the best interests of long-term productivity of farming operations.

And by and large. it is also important to farmers and ranchers who want to leave

improved natural resources and a better environment for future generations. Our

mission is to help farmers and ranchers meet the challenge of sustaining their natural resources while maintaining a productive and profitable business.

Today, I would like to highlight the many ways our conservation programs are

making a difference around the countryside. Since the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act), NRCS has experienced

an increased national demand for participation in conservation programs. Farmers

are utilizing these programs for a variety of benefits, including managing nutrients

to save on input costs and protect water quality, restoring and protecting wetlands

to create wildlife habitat, installing grassed waterways to control erosion, and designing grazing systems to increase forage production and manage invasive species.

Land users are using conservation to improve the productivity and sustainability

of their operation, while also improving the asset value of their farm even during

times of such dire economic strain. Our programs are voluntary. In response to new

environmental regulations at many levels, we are helping farmers and ranchers

meet some of the regulatory pressures they may face. In turn, the public benefits

from conservation programs go well beyond the edge of the farm field. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the conservation programs Congress included in the 1996 Act,

when coupled with our historic conservation programs, and the State and local delivery system are proving winners for the farmer, and the country as a whole.

CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The cornerstone of our conservation activities is the NRCS work force. Everything

we accomplish is contingent upon the talents and technical skills of our field staff

around the country. They are trained professionals with the technical tools, standards and specifications who get the job done. NRCS has operated since its creation

through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals, State and local governments, and other Federal agencies and officials. That partnership may be even more

important today if we are to meet the challenging conservation problems facing our

Nation’s farmers and ranchers.

While we are accomplishing much through the 1996 Act programs, it is important

not to lose sight of the importance of our ongoing Conservation Technical Assistance

program. For more than 60 years, the NRCS has used conservation technical assistance to build a foundation of trust with people who voluntarily conserve their natural resources. On average, the Agency’s conservation assistance leverages more

than $1 in contributions for every Federal dollar invested. In States like Nevada,

NRCS has placed special emphasis on the conservation of private grazing lands. As

part of our efforts in this area, farmers and ranchers are benefiting from planned

grazing systems, resulting in better productivity and improved natural resources.

And through the National Cooperative Soil Survey, approximately, 22,000,000 acres

have been mapped each year, so that natural resource decisions are based upon

sound science and complete information about the natural resources.

84

NRCS accomplishes its goals by working with 3,000 local Conservation Districts

that have been established by State law and with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments. We also leverage our resources with the help of more than

348 Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils. State and local governments contribute substantially, with both people and funding to complement

NRCS technical and financial assistance. Approximately 7,750 full-time-equivalent

staff years are provided annually by NRCS partners and volunteers.

WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP)

Next, I would like to highlight the accomplishments of the Wetlands Reserve Program. WRP preserves, protects, and restores valuable wetlands mainly on marginal

agricultural lands where historic wetland functions and values have been either depleted or substantially diminished. Program delivery is designed to maximize wetland wildlife benefits, to provide for water quality and flood storage benefits, and

to provide for general aesthetic and open space needs. Approximately 70 percent of

the WRP project sites are within areas that are frequently subjected to flooding, reducing the severity of future flood events. The WRP is also making a substantial

contribution to the restoration of the nation’s migratory bird habitats, especially for

waterfowl.

As directed in the 1996 Act, WRP enrollment is separated into three components

(permanent easements, 30-year easements, and cost-share agreements). Pursuant to

appropriations act directives, enrollment is being balanced to respond to the level

of landowner interest in each of these three components.

The 1996 Act authorized a total cumulative enrollment of 975,000 acres in the

program. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2000, the program had almost reached

maximum enrollment. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 provided an

additional 100,000 acres, raising the cumulative enrollment cap to 1,075,000 acres

and allowing 140,000 acres to enroll in fiscal year 2001.

From inception of the program in 1992 through 2000, interest in WRP has been

exceptional. Historically, there have been more than five times as many acres offered than the program could enroll. One benefit of WRP is the amount of resources

we have been able to leverage with other Federal programs as well as non-governmental organizations. It is clear from our experience to date, Mr. Chairman, that

the WRP continues to be very popular with farmers and ranchers and is a program

that clearly has strong support around the countryside.

WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM (WHIP)

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides up to 75 percent cost-share for

implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop upland wildlife habitat, wetland

wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat as well as aquatic habitat. The WHIP also helps landowners best meet their own needs while supporting

wildlife habitat development, and to develop new partnerships with State wildlife

agencies, nongovernmental agencies and others. The program was initially funded at a total of $50 million in the 1996 Act, to be

spent over a number of years. As a result of strong interest, those funds were exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1999, at which time 1.4 million acres were enrolled

in 8,600 long-term wildlife habitat development agreements. For fiscal year 2001,

$12.5 million will be provided for WHIP from funding in Section 211(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, as authorized in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. NRCS has made an enormous effort to develop partnerships with government and private organizations to develop a program that targets

specific State concerns.

FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)

The FPP protects prime or unique farmland, lands of State or local importance,

and other productive soils from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides

matching funds to leverage funds from States, Tribes, or local government entities

that have farmland protection programs. The FPP establishes partnerships with

State, Tribes, and local government entities to acquire conservation easements or

other interests in land. It ensures that valuable farmland is preserved for future

generations and also helps maintain a healthy environment and sustainable rural

economy. The program was initially funded in the 1996 Act at a level of $35 million,

to be spent over a number of years. To date, those funds have been exhausted, and

local interest in the program continues to be strong. For fiscal year 2001, additional

funding provided in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 will fund the FPP

at $17.5 million. On January 22, 2001, a request for proposals was published in the

85

Federal Register. Eligible entities had until March 8, 2001 to submit their proposals. After the evaluation process is concluded, successful applicants will be notified in June 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP)

EQIP provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers and

ranchers who face serious threats to soil, water, and related natural resources on

agricultural land and other land. The 1996 Act authorized $200 million, annually

for EQIP, utilizing funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). For fiscal

year 2001, the final appropriation was $200 million. In the 2 previous fiscal years,

Congress appropriated $174 million annually. Consistent with the authorizing legislation, the program is primarily available in priority conservation areas in order to

maximize the benefits of each Federal conservation dollar. The priority areas consist

of watersheds, regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns that have been recommended through a locally-led conservation process. For fiscal year 2000, nearly

85 percent of the EQIP financial assistance funding was provided within priority

areas.

The program has been extremely successful. We received nearly 76,168 applications in fiscal year 2000. After NRCS ranked the applications based on criteria developed at the local and State level, 16,443 long-term contracts with farmers and

ranchers were approved. Since inception of the program, EQIP has averaged about

6 times the number of applications than could be approved with available funding.

Certainly the demand for the program remains high around the country.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would note that good conservation doesn’t just happen. It takes all of us, including the Congress, the conservation partners, and most

importantly, the people living on the land working together to make it happen. As

exemplified through the many programs and activities we have underway, there is

a great deal happening on the ground. And the work is not only helping farmers

and ranchers build more productive and economically viable operations, but also is

building a better natural resource base for the future. We are proud of our accomplishments and look forward to working with you to build on all that we have done

thus far. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the

opportunity to appear. I would be happy to answer any questions the committee

might have.

Æ