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

27–639 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–439

TO DISCUSS HOW FARM BILL PROGRAMS CAN

BETTER SUPPORT SPECIES CONSERVATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, 

AND RURAL REVITALIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

July 26, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

To Discuss How Farm Bill Programs Can Better Support Species Conservation ........................................................................................................................ 01

Teusday, July 26, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 01

Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. from Colorado .............................................................. 07

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, a U.S Senator from Arkansas ......................................... 21

WITNESSES 

Cummins, James L., Executive Director, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Stoneville, Mississippi ............................................................................. 11

Foster, Kent J., Executive Director, Idaho Association of Soil Conservation 

Districts, Boise, Idaho .......................................................................................... 18

Knight, Bruce I., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ................................................................ 03

Manning, Steve, Project Manager, Leon River Restoration Project, Gatesville, 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 14

Searchinger, Timothy D., Co-Director, Center for Conservation Incentives, 

Environmental Defense, Washington, DC ......................................................... 15

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cummins, James L ........................................................................................... 43

Foster, Kent J ................................................................................................... 82

Knight, Bruce I ................................................................................................. 38

Manning, Steve ................................................................................................. 61

Searchinger, Timothy D ................................................................................... 69

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 90

Testimony of Frank Casey, Ph.D., Director, Conservation Economics Program Defenders of Wildlife .......................................................................... 92

Letter to Mr. Bruce Knight from the Environmnetal Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) ............................................................................................ 106

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: 

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 112

IASSCD’s ........................................................................................................... 116

(1)

HEARING TO DISCUSS HOW FARM BILL PROGRAMS CAN BETTER SUPPORT SPECIES 

CONSERVATION 

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, 

AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m., in room 

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Crapo, Lincoln, and 

Salazar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO, 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator CRAPO. This hearing will come to order. This is the oversight hearing on how farm bill programs enhance species conservation. 

I am starting a few minutes early because I want to get my opening statement in and let Mr. Knight have an opportunity to make 

his testimony before all sorts of trouble starts happening. Let me 

tell you what is going on. 

On the Senate floor, they have scheduled five stacked votes starting at 10:30, is that right—10:15. And on top of that, the Finance 

Committee on which I sit is having a markup and I am going to 

have to cast a vote at the Finance Committee at 10:20. So what 

that means—you are all probably trying to figure out what that 

means. So am I. 

What that probably means is we will start here and run until approximately 10:20, at which time there will probably be a vote underway on the Senate floor and a vote underway in the Finance 

Committee and I will have to recess to go do those votes. The question then will be whether we recess for approximately an hour or 

an hour-and-a-half, and I apologize to the other witnesses that that 

may be what happens. 

It is possible, however, that we may be able to get one of the 

other Senators—I think Senator Blanche Lincoln was intending to 

be here, and if she is here, she and I may be able to kind of do 

tandem votes, meaning that one of us will stay here and preside 

2

while the other votes and we will go back and forth for those five 

votes. Now, if that works, we can keep the hearing going. If not, 

I apologize. We will have to shut down while the Senate votes for 

five votes, and five votes takes about an hour to get done. 

So I will just give you the advance warning that we may have 

our whole morning kind of jumbled up, and if that fouls up people’s 

flight plans and so forth, we certainly understand and we will work 

with you the best we can. 

With that, I am going to give my opening statement here very 

quickly and then, assuming no other Senators are here by the time 

I am done, Mr. Knight, we are going to go right to you. 

It has been just over 3 years now since the President signed the 

farm bill into law, and at that time, the President noted the importance of the conservation title. He said it helps producers meet 

newer and higher environmental standards and enhances their 

ability to protect wetlands, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The 

President was right, and today we begin to consider new accomplishments to which this program can aspire. 

The 2002 farm bill is one of the most important environmental 

laws that we have ever enacted—that, frankly, Congress has ever 

enacted, and I often state that the farm bill generally, whichever 

one it is we are working on, is one of the most pro-environmental 

bills that Congress ever deals with. Its conservation programs result in real environmental benefits. 

The success of these voluntary contractual programs in addressing environmental concerns is also testimony to both farmers and 

ranchers. Those who make their living off the land have long been 

good stewards of those resources. 

We spend significant money on farm bill programs and we obtain 

notable results. The conservation programs in the farm bill are 

supported by a wide variety of public and private interests. The 

farm bill is a pillar in American conservation. 

There is another important environmental law, the Endangered 

Species Act, which is also a pillar of American conservation, but 

that approaches our goals differently. The Endangered Species Act 

primarily seeks to stop harmful activities toward species, as the 

farm bill conservation programs promote benefits for species. The 

Endangered Species Act has been torn by conflict. The farm bill 

has been widely supported. 

Because we need both protection of species and promotion of 

their recovery, we are today considering how the farm bill and the 

Endangered Species Act have worked well together and how they 

can work better together in the future. We want to learn how success stories come about and what can be done to promote them. 

We will hear from two panels. First, the NRCS Chief, Bruce 

Knight, will share with us the views of the administration, and 

then we will hear from four witnesses representing landowner, environmental, and wildlife interests. 

I want to remind the members of the panels that we have a 5–

minute limit on your testimony. That is not because we don’t want 

to hear from you. It is because we want to have opportunity and 

time for interaction and questions and answers. We do read your 

written testimony very carefully, but we encourage you to try to be 

sure to summarize your testimony in the 5 minutes allotted. If you 

3

do start running over, I will just kind of tap the gavel to remind 

you to watch the clock. I find that most people, like myself, cannot 

get everything they want to say said in 5 minutes, and I apologize 

to you for that, but we will give you opportunity to expand on your 

points and so forth in questions. 

With that, Mr. Knight, would you please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the role of farm bill programs in 

the conservation of wildlife habitat. 

The topic of today’s hearing really goes to the heart of cooperative conservation and illustrates the importance of what farmers 

and ranchers do on private lands. Because more than 70 percent 

of federally listed species depend on private lands, farm bill conservation programs can and do make a real difference for those 

species. 

In 2002, President Bush signed into law the most conservationoriented farm bill in history. In total, the legislation enacted by the 

President provided a $17 billion increase in conservation funding 

over a 10–year period. In addition, direction was provided to assist 

agricultural producers to meet the regulatory challenges they face. 

Our administration has taken these provisions very seriously and 

has bolstered them even further in practice. For example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program procedures direct NRCS 

State Conservationists to boost the ranking for projects that assist 

compliance with environmental regulations, such as ESA. 

In addition, one of the four national priorities for EQIP focus on 

wildlife by seeking the promotion of at-risk species habitat recovery. This national conservation priority is used by NRCS to allocate 

additional funding to States in targeted areas and to develop new 

habitat for the future. 

I would note that the EQIP program has funded over $3 billion 

of conservation work on private lands since fiscal year 2002, with 

more than $1 billion authorized for next year. Couple these funds 

with the additional half-billion dollars dedicated through other conservation programs, such as the Farm and Ranchlands Protection 

Program and the Conservation Security Program this year, and it 

becomes clear that wildlife habitat is receiving major benefits. 

With respect to wetlands, President Bush announced an initiative on Earth Day 2004 that will go beyond the Federal policy of 

no net loss and set a new goal to restore and protect at least three 

million acres of wetlands over 5 years. The Wetlands Reserve Program is playing a significant role in meeting this goal and is on 

course to protect more than two million acres of wetlands. 

In addition, this year, we have sought out partners for the new 

Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program. These partnership proposals will restore and protect habitat for migratory birds and 

other wetland and wildlife. Under this initiative, NRCS is matching resources and leveraging the efforts of State and local governments to provide even greater assistance to landowners, and included in this funding is a minimum of $500,000 for partnership 

4

proposals that address Bog Turtle habitat in the Eastern United 

States and a minimum of $500,000 to assist with Ivory-billed woodpecker habitat in Arkansas. We believe that excellent opportunities 

exist for developing bottomland hardwood wetlands that will provide long-term benefits for this magical species. 

Mr. Chairman, turning to a few Western issues, habitat conservation for the Greater sage grouse serves as a prime illustration 

of the role of farm bill programs in conservation planning and assistance. NRCS estimates that in fiscal year 2004, more than 

80,000 acres of sage grouse habitat benefited directly from private 

lands conservation efforts, with more than one million acres experiencing a secondary benefit. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service made a decision not to list the greater sage grouse, partially in response to gains made on private lands, and emphasized 

the importance of the ongoing and future conservation efforts to 

long-term health of the species. Just 2 weeks ago, Secretary 

Johanns also announced an additional $5 million for sage grouse 

special projects in 11 Western States, which doubles USDA’s commitment over fiscal year 2004. USDA has also provided $2.8 million this year in the Wildlife 

Habitat Incentives Program for salmon habitat restoration. 

Through this effort, NRCS helps landowners with projects that restore habitat for both pacific and Atlantic salmon. We are pleased 

with the gains being made to improve salmon habitat and believe 

that NRCS can continue to build on this success in the future. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I want to note another bright 

prospect on the horizon for species habitat. The Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003 authorized a Healthy Forests Reserve Program to make payments to private forest landowners who agree to 

protect acreage and promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. This Act contains innovative provisions relating to 

safe harbor or similar assurances to landowners who enroll and 

provide a net conservation benefit for listed, candidate, and other 

species. Work on establishing programmatic rules and procedures 

for this program is well underway. 

Mr. Chairman, my statement has highlighted just a few of the 

many programs available to private landowners and provides a 

sense of the kind of species targeted and the work that private 

landowners are accomplishing. I thank the subcommittee and will 

be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Knight. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found in the appendix on page 38.] 

Senator CRAPO. Your agency, like all agencies, is required to 

comply with the ESA consultation. Could you elaborate on that 

role, and frankly, I am looking for you to provide any ideas you 

might have for streamlining the process in relationship to farm bill 

programs. 

Mr. KNIGHT. There is a great deal of potential for further streamlining. At present, our consultation tends to evolve around a Stateto-State relationship and effort and a larger, more comprehensive 

procedure could speed the process and make considerable savings 

in our administrative costs, and I believe Fish and Wildlife or 

NOAA’s costs, as well. 

5

At present, the best examples we have got out there lie in the 

State of Oregon and in the State of Montana, where we have had 

a good relationship built over time. But it is so key upon those individual relationships in the State that we need a larger, overarching 

consultation process to ensure that it works smoothly nationwide. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I appreciate these kinds of inputs 

that we get from folks who have to go through the process. We 

have been working now for a number of years to try to streamline 

the consultation process and make it work better and any kind of 

input that you can provide will be very, very appreciated. 

In your testimony toward the end there, you mentioned that you 

are working on procedures for the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

that would relate to a safe harbor or similar assurances under the 

ESA to landowners. Could you share with us some of the key elements that you think that you would like to implement in those 

procedures? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We just have wrapped up our internal work and are 

now engaged in that process with Fish and Wildlife to try to work 

out how to effectively be able to provide that safe harbor. It is one 

of the most exciting aspects of this program and one that we routinely hear from individual producers with any of our programs 

about a need for some manner of safe harbor protection. 

As you know, in many areas of the country, it is a major hurdle 

for a producer to place conservation practices on the ground if 

there is a concern that it may involve an endangered species that 

may have an impact on that producer’s operation, the farm or 

ranch, long-term. So the safe harbor is a very intriguing concept 

and one that we look forward to working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife in putting in place under the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. I think I am just going to have time 

for one more question. I have mentioned, as I said in my opening 

comments, I have bragged about the farm bill and its conservation 

benefits for years and have often talked in terms of justifying the 

new commitment, the dramatically increased commitment to conservation that we put in the conservation title of the farm bill the 

last time. I have talked about the fact that this is one of the ways 

that we can have the best impact on our environment. 

In today’s hearing, we are kind of taking this concept one step 

further, which is to not just talk about the impact of the conservation programs under the farm bill on the environment in general, 

but specifically their impact on species recovery in coordination 

with the Endangered Species Act. It seems to me that if a landowner qualifies under a farm program, conservation program, for 

some type of support and the conservation project which the landowner is then implementing also has benefits for a species and can 

be actually coordinated with or an improvement to or a support of 

a recovery program, that that is a win-win situation. 

Do you see any way that this development, or utilizing and 

thinking about conservation programs under the farm bill in this 

way would divert the farm bill programs from their intended purposes? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I would not see that as a diversion at all but see 

that win-win as highly desirable and in keeping with the general 

6

direction that we received in the 2002 farm bill to assist individual 

landowners—farmers, ranchers, rural landowners—in coming into 

compliance with any of the myriad of rules and regulations that 

come at them from Federal, State, or local efforts. And so this 

would be very consistent with the directive that we are giving in 

the farm bill. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. We are at the point now—I have a little bit of an update, which I am not sure is good news or what, but 

the vote on the floor is now not expected to start until 10:30. I still 

have to leave to run over to the Finance Committee to cast a critical vote on pension reform markup and Senator Lincoln has been 

delayed. I am not sure right now whether she will come here first 

or go to the floor first to vote, and so what I am going to have to 

do is to recess this hearing, and Mr. Knight, I am not going to 

make you stick around, although I think you may expect to get a 

bunch of questions, if you would please be willing to respond in 

writing to questions. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly. 

Senator CRAPO. And so we will cut you loose as soon as we recess 

the hearing. For the other witnesses, I really apologize. I know that 

this is probably screwing up, for the witnesses as well as others attending here, it is probably really screwing up your schedules and 

your plans. It is doing the same thing to the later part of my day, 

as well. 

So the best I can say to you is if you can adjust your schedules 

and hang in here with us, I would appreciate it because we do 

want to try to come back and start this hearing up again and get 

the rest of the testimony in. If you have got a flight or if you have 

other commitments that you just can’t hang around for, we understand and we would appreciate you letting us know so that we can 

coordinate with you. We do have your written testimony, and I 

would also encourage any of the witnesses who can’t stick around, 

if there are any, to be willing to respond in writing to questions if 

members of the committee have questions to send to you. 

What I intend to do right now—well, maybe we will be able to 

keep going. Senator Salazar, I may be willing to turn the chair over 

to you. I have to run and cast a vote in the Finance Committee, 

and then, as you know, in about 15 minutes, there are going to be 

votes starting over on the Senate floor. But if you would be willing 

to keep the hearing going until you have to go over and vote, I 

would appreciate that. Could you do that? 

Senator SALAZAR. Absolutely. For the distinguished chairman, I 

would be delighted to do so. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. Then what I will do is I 

will not recess the hearing at this point and we will continue. If 

I am not back, Senator Salazar, before you have to head out and 

vote, if you would just put the committee into recess, then we will 

get back and keep it going as quickly as we can. That way, we will 

have fewer delays. 

Now, it may turn out that when we do end up having to go over 

and vote that if we aren’t finished by that time, which we probably 

won’t be, there may be a sizable delay right then, because once 

they start these votes, they will run them in about ten- to 15–

minute segments and it just gives us barely enough time not to be 

7

able to run back here and get anything done before we have to go 

back for another vote. 

We will go as far as we can, and then I apologize, but we will 

probably have to recess still at some point, and then if you can 

hang around, we will keep you posted through information as best 

we can. 

Senator Salazar, we have just finished the first—if you want to 

ask questions of Mr. Knight, I almost cut him loose, but he is still 

here——

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO [continuing]. And then if you could go to the second panel when you are done with him. 

Senator SALAZAR. Absolutely. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

Senator SALAZAR. I will make an opening statement and I will 

try to take care of the committee in your absence, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Knight, for being 

here, and I very much am looking forward to this hearing as we 

look at the Endangered Species Act and this initiative that Senator 

Crapo has undertaken. 

I would like to hear from you what it is that you think we ought 

to be doing with the Endangered Species Act, what kind of changes 

you think that we ought to be considering, if any at all, and I will 

give you this preview with respect to my interest in this issue. 

For years, I have seen the Endangered Species Act attacked by 

people who want to make some very dramatic changes to the Endangered Species Act. I also, on the other hand, have seen people 

come together in my own State of Colorado to develop what have 

been very effective programs at recovering endangered species. We 

have done that on the Colorado River system with the group that 

has been working on the recovery of the four endangered fish in 

the Colorado River system. It has been a group that has brought 

together water users, the agricultural community, and the environmental community, as well, and a program that by the measures 

of all those who participate in that program says that program has 

been successful. 

In the last 10 years or so, I had the opportunity to work on that 

program as well as working on a program on the South Platte 

River on the recovery efforts on the South Platte, and again there 

working with a consortium of the Federal agencies, the States of 

Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado, and water users and the environmental community. Progress is being made with respect to how 

we can deal with the recovery of the species and at the same time 

make sure that what we are doing is protecting water users and 

water rights in Colorado and throughout the system. 

So as this box gets opened up to look inside the Endangered Species Act and what kinds of changes might be considered, I would 

be very interested in knowing what your thoughts are in that regard. But I think perhaps at this point in the hearing, since you 

have not yet, I think, had the opportunity to give the opening 

8

statement to the members of the committee—you already have 

done that? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. OK. Why don’t you just then take that as a 

question and we will go from there. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Senator. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is part of the Department of Agriculture. We are 

the nation’s private lands conservation agency and we have basically four major principles that we end up trying to assist private 

landowners with—soil erosion, from whence we came as the Soil 

Conservation Society; water quality; wildlife habitat, especially as 

it pertains to conservation of species and habitat for those species; 

and then air quality. 

As such, when we start looking at what is the agency’s role with 

the intersection of the Endangered Species Act, we really view ourselves as an enabler of cooperative, collaborative conservation action on the ground. What we are trying to do is ensure that the 

tools are there. It may be the assistance through cost share 

through our various programs, Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, those sorts of things. It may be the assistance of technical assistance, of having a Federal agency without a regulatory 

bend at the table trying to provide assistance to find that win-win. 

And what we do is we seek out those collaborative actions wherever they may occur around the country, it may be with bog turtle 

or eel grass or salmon recovery or sage grouse, to find those areas 

in the community where folks are coming together and need the assistance, either financially or technically, to provide that assistance. 

There are certainly areas that we see as we work with our other 

agencies in the Federal family where the degree to which we can 

streamline consultation processes or we can streamline the efforts 

to make sure that a broader basket of our basic conservation services are recognized as being good for wildlife and assisting in this, 

the more rapidly we are going to be able to put conservation on the 

ground. 

One of the key things to keep in mind is that the speed with 

which we can respond to conservation requests are very important, 

because we are dealing with a living, breathing ecosystem where 

the seasonality of being able to get in the field is very important. 

You can’t do a lot of conservation work in the winter months in the 

Northern tier of States, and so there is a real need to be able to 

act expeditiously when that collaboration comes together and be 

able to put conservation on the ground in the spring and the summer when we can be the most effective. 

So the seasonality of what we deal with that Mother Nature imposes is much more important for us than the timelines that you 

may run into as you interact with other agencies, be they State or 

Federal in nature. 

Senator SALAZAR. I appreciate those comments. Let me take you 

back to your first point on the collaborative conservation programs 

out in the field. When you look back at the 2002 farm bill from the 

point of view of USDA and the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, describe for me, for my benefit and for those who are listening here today, what it is—what kinds of tools were given to 

9

USDA to engage in those collaborative services and how can they 

work. 

Mr. KNIGHT. The most significant item that folks talk about is the fairly significant influx of funds, nearly $17 billion in additional 

funding over the 10–year span starting with 2002, and we are well 

along the way in being able to put additional conservation on the 

ground. 

We also received several new funding authorities. The one that 

has garnered the most attention—we announced the accepted contract’s yesterday—is called the Conservation Security Program, and 

under CSP, we are rewarding leading-edge conservationists for 

their efforts and encouraging them to do even more. We are finding 

a great deal of benefits on wildlife coming in through this new Conservation Security Program. 

The other new authority that we received was the Grasslands 

Reserve Program, targeted at protecting these endangered and 

fragile grasslands that we have been losing—tall-grass, short-grass, 

mid-grass prairies—that we are losing either to development or 

conversion to cropland. That program has been wildly popular. We 

have now reached the funding cap on it and are going to have to 

suspend being able to accept further enrollments in it. But that has 

been very important and it has been very key in our ability to respond in a voluntary manner to sage grouse concerns. 

The program that has perhaps the greatest impact on wildlife 

that has had a lot of attention, that we are very proud of, is the 

Wetlands Reserve program. That has program been very instrumental in achieving the President’s goals for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of an additional three million acres of wetlands. Two years ago on Earth Day, the President announced that 

we had actually achieved no net loss of wetlands due to agricultural conversions and we are now on our way to achieving a net 

gain of wetlands and laid out that very ambitious goal. 

So overall, it has been a couple of programs with new authorities 

and additional funds, and then a real focus on working lands conservation to be able to ensure that we find that right combination 

of conservation along with economic vitality for the farmers and 

ranchers that we serve. 

Senator SALAZAR. Can you, Chief Knight, for my benefit, if you 

were to quantify the progress we have been able to make under the 

money that has been provided and the tools that have been given, 

can you give me an overview of that? You mentioned the three million acres with respect to wetlands that have been protected, but 

we also put a lot of money and given you authorities in the other 

programs that you mentioned. If you were to describe the world of 

conservation undertaken by USDA and how it fits into the protection of habitat, how many acres are we talking about nationally? 

Are those the kinds of figures that you have? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I may need to respond to the record for you on 

those, but the acres that we have covered with conservation planning and basic underlying work would be in the tens of millions of 

acres that have been covered, which means less soil erosion, which 

in turn is less sediment in the rivers and streams, making them 

more fishable and swimmable, and our assistance has the same impact on the nutrient management side of things. 

10

One of the other major areas of priority for us has been helping 

livestock operations come into compliance with EPA’s CAFO/AFO 

rules, the comfined Animal Feeding Operations. We have written, 

I think, last year about 12,000 comprehensive nutrient management plans which will help ensure that those nutrients, that waste, 

stays out of the rivers and streams. But I can elaborate further in 

the record for you in that effort. 

I would note that one of the important authorities that was directed in the Farm Bill was a new measurement and assessment 

effort called CEAP, Conservation Effects Assessment Project, and 

we are just now starting to launch the wildlife measurements. We 

are trying to move beyond the basic outcome measures, you know: 

How many miles of streams have we buffered? How much habitat 

have we restored? And get to: What are the outcomes? What are 

the nutrient loadings avoided? What have we done to help the individual species?—in a much more comprehensive manner that tallies up all the programs. We have been working very closely with 

the other Federal agencies in trying to build this comprehensive effects assessment project and be able to have something that will 

greatly assist you all as you move forward with authorization of 

the 2007 farm bill. 

Senator SALAZAR. What is the timing, Chief, for the completion 

of that assessment? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I have staff briefing me again this afternoon on 

that. It is always frustratingly slow and I have to admit, I am very 

nervous about having this sort of work far enough along for us all 

to be able to make rational decisions for the 2007 farm bill. But 

we will at least have interim results and have the template that 

will allow this to function well over the next 10 years. 

Senator SALAZAR. When will that happen? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I am hoping to have materials that you will be able 

to have as an interim report in 2006. But it is still a tough pull 

for us right now. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask one more question here before 

turning the meeting over to the chairman. The second point you 

talked about was streamlining the process and you were getting 

into some discussion about the seasonality and the sensitivity of 

the seasons and the importance of making those investments when 

they ought to be made. When you talk about streamlining the process here insofar as USDA is concerned, what kinds of concepts are 

you exploring, are you thinking about as you look forward over the 

next couple of years? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We recently had a leadership retreat between Fish 

and Wildlife leaders and the Natural Resources Conservation leadership. We have done similar things with the agencies within the 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and FSA, to try to look 

at how, working cooperatively, we can speed up the process as 

much as we can on each of these things. 

In the case of our work with Fish and Wildlife, what is very key 

is being able to get to a programmatic consultation that will allow 

us to move much more rapidly on our individual implementation of 

practices. What we are trying to avoid is when, in the case of 

EQIP, where we are putting in place around 25,000 to 35,000 contracts a year nationwide, having to do individual contract consultaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
11

tion but rather moving to a programmatic consultation that would 

say, in this geographic area or in this State, this set of practices 

are generally understood to be of benefit to salmon recovery or benefit to sage grouse recovery and, therefore, we wouldn’t have to go 

through a detailed programmatic consultation on those individual 

contracts and contract administration. By doing that, we will be 

able to shorten our turnaround time for implementation of each of 

those contracts. 

As an agency, we are also moving our contract administration 

earlier into the year to try to catch our customers when they want 

to do most of their farm planning, which is November, December, 

and January for the subsequent year, try to make our contract administration and decisions in that timeframe so that they are set 

to go in the spring rather than end up with a process that may 

push a final decision into June or July, in which case you almost 

have to wait a full year before you get into contract implementation. 

Senator SALAZAR. I would appreciate, Chief Knight, if you would 

keep us apprised of your assessment and the progress on the assessment because I know it will be important certainly to me, and 

I imagine to all the members of this committee, as well. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, and we will elaborate further on the 

record for you. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAPO [presiding]. Do you have any other questions? 

Senator SALAZAR. No, I am done with Mr. Knight. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. Mr. Knight, we will excuse 

you and move to the next panel so that we can hopefully get as far 

as we can on it before we have to leave for votes. 

While Mr. Knight is leaving and the other panel is coming up, 

I will introduce them, and they are still saying the vote may or 

may not be at 10:30. It might be closer to 10:45 now, so we will 

just keep going. 

Our first panelist will be Mr. James Cummins, Executive Director of the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Second would 

be Mr. Steve Manning, the Project Manager of the Leon River Restoration Project in Texas. Third is Mr. Tim Searchinger, Co-Director of the Center for Conservation Incentives of Environmental Defense. And then fourth is Mr. Kent Foster, Executive Director of 

the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts. 

We appreciate all of you coming, and again, I would like to remind each of you to try to pay attention to that clock so we can 

get as many of you through as we can before we have to break, and 

then we will try to decide where we are when we find out when 

they actually call the vote. 

Please proceed, Mr. Cummins. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. CUMMINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MISSISSIPPI FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. CUMMINS. Chairman Crapo, Senator Salazar, I certainly appreciate the opportunity, Ranking Member Lincoln, I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today. It is very humbling to be in a 

12

room where our nation’s most significant conservation programs 

have began. 

I am James Cummins, Executive Director of the Mississippi Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. Two of our most significant accomplishments include working with Senator Cochran to develop the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and working with Congress to develop the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. 

The Endangered Species Act has been very effective in preventing extinction. However, its recovery rate is only 1 percent. 

Today more than ever, it is medicine’s goal to get you out of the 

hospital, not keep you in it. We need to view species the same way. 

Unfortunately, 70 to 80 percent of our nation’s listed species are 

found on private land and eight of the top ten States of listed species are in the South. 

In 1973, Congress found that incentives are needed for species 

and Congress, specifically the Agriculture Committee, has passed 

two incentive programs for species, WHIP and the Healthy Forest 

Reserve. Other programs certainly have broader goals. 

So why do we need incentives like land use payments and practice cost share payments for species, and will the current cost share 

rates work? Land use payments come in the form of per acre fees, 

rental payments, and easement payments. Both land use payments 

and cost share payments can be funded through direct payments, 

tax credits, and/or tax deductions. To work, the value must be close 

to market value to offset lost revenue from the land. 

Cost share rates of 50 or 75 percent work when there are public 

and private benefits. For example, a private benefit is timber. A 

public benefit is timber left standing to benefit, for, say, example, 

the ivory bill. If private benefits are large, the incentive would not 

need to be provided. Habitat for species often does not have private 

benefits, so with most species, 100 percent of the incentive will 

need to be provided. 

We need to better utilize existing programs. Congress should 

fully fund the Healthy Forest Reserve Program. Senate Appropriations has funded a pilot, and I am certainly grateful to Senator 

Cochran for that. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of restoring forest ecosystems to recover species. The list of the top ten 

States with the most degraded forests almost mirrors that with the 

most listed species. There would be no greater service you could do 

for Southern species than to find incentives for forest ecosystem 

restoration. 

WHIP is USDA’s most cost-effective program, and like the 

Healthy Forest Reserve, its greatest limitation is funding. We 

should also discuss other mechanisms to improve it for the next 

farm bill. 

Recovery can be further incorporated into other programs. Expand the definition of eligible lands, establish a continuous sign-up 

in CRP for species, limit the area where recovery is possible, utilize 

reenrollments to gain more benefits for species, plant the vegetative type historically on the land, and reauthorize the Grassland 

Reserve Program and do not focus it on urban lands that are very 

expensive. 

The tax code can certainly greatly aid species. Conservation easements, when used properly, are a great tool, but they preserve the 

13

status quo. We need more restoration. One idea is to develop a twoto five-million-acres Endangered Species Reserve Program consisting of tax credits. This habitat restoration program could consist of a voluntary five-, 15–, or 30–year agreement being placed on 

the land in close proximity to an existing species population. The 

landowner would receive a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the 

rental rate plus 100 percent of the restoration cost. Priority would 

be for projects where the species can be recovered in less than 30 

years. For species where the estimated recovery is greater than 

that, priority would be given to projects where the landowner voluntarily agrees to place a conservation easement. 

A lot of times we talk about preservation versus management 

and many species cannot be recovered by preservation alone. Habitats must be managed. For example, we are doing a great job of 

preserving the status quo with the red cockaded woodpecker. Its 

optimum habitat is characterized by old-growth pine forests with 

little or no understory. Fires caused by lightning and those set by 

Native Americans burned these areas and killed the understory. 

Now, mainly because of liability and the desire of many to not create a habitat favorable for regulation, controlled burns are infrequently used. The lack of management has resulted in no woodpeckers on private land in the entire State of Mississippi. 

The Department of Defense is faced with a growing threat in its 

ability to maintain the readiness of our armed forces. That threat, 

often termed encroachment, is caused by development and habitat 

loss near military installations. DOD’s efforts have resulted in our 

bases having some of the best habitat in the nation. The most effective action we can take to protect these installations is to restore 

and protect the land around them, which will also recover species 

that may hamper the mission of the base. This, too, can be accomplished with incentives. 

We need cost-share to control invasive species, either in the form 

of new legislation or as a component to an existing program. 

Invasives rank as the second-greatest threat to species, having contributed to the decline of 42 percent of our nation’s species. If we 

attack invasives such as kudzu, cogongrass, and cheekgrass with 

the same gusto as soybean rust, we would be making a large dent 

in that percent. 

Assistance for chemical, mechanical, and biological control is 

needed where they are impacting species. 

I have other ideas involving a new program called Debt for Conservation, safe harbor, technical assistance funding, and carbon sequestration, but in the essence of time, I will ask you to refer to 

my written remarks. 

A diversity of incentives will help make species more economically attractive. They will help remove the species of our nation 

from their respective list or cause them not to be listed. And working with private landowners and enabling them to conserve habitat 

is the kind of proactive strategy that can head off a regulatory crisis, improve species, and provide opportunities for economic 

growth. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lincoln, this concludes my remarks. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummins. 

14

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummins can be found in the appendix on page 82.] 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Manning? 

STATEMENT OF STEVE MANNING, PROJECT MANAGER, LEON 

RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, GATESVILLE, TEXAS 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today. 

Senator CRAPO. Is your mike on? There should be a button there. 

Mr. MANNING. Do I get my time back? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. You bet. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lincoln, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Steve 

Manning. I am a fifth generation rancher from Coryell County in 

Central Texas and I am going to be talking to you today about the 

Leon River Restoration Project, and more specifically, the Leon 

River Restoration Project Phase 1 Report issued by Texas A&M 

University in September of last year. 

The Leon River Restoration Project is a research brush control 

program within the Leon River watershed of Hamilton and Coryell 

Counties, Texas. The primary objective of the research component 

is to quantify the impacts of ash juniper removal and rangeland 

management on water yield and quality, wildlife habitat, and forage production for livestock. Juniper removal and rangeland management practices are implemented no selected private rangelands 

that are within habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler and blackcapped vireo, both of which are endangered species. The Leon River 

Project is significantly unique in the success it has accomplished by 

bringing together a large number of stakeholders to work effectively toward diverse goals in a common project. 

I am going to be talking today specifically about two components 

of that research, the wildlife and the economics component. I am 

going to talk about the wildlife component first. And the wildlife 

component, because of the success we have had in bringing together diverse interests and building up the trust of the landowners, we were able to, as a part of this project, to do presence/

absence surveys for both endangered species across the range of 

the project, which is about 700,000 acres in the two counties. 

Working with over 100 landowners to date, Texas A&M was able 

to put graduate students out on the ground and do surveys, and 

just one of the example, in one of the some watersheds or creeks 

within our project area, the Coryell Creek, about a 54,000–acre 

drainage, for the golden-cheek warbler, A&M found that about 36 

percent, or 19,700 acres of that one drainage was occupied warbler 

habitat. For an endangered species, they are doing quite well. 

Black-headed vireo ranged from about five to 7 percent, but again, 

a lot better numbers than we would have thought of 10 years ago. 

The message there is that landowners are doing a good job managing for wildlife and for the health of their lands. 

The economics component, the second component I want to talk 

about, specifically as a part of their research identified three types 

of landowners within our area and those landowners are what we 

call born to the land. Like myself, those people have been on the 

15

land for generations and have strong connection to the land, usually agriculture. 

The second group is what we call the ag group and those were 

folks that went out and made some money and then bought land 

and put that land into ag production and they are really more interested in the bottom line, the dollar, how much yield they can get 

off the land. 

The third group, we named the reborn to the land, and these are 

people that went to the city, made some money, came back, bought 

some land, and they are really more interested in the aesthetics of 

the land. They want to do good things with the land and they have 

an interest in things that will do well and make them good stewards of the land, and it is that last segment that I want to talk 

about. 

While we found NRCS to be a great partner and would not be 

here if it weren’t for them today, one of the things that we found 

in our research is that that last segment is being somewhat overlooked through the approaches that NRCS has been taking because 

they are really a kind of a new segment of the population and they 

have the least institutional knowledge about farm bill programs or 

really even what farm bill programs are or where to go to find out 

anything. 

What we found in our research is that those traditional landowners and those ag landowners were very comfortable and most 

likely to participate in farm bill programs, but because of the outreach and the traditional methods to communicate with landowners, that their segment of the population is just—they are missing out. In fact, they are more likely to select and participate in 

other types of programs that are out there that might lean more 

toward endangered species recovery or other things than they are 

the farm bill. I really think, as someone in the ranching community, that we are going to need to do a better job of reaching out 

to those people, to identifying ways to be more flexible and to provide multiple options for landowners if we are going to be successful in the future. We cannot afford to let that segment of our landowner base slip through our fingers, if you will. 

I could talk for a long time about the project, but within the 5 

minutes, I wanted to make those two points. Landowners are doing 

a good job. The farm bill is key to their success and will be key 

to their future success. And also, we have got to do a better job of 

working with the diverse group of landowners that I suspect that 

diversity is occurring not only in Texas, but across a large number 

of States here. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning can be found in the appendix on page 61.] 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Searchinger? 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY D. SEARCHINGER, CO-DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR CONSERVATION INCENTIVES, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lincoln. I am Co-Director of something called the Center for Conservation Incentives at Environmental Defense and our focus is entirely 

16

on private land incentive programs to encourage good stewardship 

and a major focus is, in fact, on protecting endangered species. 

What we know from working with these farm bill programs both 

on the ground and at the national level is that there are many valuable success stories. Our biologists in Texas have worked with Mr. 

Manning and his colleagues and there is really no greater success 

story than what Steve has been able to achieve, and there are 

many other examples of that and we know, therefore, that landowners, given the right incentives, are very interested in doing 

good things for endangered species. 

I would say, however, that as a whole, the farm bill programs 

have not achieved their potential, and there are a number of reasons for that and we go into that in our testimony. I will just 

launch right in and give you a few examples. 

The Conservation Reserve Program retires a tenth of the cropland in the United States. It is twice the size of the Wildlife Refuge 

System in the 48 States, and it has done some great things for a 

few rare species, particularly a few grassland bird species that 

could very well be on the Endangered Species List today or even 

extinct if it were not for CRP. But as a whole, it hasn’t achieved 

its potential. 

Most of the land in the CRP program is probably providing minimal wildlife habit right now, either because it has been overwhelmed by invasive species—there have been very few incentives 

for good management of that land. Most of the land was not planted in native vegetation. Sometimes, non-native vegetation can do 

a good job, but most places, it can’t. 

And more generally, when that land was enrolled, the criteria for 

enrollment didn’t focus a lot on its location. If you want to do something good for endangered species, you have to think very hard 

about where that land is in relationship to other land that is providing habitat. You can do the greatest habitat in the world, but 

if it is in the place where the endangered species isn’t going to 

come, it is not going to do them a lot of good. 

Or similarly, species need different kinds of habitat. They need 

breeding habitat, they need birthing habitat, spawning habitat, 

whatever. It doesn’t help a lot to provide one kind of habitat if the 

other isn’t nearby. 

Chief Knight talked about the efforts to protect salmon, for example. One of the things that is going on is that as the streams 

cross farm roads, there frequently are culverts in place to let the 

stream flow through the farm road, but most of those culverts were 

put in a long time ago when people weren’t thinking a lot about 

salmon and they tend to discharge a foot or two above the stream, 

and it turns out salmon don’t jump very well into culverts. Well, 

again, if you are going to replace the culverts so that they work, 

you have got to do a series in a row. It doesn’t make sense to do 

one here and one there. 

So part of the challenge with all these programs is thinking in 

a more coordinated way, a more incentive initiative way so that 

landowners can work together. 

In the case of CRP, I will just make a couple of specific recommendations which are—and I should say that we have come to 

agreement with the American Farm Bureau in a number of recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
17

ommendations that we have attached to our testimony, and the Nature Conservancy, and one of those is that there are a lot of opportunities, we think, to target specific locations where you can enroll 

land in a 200,000 or 300,000 acre chunk in the right vegetation 

with the right management, perhaps using continuous enrollment 

for that purpose so landowners know if they want to enroll that 

land, they can really benefit a chunk of species. And that could be 

done in a way that would really provide enormous benefit in a 

number of places around the country. 

Related to that, it is important that to get more benefit out of 

CRP in the future, we not automatically reenroll all the acres but 

rather have a more selective process. 

With regard to EQIP—EQIP, of course, is the second-largest program—unfortunately, only about a half of 1 percent of EQIP dollars 

have gone specifically for wildlife. Since I am running out of time, 

I will just say that the real challenge there is, again, the difference 

between being reactive and having an initiative that is more coordinated. Most EQIP dollars are spent because landowners expressed an interest in something. They come into the local county 

office and they say, please fund this. 

And there are huge problems with doing things for at-risk species in that way. One is that there aren’t necessarily biologists at 

that county level that know what to do. Another is a huge TA. We 

have a chicken-and-egg problem with technical assistance. There 

aren’t a lot of people to provide a lot of these biological services. 

USDA is short of TA in general. If they are going to hire people 

to provide those services, they need to know that there is going to 

be a certain level of spending. So they have to decide up front, for 

the next few years, we are going to spend a certain amount of 

money to benefit a species so they can let a contract so that private 

parties can come forward and say, hey, if we go into the business 

of helping deliver this program, we are going to be compensated for 

that. 

I will just in the last 10 seconds just mention the Grassland Reserve Program has enormous potential, but the real challenge there 

probably is an issue of easements versus contracts. The bill that 

passed out of the Senate committee was a two-million-acre easement program, and if you are thinking about preserving grassland 

to benefit not just the ranching community, but rare species over 

the long term, a 10–year contract just doesn’t do it. It just 

postpones the eventual development. The final bill that emerged 

was primarily a 10–year contract bill that won’t really preserve 

these lands over the long term. It doesn’t, therefore, warrant the 

kind of level of investment. 

So thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Searchinger. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Searchinger can be found in the 

appendix on page 69.] 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Foster? 

18

STATEMENT OF KENT J. FOSTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

IDAHO ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, 

BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. FOSTER. First, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lincoln, for allowing us to testify before you here today. 

Second, I wanted to thank Senator Crapo personally for his past 

efforts in assisting Idaho with both the salmon and sage grouse initiatives through the USDA NRCS, so thank you for these efforts. 

Today, Idaho’s core conservation partnership is strong, and for 

over 65 years, our goal has been and still is to assist private landowners to conserve and protect their natural resources—soil, water, 

air, plant, animal, and wildlife. As we work to achieve this goal, 

we must not forget that humans are also a part of the equation. 

We believe the 2007 farm bill needs to support appropriate species conservation issues. We also believe the ESA is in need of revision to make some of the farm bill provisions more participantfriendly. 

The 2002 farm bill provided substantial increases in financial assistance for all conservation programs. However, it is the technical 

assistance that is key to getting conservation implemented on the 

landscape in a technically sound and timely manner. 

To better support species conservation, we feel the 2007 farm bill 

needs to consider the following. If attainable, a national programmatic biological assessment needs to be developed. If not, it 

would be helpful to develop biological assessments on a regional or 

large ecosystem area basis. Currently, any conservation practice to 

be installed within the salmon watershed must have consultation 

with NOAA Fisheries or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The consultation process can take up to several months. In these cases, the 

construction window is often missed and projects are often delayed 

until the next year’s construction season. 

The consultation process can be very repetitive. Writing individual biological assessments is very time consuming. I have been 

told by our people in Idaho, that Idaho has never had a biological 

assessment disapproved by the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA 

Fisheries. Then how many biological assessments have to be written before some change in the process is warranted? 

The Healthy Forest Reserve Initiative needs to be passed and 

funded. The safe harbor provision needs to stay intact through the 

committee process. This provision will encourage landowners to do 

the right thing in addressing their natural resources and species 

conservation issues. 

There are too many identified species of concern for farm bill programs to realistically and effectively address. Available funding 

should focus on endangered, threatened, candidate, or proposed 

species for listing. 

We heard the NRCS chief use a figure of 70 percent, but I had 

a figure of 75 percent of the listed species that depend on private 

land for all or part of their habitat. Incentives are needed to protect 

or enhance existing declining habitat. 

More technical assistance funds are needed to develop adequate 

and effective conservation plans and habitat conservation plans. 

This funding support needs to come from each individual farm bill 

program. Species issues are not easily resolved. They are generally 

19

very complex and usually require input from a team of interdisciplinary experts to resolve the resource issue, sometimes even 

multiple interagency input is also required. 

Farm bill programs could better support species conservation if 

they were more habitat- or ecosystem-driven and not single speciesdriven. Balance is key to what leads to a holistic and healthy environment. Balance must not only include biological, but social and 

economic factors. 

It is paramount that the government allows land users and citizens to go forward with innovative ideas that will bridge the gap 

between our finite resources and species conservation. There is a 

fear of endangered species, because the law focuses on punishing 

those who do not comply rather than rewarding those who voluntarily engage in conservation efforts. 

With our limited resources, we need to make a concerted effort 

to find better and more cost-effective solutions. We need to get the 

Federal Government out of the way and let the States be innovative and get conservation on the ground. 

By working together and using a realistic and common sense approach, we believe the farm bill and ESA issues can effectively be 

addressed. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster can be found in the appendix on page 82.] 

Senator CRAPO. We thank our entire panel. 

Just to let you know what is going on, the first vote of the five 

started at 10:48 and so at about 11, which means I will have about 

3 minutes left, I am going to have to go. Senator Lincoln has already gone to vote, and if she is not back by 11, I will recess the 

committee and she should return very quickly after that and start 

the committee up again, so don’t go anywhere when I recess. 

Then what we will try to do is just rotate. I will vote at the end 

of each vote and she will vote at the beginning of each vote—what 

I will do is I will go vote at the end of one and the beginning of 

the next one, and then she will vote at the end of one and the beginning of the next one and so forth. That may not really work as 

we get well into it, because when they ultimately get most of the 

Senators over there, the votes start happening a little faster, so we 

will try to do that as best we can. 

In the few minutes I have, I just want to ask a general question 

to the panel, and that is I think you probably all heard me say at 

the outset that this notion of utilizing the conservation title of the 

farm bill to provide incentives for endangered species recovery is 

a bit of a step beyond where we have philosophically been with the 

farm bill in the past, but it certainly, in my opinion, is not stepping 

beyond the spirit of what we were trying to do in the farm bill. 

And the question is to each of you, and please try to be as succinct as you can, do you see any conflict in trying to move the farm 

bill philosophy as we develop the next conservation title in the 

farm bill into closer coordination with endangered species recovery 

goals? I will just throw it out to—you don’t all have to answer, but 

if you have an answer on that, I would welcome it. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. I would say the answer is there is certainly 

no conflict, and in fact, I would even go so far as to say the statutes 

20

encourage it right now. EQIP has wildlife as one of its goals as well 

as avoiding regulatory pressures as one of its goals. Put the two together, endangered species conflict avoidance is already in the statute. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Cummins? 

Mr. CUMMINS. With the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, it 

specifically mentions threatened and endangered species, so I think 

you have a precedent there. I think there is a great opportunity, 

as we are constantly working to figure out how to best use our dollars in this country, there is a great opportunity of trying to meet 

TMDO requirements, to meet endangered species requirements, 

and balance a lot of different things out there. We can do a lot on 

one acre that we may not can do by spreading that out. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Manning or Mr. Foster, do you want to jump 

in? 

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to encourage that. 

I think it is important that we don’t have different programs going 

against each other. I think we have made a lot of strides in trying 

to make them work together. I think there are just some things 

that we need to tweak to reduce the amount of time it takes so we 

can do even more through the two programs. 

Senator CRAPO. You don’t have to pile on unless you want to, Mr. 

Manning. 

Mr. MANNING. I will just say very quickly that from a landowner’s perspective, I think that not only is it—I don’t see a conflict, but it gives the landowners the ability to get more out of the 

regulatory business, and from the Fish and Wildlife side, more 

from the incentive side with the farm bill programs and have a better chance of accomplishing the goals that we all desire. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you. I am going to ask one more 

question of you specifically, Mr. Manning, and then I am going to 

recess it if Senator Lincoln is not back yet. But I did, before I left, 

want to ask you—I want to say I am impressed with the level of 

study that your partnership has conducted. But the upshot of your 

work is that you have, frankly, you have actively restored bird populations, isn’t that right? 

Mr. MANNING. That is correct. 

Senator CRAPO. Could you describe, just, again, briefly, because 

I just have about 60 seconds here, what you think the core success 

there was that enabled you to restore bird populations? 

Mr. MANNING. Well, having a core group of NGO’s and agencies 

working together in agreement and building out from that, and I 

won’t try to list those for the time constraints, but obviously Environmental Defense is one of those. Basically, ag and environmental 

entities working together and then building out using their lines of 

communication to influence the State agencies and then the Federal agencies ultimately, and RCS and Fish and Wildlife in this 

case. 

By doing that, we were able to bring those two agencies together 

and go through the Section 7 process and get to an opinion that 

allowed us to use Federal dollars and put them on the ground in 

such a way that we were able to put those Federal dollars through 

EQIP into wildlife habitat where before we had not been able. And 

21

that gave us the funds and the technical assistance that we needed 

to get that done. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you very much. 

Again, I apologize, but I am going to recess now. I am not sure 

whether Senator Lincoln is going to vote on the next vote before 

she comes back or whether she is already on her way back here. 

She is on her way, so she should be here very quickly. Until she 

arrives, this committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator LINCOLN [presiding]. I am so sorry for the interruption, 

but I am afraid with four stacked votes, there are probably going 

to be multiple interruptions. Senator Crapo and I have agreed to 

try to keep as much going as possible. We will just kind of tag team 

back and forth. 

I want to first say, and he is not here to hear it, and I will repeat 

it as many times as I need to, a special thanks to Chairman Crapo, 

who has done a tremendous job in this subcommittee. He and I 

came into the House together in 1992. We came over to the Senate 

together. We have served on multiple committees together. I wasn’t 

here earlier because I was covering us over in the Finance Committee, where he also serves with me. But it is really a pleasure 

to work with Senator Crapo and his staff. They do a tremendous 

job. They are very thoughtful about what they do and it is just a 

delight to share this subcommittee with him. 

As is obvious from today’s hearing, I think, he always focuses on 

very worthwhile hearings that focus on issues that are very important to people. We don’t hear them all the time on the front page 

of the paper sometimes, but these are issues that really affect people every day and they are very important, conservation provisions 

that were included in the 2002 farm bill, their role in protecting 

endangered species, but also allowing lifelong generations of family 

farmers to be able to do what they really want to do. 

I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family and I 

know there is no greater conservationist in the world than my father was in terms of wanting to preserve the land and to do the 

best that he could to ensure that that land would be in the family 

for generations to come. 

So we are very appreciative that you all are here. I think, having 

looked at the 2002 farm bill as playing such an important role, I 

certainly supported it because of the importance it plays in my 

State and my State’s rural economy and the way of life that we 

have there. I think some of the more notable parts of that legislation was its historic increase in conservation. Obviously, it is important for us to fund that and to elevate those conservation components to the extent that people nationally will recognize how important a role they do play. 

Conservation programs are not only an environmentally sound 

practice, but they produce a wide range of economic benefits. We 

have seen that in our State. I think we have all seen that nationally. Environmentally, our conservation programs definitely safeguard millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
22

tainly improving air quality, increasing wildlife habitat and protecting ground and surface water quality by reducing water runoff 

and sedimentation. 

But economically, the benefits are also immeasurable. The program not only increases net farm income, they preserve soil productivity, they improve surface water quality, they reduce damage 

from windblown dust and increased uses of wildlife, which we have 

talked about an awful lot here today. 

The dual benefits are critical to the long-term sustainability of 

American agriculture and provide certainly the much-needed 

bridge between an adequate farm safety net and resources necessary to conserve our land. And again, as a farmer’s daughter, 

those two are essential components to the way of life that many of 

us know, living and having grown up in rural America. 

As you all know certainly, our State has one of the most diverse 

and natural ecosystems in the country. My neighbor, Mr. Cummins 

across the river, is certainly well aware because we have very, very 

similar habits and certainly very similar homes. 

We saw earlier this year through the discovery of the ivory-billed 

woodpecker in Arkansas that when we dedicate resources to protect 

our natural habitats, we can successfully preserve them, and I 

think many of you all have spoken to that in terms of not just dealing with preservation but management, which is critical to what 

we want to see eventually happening in terms of habitat and species. 

It is my hope that this story, certainly the ivory-billed woodpecker, and others like it will encourage all of those with an interest in preserving our lands and our native species to take a renewed look at the impact that conservation can have on those 

goals. I was very, very interested to hear Mr. Searchinger talking 

about the fact that with all of the interest and involvement and investment in CRP, that it is two times, did you say, two times the 

reserve program? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Two times the size——

Senator LINCOLN. The size——

Mr. SEARCHINGER [continuing]. Of the Wildlife Refuge System in 

the 48 States. 

Senator LINCOLN. That is amazing to me, which is also an indication that, again, there is a huge interest in terms of landowners 

and others to be involved in this overall process. 

I think we can certainly all agree that supporting greater conservation would have a positive effect on maintaining natural diversity and preserving wilderness for future generations, and we 

want to thank you all for being willing to be here with us today. 

I also want to comment that I am really looking forward in the 

next couple of weeks to working extensively with Senator Crapo as 

chairman of this subcommittee in the ways that we can go about 

setting forth, I think, some proactive—I noticed that that was also 

a comment of more than one of you all, and that is not to just 

react, but to be proactive in ways that will be very, very productive 

for wildlife habitat, for conservation, and certainly land preservation. 

23

So with that said, you all can transmit to the chairman how 

much I appreciate working with him and certainly the incredible 

job that he does, and I am looking forward to that. 

To the questions, I think I will start in on some questions, because I know the chairman will be back and I will try to, again, 

switch hit and head back over and do my voting on the floor. 

Mr. Searchinger, you mentioned in your testimony the importance of encouraging conservation amongst a broad range of landowners. What do you really think, in your opinion, is the best or 

most effective method of being able to do that? Funding, probably, 

for starters. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Certainly, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program does a lot and it is a little bit of a political orphan, so any 

Senator wishing to adopt a wonderful infant but burgeoning program, it is available for adoption. 

But as a whole, I think the question was asked of Mr. Manning, 

what made his program so successful, and he talked about the cooperative nature of the work being done, that the work was 

planned out, there was word of mouth, there was adequate technical system and outreach. Every single example that is going to 

be provided at the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation is going to have a comparable story. So this notion of 

being proactive is absolutely critical, and I will just give you one 

other concrete example. 

Take the long-leaf pine forest there in your neck of the woods. 

There are a lot of opportunities to—there are a lot of endangered 

species that rely on long-leaf pine forests and a lot of opportunities 

to enhance habitat for long-leaf pine forests, and there are landowner groups very interested in long-leaf pine and there is some 

economic value to producing tall timber down the road. 

But to do that right, the best way to do it, for example, through 

the CRP program, would be to say we are going to make certain 

specific lands eligible for enrollment in long-leaf pine if you manage 

it in a particular way. And then we are going to have a technical 

assistance issue. Who is going to actually deliver that program? 

And then USDA needs, because it doesn’t have the staff anymore, 

NRCS is delivering five times as much money in programs as it 

used to have. They are just so busy. It needs to say, we know we 

are going to have this much work and issue a third-party contract 

to maybe Mr. Manning’s group or maybe Mr. Cummins’s group to 

help deliver that program. 

So all of these things have to come together to work right, and 

so the most important thing, I would say, is having proactive, cooperative projects and delivering all of these programs, to the extent 

we can, through cooperative projects with producer groups, local 

conservationists, and government. 

Senator LINCOLN. You mentioned, I think it was you that mentioned the shortage of time. Perhaps that was the grasslands, that 

10 years was way too short for that type of a program. In terms 

of CRP, I mean, is the length of that time adequate in order to 

really get off the ground and running a long-leaf pine program as 

expeditiously as we would want? 

24

Mr. SEARCHINGER. In the case of long-leaf pine, the good news 

is that it probably becomes in the economic interest of the landowner, once he or she has received that incentive for a ten- or 15–

year contract, to keep the timber there for 50 years or so because 

that is when it matures and becomes valuable. 

But certainly, I think one of the things the committee should 

consider for the future is longer CRP contracts where there is a 

critical need to benefit an at-risk species, because if we are going 

to make a heavier investment in the kind of planting, let us say, 

then we want to realize that benefit over a longer period. 

Senator LINCOLN. You have also mentioned the shortage of technical assistance through USDA. I have had a few phone calls from 

my State with concerns about that, and, of course, technical assistance both from the biological standpoint, but also from the paperwork standpoint. Many of these programs are complicated. There 

is lots of paperwork. 

There was one concern that the move of EQIP from the FSA to 

the NRCS, which I think it went to NRCS under application, has 

actually been detrimental to the use of the program just simply because you have had to reinvent the wheel. You have had to move 

that program over to a new part of the agency, figuring out how 

to go through that. 

Do you see any concerns about those types of problems, where if 

we continue to move these programs around, we lose the institutional history of technical assistance, particularly in regard to paperwork? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Let me answer that in a couple of ways. Most 

importantly is the bottom line is that we are delivering a lot more 

money with roughly the same numbers of NRCS staff, and the administration made the decision to focus on third-party assistance, 

which has some merit, but we have the chicken-egg problem in delivering third-party assistance. No individual or organization is 

going to come forward and say, I will deliver this program—I am 

going to hire staff to be able to deliver these programs unless they 

know they are going to have enough work to pay the staff. 

Senator LINCOLN. Yes. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. And so that means—and, of course, these 

things are specialized. If you want a biologist who knows about 

long-leaf pine, you need a biologist who knows about long-leaf pine. 

So they need to know they have a certain amount of work, and so 

to deliver these programs more effectively, there has to be certain 

decisions, we are going to put a certain amount of money in X as 

opposed to Y and then hire a contract to do that. In the case of continuous enrollment with CRP, for example, it has dropped off the 

cliff. This is the kind of buffer program because NRCS is too busy 

to promote it. 

With regard to your specific question, I think there was—NRCS 

has managed EQIP from the programmatic side since it was created, but I think there was a paperwork transition that you referred to in going from FSA to NRCS. I don’t honestly know enough 

about all of that. 

But I will say, again, and I am going to sound like a broken 

record, typically, it is possible to streamline the paperwork when 

you have worked out a kind of project, and then you can simplify 

25

the paperwork for those who want to participate in a particular 

kind of practice. So again, paperwork is a huge issue, and particularly—landowners who are doing something for endangered species 

are not helping the bottom line, typically, and so if they are going 

to have to do a heck of a lot of paperwork, they are not going to 

do it. So streamlining the paperwork is critical, and again——

Senator LINCOLN. Would you consider that one of the proper incentives that you talked about? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Well, actually——

Senator LINCOLN. Streamlining that paperwork? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Yes. I would agree with that, absolutely. 

Senator LINCOLN. Mr. Cummins, I have to say I am so proud you 

mentioned kudzu. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. I grew up in a community that is about covered in it. And although its original intent may have been noteworthy, we have found, particularly in some of our smaller hardwood forests, national forests, it is absolutely consuming it and 

there are some real concerns there. So I am just glad you know 

what it is and have equal concerns. 

In your testimony, you talked about active management versus 

preservation. I have mentioned that, as well. It seems to tie in with 

one of the major, I think, criticisms of ESA, the Endangered Species Act, mainly that while many of the endangered species have 

stabilized, few have really recovered. Our hope is that we will see 

recovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker, and that is one of the 

things in terms of both conservation, active management, and preservation we hope will all come together for us in Arkansas. 

Could you talk just a little bit about that active management and 

the role that it could play in any of our discussions about improving ESA? 

Mr. CUMMINS. Yes. First, I would like to just certainly thank you 

for your leadership in Arkansas and this great nation, as well, and 

really enjoy working with people like West and others. 

Senator LINCOLN. Good. 

Mr. CUMMINS. There are a lot of good people in Arkansas, and 

I contribute a lot to your economy through trout fishing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CUMMINS. In terms of how we go about looking at active 

management, for example, we have a tremendous amount of conservation easements that are through the tax code that you in Senate Finance are looking at and it is a great opportunity to even address active management there. 

Mr. Searchinger talked about long-leaf pine. Long-leaf pine is a 

great example of how we go about conducting management, by 

going in, planting long-leaf, doing selective harvest. I think there 

is a great opportunity with the ivory-bill, for example. The trees we 

plant today, they are not going to provide the grubs and food 

source for the ivory-billed woodpecker until probably 100 years 

from now, but if we can go through some of those existing stands 

that are adjacent or in close proximity to the siting or the location 

of the siting and go in there and inject those or girdle them, in 

other words, kill those trees, a lot of that is going to be sweet gum 

and hackberry, which are the two preferred species that the ivoryVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
26

billed likes, and you will end up with the situation that about two 

to 4 years from there, from the time of injection or girdling, that 

you will provide a lot of grubs and a lot of insects between that 

bark and that cambium layer that are good for that tree, whereas 

if we just went in and preserved a stand, you have got to wait until 

it goes through its entire life cycle before it lives, grows, and dies. 

So I think active management is really a key. If you look at a 

lot of the private lands biologists to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or a lot of the biologists that are within RCS, we have the 

technical skills out there to go about doing management, and let 

me—I left out the range specialists and foresters, as well, because 

that is a tremendously important component. 

But the technical skills are out there that will allow us to go in 

and do the management, but we have got to get over this fact that 

chemicals and chain saws and management tools are bad and how 

do we put those to our best use. 

Senator LINCOLN. I noticed one of you all mentioned carbon credits. I am not sure who it was. But there is also an importance, I 

think, there to look into and investigate the way that we can dovetail that active management with the carbon credits that are slowly 

becoming—I know for many of our landowners have been very beneficial. We have also been able to see where we have actually been 

able to save the Federal Government dollars by putting to use 

those carbon credits and also letting private industry come in and 

do the plantings and make sure that, obviously with the guidance 

of USDA and the others that it is being properly, but actively managing those lands in a way that are highly productive. 

Mr. Searchinger, when you were talking about the CRP program, 

you were talking about that with two times that amount of the—

not the Reserve program, but the——

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Of the Refuge System. 

Senator LINCOLN. —Refuge System, you said it still provides 

minimal in terms of that volume, or it is certainly less than it 

could. And you also mentioned that it was not necessarily planted 

in native vegetation. Why is that? why would it not be? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Well, when the program was first created, it 

really had a surplus as much as anything, and the goal was just 

to get cover on land of any type as much as possible. And over 

time, there has been a greater emphasis on more environmental 

benefit, but even in the more recent sign-ups, there is just not that 

much of a difference in the amount of points you get. You know, 

there is a selection index that gives you points for doing different 

things——

Senator LINCOLN. Right. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. And there is not that much of a point difference for planting natives versus non-natives. 

Senator LINCOLN. But it just seems to me like it is a no-brainer 

that you would put it into native vegetation. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. I would agree with you in the overwhelming 

majority of the country. Our colleagues who are interested in ducks 

in the Northern Plains believe that there can be wildlife mixes that 

provide almost as much benefit that are non-native. But in the vast 

majority of the country, native is the right thing to do. 

27

And this is where we think there are opportunities to improve 

CRP in the next generation, and it really was interesting. We went 

through a long series of conversations with the American Farm Bureau and the Nature Conservancy and one of the things that I 

think has emerged is a consensus by producer groups as well as 

conservation groups that now is the time to really try to maximize 

the environmental benefit per acre from that program. We are no 

longer interested in using it as a supply control program. We are 

interested in using it to—from the Farm Bureau’s perspective, I 

think—I don’t want to speak for them too much, but to relieve 

pressures, regulatory pressures on landowners through this incentive-based program, from our perspective, to get every possible benefit out of the acre. 

So we think that there are real opportunities and the two immediate issues are, one, that the criteria in the future need to meld 

the importance of location, native species, and management. Management is the key issue. There is not a lot of financial incentiveto 

manage the land well once it is planted. Those need to be melded, 

and I think if you—we need to think, hey, what do we need to do, 

for example, with CRP that could benefit the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas? That is a decision people should be actually 

consciously thinking about. There will be a series of activities—

management activities, plantings, et cetera—and if it is done that 

way, we can get a heck of a lot more benefit. 

There probably are about a half-a-dozen rare species that benefited significantly from CRP, and that is good, but it is not enough. 

There should be several dozen that have gotten a real big benefit. 

Senator LINCOLN. Well, without a doubt, having gone through 

the Healthy Forests Initiative and working with Senator Crapo and 

having experienced in Arkansas the red oak bore, which annihilated a part of our forest, our national forest, in just 3 years, it was 

phenomenal. But to in retrospect look back and see that because 

of the way that maybe the forest may have been managed without 

diversity of species and other things, causing all the moon and the 

stars to align and for something like that to really be as devastating as it was, it has been clear to me that management is 

really a critical tool. 

Do any of you gentlemen have anything further to add or want 

to make sure that we pay specific attention to? Mr. Foster? 

Mr. FOSTER. Senator Lincoln, I just wanted to add to what Mr. 

Searchinger said earlier about CRP. I think we have to—I am just 

speaking from out West in our drier climates out there, but if I remember correctly, to qualify for CRP, it had to be cropland, highly 

erodible, and meet some other criteria. To be honest with you, in 

1985 when the first CRP seedings were made, I think a lot of the 

considerations at that time didn’t have as many ESA or wildlife 

thoughts put into them. CRP was put in as inexpensive as it could 

be to get cover on that land, and being cropland, landowners didn’t 

want to put trees and shrubs on it, not knowing how long the program might last and whether they may be converting it back to 

cropland again in 15 years. 

So I think Mr. Searchinger is right, we don’t have some of the 

shrubs and trees that we actually should have for good habitat for 

some of the key species. Some of the fault is ours, but it is also due 

28

partly to the system as to what qualifies and what doesn’t, and 

what is economical to do etc. 

Senator LINCOLN. And that brings up another point for us. Of 

course, that is one of the great things with working with Senator 

Crapo, is being from the South and the Delta and him being out 

West, we really try to bring a huge diversity in ensuring that these 

programs work for everybody. 

You are exactly right. There is not a one-size-fits-all necessarily 

and certainly the habitats that we want to preserve are tremendously diverse and that is critical. 

But the other thing is understanding certainly the dependability 

of these programs. I know that for us, and we are one of the larger 

users of the Wetland Reserve Program, we have got more than 50 

percent of our Wetland Reserve lands in Arkansas that come up for 

renewal. Being able to have some dependability on those programs 

is critical, too. 

I want to thank you all very much for your very thoughtful presentation and testimony. Just so you know, Mr. Chairman, I have 

just been singing your praises. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, that is what I heard. I will have your payment ready after the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LINCOLN. There you go. I do want certainly this subcommittee and these people who we will depend on an awful lot in 

the coming months to help us work through the issues that you 

and I have—well, we have come through Congress together, 1992 

to 1998 and here, but you have just done tremendous work in this 

subcommittee and I am so proud to serve with you and I am looking forward to the next couple of months, where you and I can really focus in on the Endangered Species Act and the conservation 

programs and really put together something thoughtfully that will 

be enormously helpful to all of those concerned. So I am grateful 

for your leadership. You do a tremendous job. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. As you know——

Senator LINCOLN. And I will hand you back the gavel. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO [presiding]. All right. You know the feelings are 

mutual. You probably told them we sat together in the Commerce 

Committee in the House and we have been working together ever 

since. I think that Senator Lincoln and I have shown that you can 

do bipartisan work here and get really good things done. 

Senator LINCOLN. And to that extent, also, not only in terms of 

bipartisanship, but as well as regional. 

Senator CRAPO. That is right. 

Senator LINCOLN. I mean, we have worked together on the 

Healthy Forests and others to make sure that everybody’s concerns 

are being met. So I am grateful to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. 

As is obvious, we started our second vote. I don’t expect you to 

come back, is that correct? I will probably have just a few minutes 

here, like maybe ten, and then what I am going to do at that point, 

since it is getting too tight over there, is conclude the hearing and 

we will send out written questions to you for those we didn’t get 

to ask. 

29

One of the questions—and, by the way, I thank you for being so 

patient with our problems here. I am actually very pleased that we 

were able to keep the hearing going. 

One of the issues that Mr. Searchinger raised in his testimony 

that I would like to kind of discuss with all of you is in the context 

of the CRP program and trying to focus the qualification for CRP 

a little better in terms of species recovery. Mr. Searchinger, you 

raised the question of whether there should be automatic reenrollment. I don’t really want to start a fight here, but I would like to 

know what everyone else’s position on that issue is, because obviously, that is a very big issue that we are dealing with right now. 

Do any of the others of you have a perspective on that? Mr. 

Cummins? 

Mr. CUMMINS. Yes, sir. Especially in the South, a lot of the lands 

are generating something with economic value. Some lands in the 

West and in the Midwest, except when you are using them for 

emergency haying and grazing, you are not generating a lot of economic value. 

I think as we start looking at this very touchy issue of reenrollments, I think we need to look at what are the environmental benefits? What are the threatened and endangered species, and maybe 

even a special threatened and endangered species index? 

We have seen a huge issue is that of loblolly pine. There may be 

opportunities that a landowner could go in and convert that loblolly 

stand to long-leaf, like Mr. Searchinger mentioned, and continue to 

reenroll and him or her sell that loblolly for pulpwood, for example. 

But I think there are great opportunities to gain more from already existing lands to maximize the potential, as Mr. Searchinger 

mentioned. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Manning? 

Mr. MANNING. Well, CRP is not my strong point. I would just say 

that just from a common sense standpoint, obviously, things have 

changed somewhat since 1985, I think when we first started talking about those enrollments, and we do have a little more consideration and concern for the ESA standpoints. Any time we can take 

advantage of those programs and lessen restrictions somewhere 

else across the board, we should do so. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Foster, did you want to weigh in? 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure, might as well while I am here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FOSTER. I don’t know. I haven’t studied the reenrollment 

issue, but while you were gone, we were talking a little bit about 

CRP with Senator Lincoln. A lot of our land, as you probably know, 

in Idaho and out West, went into CRP. It had to be highly erodible 

cropland. Some of that ground should have probably never been 

farmed in the first place and it was taken out and grass with very 

few shrubs and trees for species conservation benefits. 

I would think those wanting to reenroll, might be provided some 

incentives to do some additional things or plant some shrubs and 

trees to benefit key species. We need to work together on this rather than just reenroll them and do the same thing. In emergency situations, they graze CRP, in drought conditions and situations like 

that. If we continue to have requirements for emergency grazing of 

30

CRP, possibly we could have some requirements that would benefit 

habitat for key. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Searchinger? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. If I could clarify, our specific position, which 

we share with these other groups like the Farm Bureau, is that if 

there are automatic reenrollments, they should be highly selective, 

for example, where you could benefit a rare species or a critical 

duck habitat. 

There is also a related issue of the fact that there are 22 million 

acres that are expiring in 2007 and 2008, and our recommendation 

there is to have a series of short extensions so that you can even 

out that hump. And one reason not to automatically reenroll everything is that there are a lot of farmers who may be interested in 

enrolling land who aren’t in the program right now and there has 

to be some fairness to them, as well, to be able to compete. 

Senator CRAPO. Those are all good points. 

Mr. Foster, let me turn to you for a moment. In your testimony, 

you state that the press of the Clean Water Act business, mainly 

completing the TMDLs, is limiting NRCS’s ability to carry out its 

mandated 2002 farm bill responsibilities. If it is struggling with the 

basics, then my guess is that the NRCS isn’t able to innovate to 

address the ESA issues very well, either, at this point. Is that a 

fair assessment on my part? 

Mr. FOSTER. Senator, I think they are doing all they can. They 

take their reponsibilities very seriously. In my other testimony, I 

talked about a programmatic biological assessment, this would help 

them a lot. It is just overwhelming. The farm bill mandates that 

they have to do, and then in our State, as you know, in 1995, having 8 years to deal with 962 water bodies and cover them by TMDL 

is——

Senator CRAPO. It is daunting. 

Mr. FOSTER [continuing]. It is shocking. Our partnership has leveraged everything we can between State and Federal funds and 

help and I think we are keeping our heads above water, but it is 

a pretty tough thing to do.The NRCS is making an effort, but they 

are just overwhelmed. What we have done through some cooperative agreements with NRCS, the Soil Conservation Commission 

and Districts is leverage our funding to help in the field and EQIP 

work in TMDL areas so we are kind of doubling up on things rather than going our own seperate ways. 

Senator CRAPO. So they are where they can. Certainly, these 

folks are doing yeoman’s service and we owe them all a great vote 

of thanks. I am just convinced that we are loading so much on that 

we aren’t necessarily able to get the focus on some of these new 

ideas when we have got so much existing programmatic requirement that is taking up all of the effort and time. 

Mr. FOSTER. That is part of the reason, Senator, for a programmatic biological assessment. NRCS is now grouping BAs together where they are similar. But if we do practice after practice, 

the same thing over and over, why is consultation still necessary? 

The Fish and Wildlife Service can approve work in State. NOAA 

Fisheries, must approve all work out of the State, which may take 

several months to get approved and returned. 

31

Senator CRAPO. Right. One other question, primarily because I 

am so proud of it, I would like to hear a little bit more about the 

successes that you have had with the Upper Salmon River Watershed Project. I think it is a good example of the kind of thing we 

need to be doing nationwide. Could you just share a little bit more 

about that with us? 

Mr. FOSTER. I think the USBWP has been a pretty good effort. 

I have to apologize, Senator, because the information I had from 

the start was to talk mainly about changes in the new farm bill to 

better address some of the ESA issues and species conservation. I 

haven’t talked a lot about our successes and it is not true that we 

haven’t had successes. I think the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed 

Project is a good example of a very successful project. 

The Governor established the USBWP and assigned leadership to 

the Soil Conservation Commission and Districts. There has been a 

lot of good cooperative work up there. BPA funds have been used 

to do a lot of fishery habitat-type work with the landowners, Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and numerous other agencies to make habitat improvements. 

They have installed fish screens so that the fish don’t get out in 

farmers’ delivery systems and trapped and killed out on their 

fields. There has been a good cooperative effort with landowners 

and everyone. Some landowners have even used some of their own 

water, as flush flows at certain times to make sure fish migrations 

might take place. I really think in some cases, we are getting to 

where we may have more habitat up there than we have fish, 

but——

Senator CRAPO. Well, we are going to try to figure that out. 

Please take my congratulations back to all the folks there in the 

watershed project because I want them to know that what they are 

doing is not only helpful there, but it is giving us a good model 

here nationally to look at. I am a strong believer in collaborative 

efforts and this is the kind of thing where—I can remember not too 

many years back when the community there was fraught with conflict, the threat from year after year, one aspect or another of Federal law just hammering the community on an economic basis. Instead of reacting in the wrong way, the community came together, 

developed a collaborative approach to these issues, is working 

closely with all of the Federal, State, and other agencies, and really 

is doing a tremendous job there. So please take my congratulations 

back to them. 

Mr. FOSTER. I will. Thank you. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Searchinger, what do you think is the right 

balance between land acquisition, regulation, and incentives? And 

where I am going here is, isn’t it time—I am not saying that we 

need to stop any of our current efforts, but isn’t it time that we increased the focus on incentives? 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. Absolutely, and I think you have been a leader on this issue. If I take the grand historical perspective, this 

country has had two major focuses in conservation. It has had the 

public land acquisition focus that goes back to the late part of the 

19th century and Teddy Roosevelt. It has had the stewardship regulatory side, or the regulatory side of things. But private land is 

70 percent of the land in the United States and it is almost inconVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
32

ceivable that we have put as little focus as we have on providing 

incentives to private land stewardship. It is just extraordinary. 

It has got to be one of the three pillars of conservation and I 

think it is a great opportunity and the agency that can probably 

do that is USDA, because the vast majority of private landowners 

are farmers, ranchers, or private forest owners and USDA has the 

infrastructure for working with those people and we don’t want to 

duplicate it. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I just have to say, I completely agree 

and I hope we can get that idea well understood throughout the 

communities. 

You propose up to 100 percent cost sharing under EQIP for situations in which landowners are willing to enhance their habitat for 

endangered species. Tell me what kind of a priority system you 

would recommend in that context for allocating the available funding. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. One of the reasons that EQIP hasn’t done as 

much for endangered species is that there have been some mechanical problems in the ranking criteria. To give you some example, 

most ranking criteria put everything in one ranking system. So if 

you were going to do a manure management proposal, you could 

beat out another manure management proposal if you did a small 

wildlife project that really wasn’t worth much but you got points 

for wildlife. So you had situations where the wildlife dollars were 

going to help producers who really wanted money for manure management beat out other manure management producers not because it was a very valuable wildlife proposal. 

Now, NRCS is going to come out with some national templates 

not to mandate selection criteria, but to show mechanically how it 

can be done better, and one of the goals should be to have separate 

ranking criteria. So maybe only 5 percent or 10 percent of the 

money in a State will go into wildlife, but at least it will be evaluated against other wildlife proposals. 

So the first thing is to have separate ranking criteria so that you 

can say, among the wildlife proposals, what are the most valuable 

to address the real key potential regulatory concerns that we will 

have? That is the first issue. 

The second issue is probably to do that at the State level. Most 

money now is distributed at the county level, but county offices 

tend not to have a lot of biological expertise. So at the State level, 

you get more intermingling of multiple agencies and more opportunities for coordination. 

And then the third thing I would say is this focus on coordinated 

projects is really critical. I think, for example, in Texas, they have 

set aside money at the State level for certain kinds of wildlife 

projects and one of them we are hoping this year is going to be 

more EQIP money that could help Steve Manning do the kinds of 

things that he is doing. And what that does is it permits a—when 

you ask Mr. Manning how come he has been so successful, it is because they have so many people working on things at the same 

time. They have, in fact, developed a programmatic Section 7 consultation so they don’t have any ESA issues anymore related to 

that work. If we know we are going to have a certain amount of 

money, we can hire the biologists to deliver the technical assistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jun 23, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27639.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
33

ance, and because we have great farm leadership, I mean, that is 

critical, and Steve has created the goodwill and the partnership 

has created the goodwill so more landowners are interested. 

So that is really the way to do it, is to say, hey, whatever the 

amount of money is right, we are going to put that money, if we 

can, focus it on the particular kind of effort and the particular kind 

of place to benefit, in his case, two species of birds, and I think we 

can do an enormous amount of benefit if we do it that way. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. That is kind of a good segue, Mr. 

Manning, into the questions I wanted to ask you. 

A number of you have mentioned the need to cut paperwork and 

Mr. Searchinger just mentioned your Section 7 consultation successes. How were you able to achieve the Section 7 consultation on 

your brush clearing program? 

Mr. MANNING. Well, Senator, we actually did two Section 7s. 

When we started our project, we were asked to identify some key 

problems, key issues that needed to be resolved, and one of those 

obviously was the disconnect at that time between NRCS and Fish 

and Wildlife Service. I am sure Texas is not the only place that exists. 

We knew that if we were going to be able to tap into those farm 

bill dollars, we had to get that resolved, and the situation was 

NRCS, there was some level of distrust between NRCS and the 

Service and so they just—there was kind of a standoff in which the 

NRCS, rather than going to consultation, just avoided any areas for 

technical assistance or cost share where there may be the potential 

for those endangered habitats to occur. Well, that is all real good, 

but they were ignoring a huge portion of the State that desperately 

needed those funds and that assistance. 

And so one of the things we did with Leon River, with our 

project, is we put together that core group of NGO’s to find a way 

to do a consultation and we did something that was kind of outside 

the box. Our NGO’s for that consultation were Texas Farm Bureau, 

Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers, Texas Wildlife Association, Environmental Defense, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Texas, Central Texas Cattle Association. Then we pulled in the State agencies 

that were partners and then the two Federal agencies and we went 

into an informal setting, just got in a room with everybody, rolled 

up our sleeves, and started talking about what do we need to do. 

We weren’t in a formal setting. There was no pressure. It was 

just trying to work out, basically in this case, the best management 

practices, management guidelines that we could use to do brush 

control and habitat management in those occupied habitats and get 

everybody to agree, and we did. Over about a 4–month period, we 

worked all that out, got to the point where we were in agreement, 

and once we did, then we got NRCS at the State level to request 

a formal consultation. 

Now, the only other consultation I had ever been involved in was 

part of the grazing lease on Fort Hood. I saw the Army go through 

a very painful four-and-a-half year consultation between the Army 

and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

But what we did is because we had everything worked out—and 

remember, Fish and Wildlife Service was at the table in that informal setting—we were able to develop a product that everybody was 

34

in agreement in, the environmental community, ag community, 

wildlife community, everybody was in agreement in that product so 

that when NRCS did request formal consultation, the Service 

cranked it out in 68 days. Nobody had ever heard of that. That was 

for two counties. 

Then we turned right around, because some of our State leadership—Susan Collins, our Commissioner of Agriculture, pretty 

strong in that area, wanted to take that model and do a Statewide 

programmatic, and so she brought together that same group. She 

actually referred to Leon River in her letter out to the stakeholders 

from a Statewide effort. She convened that first meeting in April 

of 2004, sat down the same basic group of folks and went through 

that process again. We basically cut the State in half because we 

figured out that for the four species, they were all West of I–35. 

We still had to deal with about 29 listed species, including our two 

birds, but also some plants that I had never heard of before, and 

we worked through all of that in about four to 5 months. And then 

again, we got NRCS to go back into consultation, and again, they 

turned out a Statewide programmatic consultation in about 62 

days. 

Now, we could probably roll at the chance and go home and call 

that a success, because that was a huge accomplishment for us, 

and the key to that was that core group of NGO’s with some local, 

up to county, up to regional, at the State level involvement, and 

then let those folks leverage out and communicate to the State and 

Federal agencies they were most comfortable with. 

When you can get the Farm Bureau and Environmental Defense, 

and it takes a lot of association, and Cattle Raisers to get to an 

agreement, there is a huge amount of energy that comes off of that 

and we made good advantage of it. 

Senator CRAPO. This sounds to me like another tremendous success story of how collaboration works, making sure that the right 

people are at the table. I am assuming this, but I want to make 

sure we get it on the record, you mentioned that at the outset, 

there was a little bit of distrust between some of the agency personnel. I suspect that may have even been true with some of the 

NGO’s and some of the others. But I am also guessing that by the 

time you were done, those trust levels had been significantly enhanced and people were very—they had developed personal relationships and they had developed trust, is that correct? 

Mr. MANNING. Absolutely. 

Senator CRAPO. That means that the next vote has started, those 

buzzers you have been hearing, and so I am going to have to wrap 

up pretty quickly here. 

I just want to toss out one other general question here and it has 

to do with collaboration. It seems to me that we have a model of 

the Upper Salmon River Watershed Project. We have the model of 

what you are doing there in Texas, and I could go through another 

dozen different types of circumstances around the country where 

we are using what I call a collaborative effort, but basically the effort to bring people from all the different perspectives to the table, 

private sector as well as government, and have them develop the 

relationships and approach the issues in a way that will help find 

solutions. I am a big proponent of the notion that if we do that, 

35

the outcome will be better for the environment and better for economic interests. 

The idea of collaboration is certainly not new, but I will tell you, 

it is really hard to get traction at a legislative level here in Washington on that kind of thing because it involves reforming the way 

we approach decisionmaking. It might involve some amendments to 

the Endangered Species Act, to the farm bill, to NEPA, to some of 

the other process-oriented requirements of the law, and that immediately raises the distrust levels that we talked about earlier. 

Again, I am really short on time here. I have only got just a couple of minutes before I have to wrap up, but I would appreciate any 

comments that any of you may have in terms of how you think we 

might be able to politically develop the momentum that will enable 

us to redirect our efforts in a more collaborative way in terms of 

environmental decisionmaking. Any thoughts on that? I know that 

is a big question for a couple of minutes. 

Mr. SEARCHINGER. This is a very big question. I will want to 

think about it and talk to your staff more about it. I will give you 

a small answer, because I have a small amount of time. 

There is a provision in the farm bill that hasn’t been much implemented called Partnerships and Cooperation, which was designed essentially to facilitate these cooperations. It is similar to 

the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which allowed 

States to submit plans, coordinated plans to use CRP in collaboration with State efforts. 

No matter what statutorily happens, one of the great things to 

encourage people to work together is the prospect that there is 

money available if they do that, and so I think that getting behind 

making the Partnerships and Cooperation section actually happen 

work better, it includes the authority to change rules in order to—

in fact, to simplify, effectually, paperwork in order to accomplish a 

particular plan that has been collaboratively agreed upon. 

I think even at the State level, States could take advantage of 

that authority and that might be something you could encourage 

NRCS to more fully implement. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. I am going to have to not 

let the rest of you jump in just because of time. 

First of all, I am confident that we will be sending you some 

written questions and would encourage you to respond in writing. 

I would also appreciate your thoughts on this question in writing 

if you have any further thoughts. 

Mr. Searchinger, you did indicate one thing, and one of the 

things I have noticed as we have gone through many different 

types of collaborative efforts is that in the end, when we come together on solutions, there is almost always a need for money or resources to implement the solutions, which is one of the reasons 

why I think that the conservation title of the farm bill is so key 

to helping us to move into a more incentive-oriented decisionmaking process in terms of species recovery. 

But in any event, I want to thank all of the witnesses today for 

sticking with us through this. Your testimony has been very helpful, not only your written testimony, but your oral presentations 

and what I expect to receive from you on any written questions we 

send to you. I assure you that we are going to continue our effort 

36

to try to make the maximum out of this opportunity that we have 

with such a tremendous vehicle, that is the conservation title of the 

farm bill. 

With that, I am going to conclude this hearing. I apologize I 

won’t be able to stick around and visit because I am going to have 

to rush over there and finish the last couple of these votes. But 

again, I thank you all for sticking with us and thank you for coming today. 

This hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 26, 2005

38


27639.003
39


27639.004
40


27639.005
41


27639.006
42


27639.007
43


27639.008
44


27639.009
45


27639.010
46


27639.011
47


27639.012
48


27639.013
49


27639.014
50


27639.015
51


27639.016
52


27639.017
53


27639.018
54


27639.019
55


27639.020
56


27639.021
57


27639.022
58


27639.023
59


27639.024
60


27639.025
61


27639.026
62


27639.027
63


27639.028
64


27639.029
65


27639.030
66


27639.031
67


27639.032
68


27639.033
69


27639.034
70


27639.035
71


27639.036
72


27639.037
73


27639.038
74


27639.039
75


27639.040
76


27639.041
77


27639.042
78


27639.043
79


27639.044
80


27639.045
81


27639.046
82


27639.047
83


27639.048
84


27639.049
85


27639.050
86


27639.051
87


27639.052
(89)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 26, 2005

90


27639.001
91


27639.002
92


27639.053
93


27639.054
94


27639.055
95


27639.056
96


27639.057
97


27639.058
98


27639.059
99


27639.060
100


27639.061
101


27639.062
102


27639.063
103


27639.064
104


27639.065
105


27639.066
106


27639.067
107


27639.068
108


27639.069
109


27639.070
110


27639.071
(111)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

JULY 26,2005

112


27639.072
113


27639.073
114


27639.074
115


27639.075
116


27639.076
117


27639.077
118

Æ


27639.078